From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 1 00:21:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 00:21:34 +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 AAA10346 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 00:21:27 +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 IAA19612 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 08:25:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981130082810.006e0f18@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 08:28:10 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Quiz In-Reply-To: <01be1a5c$42930f80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:18 PM 11/27/98 -0000, Anne wrote: >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"? Yes. 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 Dec 1 00:29:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 00:29:05 +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 AAA10369 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 00:28:59 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA19788 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 08:33:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981130083544.0069aaa8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 08:35:44 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Quiz In-Reply-To: <199811290323.TAA27058@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:23 PM 11/28/98 -0800, mlfrench wrote: >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" In U.S. usage at least, it also carries a connotation of being offensive in some sneaky or subtle, as opposed to obvious, way. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 1 01:12:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 01:12:45 +1100 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA10494 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 01:12:37 +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 JAA27060 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA07415; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:16:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:16:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811301416.JAA07415@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lead during the bidding Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >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! > This has actually happened to me twice. The first time, shortly after I started playing club bridge, I claimed that I had not passed after 1C-P-(me)-P. I was most upset when the director believed the other three rather than me, even more so since I had a full 17HCP opposite an opening bid! The second time was similar, but the second time occured more than ten years after the first, when I had both a better director and a better reputation! :-) This time the director believed me rather than the three. The point is, it is up to the director to ascertain the facts, and then determine whether or not the player had passed. Just going along with the majority is not good enough. In this case, without being able to talk to the players involved, I would find that the player had indeed passed--the other three not only agree, but what logical call would the player rather have made? Tony (aka ac342) ps Of course, all this would be academic if they were only using biddingboxes. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 1 01:47:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 01:47:10 +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 BAA10571 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 01:47:04 +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 AA079207492; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:51:32 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (8.7.1/15.6) id JAA19471; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:54:44 -0500 (EST) X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:54:34 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Lead during the bidding 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: Lead during the bidding =20 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 =20 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! =20 First thing is to agree on facts (Law 84). If players do no agree on fact that N Passed TD shall decide and make his ruling accordingly, notifying players their right to appeal. =20 1) N Passed: W C lead stands =20 2) N did not P: =20 E Pass out of turn was accepted by S when Passing (Law 30). W exposed a card during auction (Law 24). W must let this card on table and make a call. - If he Pass, the auction period ends and this small C becomes the opening lead. - If not, his partner has to P at his next turn to call. If W becomes a defender, the exposed card is a penalty card (Law 50) and should be played at first legal opportunity (including opening lead). If E is on lead, lead penalty applies. =20 Laval Du Breuil Quebec City =20 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 1 04:05:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 04:05:28 +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 EAA10973 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 04:05:19 +1100 Received: from p53s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.84] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zkWpV-0006JC-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:09:46 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Language problem. Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:12:35 -0000 Message-ID: <01be1c84$9fb2ab60$548293c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In response to my question "have you received my duplimate machine? When can I have it back" I have just received the reply:- Jag är något förvirrad av maskinnummerna ska kolla denna så fort som jag är hemma. ///Eric. Please can anyone help me? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 1 04:07:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 04:07:33 +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 EAA10989 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 04:07:15 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zkWrJ-0003np-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:11:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:15:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lead during the bidding References: <199811301416.JAA07415@freenet5.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199811301416.JAA07415@freenet5.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >ps Of course, all this would be academic if they were only > using biddingboxes. That's an interesting statement! At the BBL Swiss teams in Llangollen, the bidding went something like Me 1D 1H 1S 2H P P 2S P P 3H P P P I wrote 3H down on my scorecard and waited for the lead. After a long pause someone said to me "It's your lead." The others both nodded, so I went and got the TD! Apparently LHO had bid 3S over my 3H. In which case, I said, it would be my turn to call. Yes, said RHO [a sweet British female international, which basically narrows it down to one person!], but when you wrote the contract on your scorecard we assumed you were passing: the others nodded. The TD glanced at my scorecard [which said 3H by me] and said the auction was open, and it was my turn to call. No Tony, if there is any possible way of going wrong, someone will find it! -- 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 Dec 1 04:24:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 04:24:38 +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 EAA11040 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 04:24:32 +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 MAA09827 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:29:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA13222 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:29:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:29:00 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199811301729.MAA13222@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: 'Invidious' X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin, quoting Webster's New Collegiate: > >"Tending to excite odium, ill will, or envy; likely to give > >offense; especially, unjustly discriminating" > From: Eric Landau > In U.S. usage at least, it also carries a connotation of being offensive in > some sneaky or subtle, as opposed to obvious, way. I'm afraid I disagree with Eric about the connotation. My New Collegiate (an old edition, I'm afraid) gives 'repugnant' and several other words as synonyms for 'invidious'. All refer to something that is disliked, but 'invidious' emphasizes people's inevitable reaction ("odium, ill will, or envy") to the thing rather than the characteristics of the thing itself. In my view, the connotation is that the offensiveness is obvious or at least ought to have been obvious. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 1 05:54:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 05:54:20 +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 FAA11260 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 05:54:13 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA13645 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:58:07 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-24.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.56) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma013519; Mon Nov 30 12:57:21 1998 Received: by har-pa1-24.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE1C69.1F3A2280@har-pa1-24.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:55:43 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE1C69.1F3A2280@har-pa1-24.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Quiz Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:29:06 -0500 Encoding: 45 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Whilst there may be much logic to recommend the British usage, it would be quite as unusual to pay a college FOR tuition over here as it would be to be in THE hospital on your side. Tuition has become a noun meaning the fees paid for instruction. It is rarely used to refer to the instruction itself. Once again two peoples are divided by an uncommon language. :-) Craig While not wishing to make an invidious suggestion, do we need a subgroup alt.usage.english.bridge or some such? Less jokingly, if those of us who have spoken some variant of English can often confuse each other through usage, let's be exceptionally patient with those whose primary tongue is one of the other great languages of the world. And let us encourage them to ask for clarification with no embarrassment when they do not understand the shades of meaning we may attach unwittingly in our native tongue. ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 8:28 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Quiz At 11:18 PM 11/27/98 -0000, Anne wrote: >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"? Yes. 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 Dec 1 05:55:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 05:55:09 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA11268 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 05:55:01 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA05033; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:58:55 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-24.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.56) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma004747; Mon Nov 30 12:57:51 1998 Received: by har-pa1-24.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE1C69.2F5E3700@har-pa1-24.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:56:10 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE1C69.2F5E3700@har-pa1-24.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: BLML , "'Anne Jones'" Subject: RE: Language problem. Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:30:28 -0500 Encoding: 23 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk That's what you get when you don't pay your tuition. :-) ---------- From: Anne Jones[SMTP:eajewm@globalnet.co.uk] Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 12:12 PM To: BLML Subject: Language problem. In response to my question "have you received my duplimate machine? When can I have it back" I have just received the reply:- Jag ar nagot forvirrad av maskinnummerna ska kolla denna sa fort som jag ar hemma. ///Eric. Please can anyone help me? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 1 06:36:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 06:36:15 +1100 Received: from sp2n17.missouri.edu (sp2n17-t.missouri.edu [128.206.2.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA11342 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 06:36:07 +1100 Received: from [128.206.29.140] ([128.206.29.140]) by sp2n17.missouri.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA60674 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:40:30 -0600 X-Sender: chemrh@pop.missouri.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:45:18 -0600 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: Lead during the bidding Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last year at the Fall Nationals (St. Lousi, Mo) I was playing in one of the swiss team events (second Sunday, as I recall.) We couldn't avoid noticing that the Director had been called to our team-mates' table, and he stayed there a long, long time. (This was in round six, about 9 PM toward the end of a long day.) It turned out that one of our team mates had pulled the H2 out of her hand at her turn to bid, instead of pulling the 2H bidding card from the box. The Director ruled it an exposed card, the auction went on, but I think our team-mates ended up defending with that H2 a major penalty card. We didn't withdraw from the event until the end of the next round, though it should have been obvious she was too tired to function. Cat: Bobbsie, 18 years old, still does not understand that some people don't like cat claws in their laps. (Does understand " Outdoors" and "Cat On Mat" as commands, and "Milk" as an offer, usually accepted.) Bob H. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 1 23:57:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA13414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 23:57:33 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f193.hotmail.com [207.82.251.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA13409 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 23:57:26 +1100 Received: (qmail 26253 invoked by uid 0); 1 Dec 1998 13:01:26 -0000 Message-ID: <19981201130126.26252.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Dec 1998 05:01:25 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lead during the bidding MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 05:01:25 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This isn't particularly a propos of anything, but I used to play in a rubber bridge game (speaking the bidding, no boxes) where it was considered perfectly acceptable, if tedious, to produce, say, the Four of Spades during the auction if it was your turn to bid and you were going to bid Four Spades. This dull habit was knocked on the head (KOTH?) when somebody's cousin joined in and insisted that it was a major penalty card, or something. He was, of course, right, but wasn't asked to play again. Then someone bought a Law Book, one thing led to another and we eventually spent more time struggling to interpret the rules than playing. The moral here, of course, is never play with someone's cousin, especially if they know the rules. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 2 00:43:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA15788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 00:43:37 +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 AAA15783 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 00:42:45 +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 OAA01271 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 14:43:07 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199812011343.OAA01271@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 14:45:01 +0000 Subject: Just a ruling... Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Although linguistics seem to have become te main topic of this list lately, I would like to throw in another ruling problem. S/All 53 IMPs J872 97 AQT95 AK6 J8 53 KT T842 AKQJ6 KJ72 8643 QT9742 AQ964 53 - W N E S - - - p p p 1D 1S 2D* p 2H p 2NT p 3NT a.p. *alerted: 10+ HCP Before the opening lead East calls the TD and says that his 2H bid should have been alerted. It shows a stop, not necessarily length in hearts. North prefers not to change his last pass, leads a club(!) and West makes 9 tricks by reeling off the diamonds and throwing in South. After the play, South calls the TD and claims damage; he could have doubled 2H for a killing heart lead if this had been alerted, and if East would have become declarer in 3NT after this double, South would have led a diamond and 3NT would have been defeated as well. The actual ruling was: NS +3 / EW -3 imps. Agree? Any other ideas? JP From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 2 01:49:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 01:49:09 +1100 Received: from mcda__s0.mcda.org (gw1.mcda.org [206.196.37.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA16297 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 01:49:02 +1100 Received: by MCDA__S0 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 08:52:25 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Kryst, Jack" To: "'BLML'" Subject: LOOT and UI Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 08:52:22 -0600 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Forgive me if this question was discussed during the course of my lurking but I cannot recall the exchange. Partner faces the lead of the CA out of turn. After TD explanations declarer declines the LOOT and prohibits you from leading a club. 1. Is your partner's possession of the CA AI? 2. If so can you subsequently lead club to your partner's ace although that may not have been your line of defense absent the LOOT? 3. If your partnerships leads A from AK is the probability of your partner's holding the K AI? 4. If so can you plan you defense according although that may not have been your normal line absent the LOOT? ----jk jack.kryst@mcda.org From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 2 03:51:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 03:51:57 +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 DAA16707 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 03:51:49 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.053 #1) id 0zkt61-0005KN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 16:56:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 16:50:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Articles [advert] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Recently there has been an email discussion on what to do in the scoring when a pair was disqualified part way through a Simultaneous Pairs session. I have written an article about this subject. I have also written an article about manual scoring of averages. Both these appear on my Lawspage. I have split my Bridgepage in two since there were a large number of Laws-oriented articles. I now have a Bridgepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm with general articles, information, links and humour, and a Lawspage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm with articles on the Laws, links to online Lawbooks, other links and information. I hope that you will find these useful. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 2 03:57:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 03:57:38 +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 DAA16753 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 03:57:30 +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 MAA07642 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 12:01:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 12:01:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812011701.MAA22998@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (Jack.Kryst@mcda.org) Subject: Re: LOOT and UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kryst, Jack writes: > Forgive me if this question was discussed during the course of my > lurking but I cannot recall the exchange. > Partner faces the lead of the CA out of turn. After TD explanations > declarer declines the LOOT and prohibits you from leading a club. > 1. Is your partner's possession of the CA AI? This case is clear; a withdrawn action is UI. It's more of a problem if the CA is allowed to stay a penalty card. The consensus appears to be that the fact that partner will play the CA is AI, but the fact that he holds it is not. > 2. If so can you subsequently lead club to your partner's ace although > that may not have been your line of defense absent the LOOT? No, even in the example above. If you would normally lead a club and the CA is on the table, you may lead a low club from KQxx, because it is AI that partner will play the ace. However, if you have an LA to the club lead, you must choose it. If the CA has been picked up and you get in later, you must lead the CK from KQxx if that is a logical alternative. > 3. If your partnerships leads A from AK is the probability of your > partner's holding the K AI? This is a somewhat clearer no. This is an inference from partner's withdrawn action, which is defined by the Laws to be UI and does not have any reason that it should be AI. Whether the CA is on the table or picked up, you may not assume partner has the CK. > 4. If so can you plan you defense according although that may not have > been your normal line absent the LOOT? The answer to this is necessarily the same as the answer to 3; if you have AI that partner holds a card, you may plan your defense accordingly. -- 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 Dec 2 04:50:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 04:50:11 +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 EAA16985 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 04:50:03 +1100 Received: from p6fs12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.112] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zku0N-00042W-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 17:54:32 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: LOOT and UI Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 17:54:47 -0000 Message-ID: <01be1d53$af8877c0$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: Kryst, Jack To: 'BLML' Date: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 3:44 PM Subject: LOOT and UI >Forgive me if this question was discussed during the course of my >lurking but I cannot recall the exchange. > >Partner faces the lead of the CA out of turn. After TD explanations >declarer declines the LOOT and prohibits you from leading a club. > >1. Is your partner's possession of the CA AI? No....Law 16C2 > >2. If so can you subsequently lead club to your partner's ace although >that may not have been your line of defense absent the LOOT? N/A > >3. If your partnerships leads A from AK is the probability of your >partner's holding the K AI? No....Law 16C2 > >4. If so can you plan you defense according although that may not have >been your normal line absent the LOOT? N/A Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 2 04:51:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 04:51:11 +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 EAA17003 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 04:51:05 +1100 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.79.45.19]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.05 118 121 101) with SMTP id <19981201175502.ONSW18504@jay-apfelbaum>; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 17:55:02 +0000 Message-ID: <002f01be1d53$5343dcc0$132d4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> From: "JApfelbaum" To: , "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: Lead during the bidding Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 12:52:09 -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 Robert Harris wrote, in part: >Last year at the Fall Nationals (St. Lousi, Mo) I was playing in one of the >swiss team events (second Sunday, as I recall.) We couldn't avoid noticing >that the Director had been called to our team-mates' table, and he stayed >there a long, long time. (This was in round six, about 9 PM toward the end >of a long day.) It turned out that one of our team mates had pulled the H2 >out of her hand at her turn to bid, instead of pulling the 2H bidding card >from the box. The Director ruled it an exposed card, the auction went on, >but I think our team-mates ended up defending with that H2 a major penalty >card. Law 24 states that any card led or exposed during the auction becomes a penalty card if that side becomes the defenders. If it is not an honor there is no further penalty. It refers to Law 50 for clarification. Law 50B states: A single card below the rank of an honor and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honor rank, or any card exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card; when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards. Play is defined as: The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick. . . . This fact pattern happens frequently in social games, but less often at tournaments. I have seen it done in serious competition. In most cases, the intent is to use the rank and suit of the card as a humorous way to make a bid. Well, Law 24 does require that if the player with the exposed card becomes a defender, then the card becomes a penalty card. However, we must refer to Law 50 to decide whether it is a major or minor penalty card. The exposed card is a single card below the rank of an honor, but it was not exposed inadvertently. So it is not a minor penalty card. However, it is not a card exposed through deliberate play either. The Laws define play as a contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick. So we have a grey area. The defender has not contributed a card to a trick and certainly never intended to lead the card (remember the humorous intention). In such situations I believe it best to follow the spirit of the rules. *Did the offending side gain a competitive advantage from the violation?* There are many subtle inferences available when someone deliberately leads a card or plays a card to a trick. None of those inferences apply here. The only inference available in the "humorous" situation is that the player is not void in the suit bid. This information is obviously already present from the auction. Therefore, with no competitive advantage gained my opinion is to follow the intent of the "offender" to not play the card and rule a minor penalty card. That said, I would consider having a friend of the non-offenders speak to them about the damage their actions will cause to the social aspects of our game. It is, after all, a game played by people. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 2 09:22:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 09:22:00 +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 JAA17576 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 09:21:54 +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 OAA09804 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 14:25:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812012225.OAA09804@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Just a ruling... Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 14:25:50 -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 Jan Peter Pals wrote: > Although linguistics seem to have become the main topic of this list > lately, I would like to throw in another ruling problem. > > S/All 53 > IMPs J872 > 97 > AQT95 > AK6 J8 > 53 KT > T842 AKQJ6 > KJ72 8643 > QT9742 > AQ964 > 53 > - > > W N E S > - - - p > p p 1D 1S > 2D* p 2H p > 2NT p 3NT a.p. > > *alerted: 10+ HCP > > Before the opening lead East calls the TD and says that his 2H bid > should have been alerted. It shows a stop, not necessarily length in > hearts. North prefers not to change his last pass, leads a club(!) > and West makes 9 tricks by reeling off the diamonds and throwing in > South. > > After the play, South calls the TD and claims damage; he could have > doubled 2H for a killing heart lead if this had been alerted, and if > East would have become declarer in 3NT after this double, South would > have led a diamond and 3NT would have been defeated as well. > > The actual ruling was: NS +3 / EW -3 imps. > Agree? > Any other ideas? What is "S/All"? Certainly do not agree with the illegal artificial score adjustment, an avoidance of the work necessary to come up with proper assigned scores per L12C2/3. I also do not agree with the current attitude of many ACBL TDs/ACs that South "could have protected himself" by asking about the 2H bid. It is possible, however, that this particular South is knowledgeable enough to know that bidding a major suit stopper after getting an inverted minor suit raise is a very common practice. Maybe he was hoping that North would find a heart lead anyway, not wanting to discourage West from bidding notrump by doubling 2H. If so, there was really no MI, table result stands. If not, the failure to Alert constitutes MI and the damage is pretty obvious. The failure to double 2H was not an egregious blunder, nor was the club lead, so redress for N/S is in order. A reasonable assumption is that South would double an Alerted 2H bid, West would pass or bid 2S, and East would bid 2NT (having denied a spade stop with the 2H bid). West would likely pass 2NT, but maybe not. It seems unlikely that East would bid more than 2NT opposite a passed hand, but maybe he would. If he bids 3C or 3D, West may bid 3S to let East play the notrump. With East's denial of a spade stop, I think a diamond lead by South would be extremely unlikely. She would surely lead a spade, enabling East to take eight tricks. The most favorable result likely for N/S after an Alerted 2H appears to me to be 2NT by East making, -120, while the most unfavorable result at all probable for E/W looks like 3NT by East down two (declarer trying for a club trick to make his contract). I would assign those scores, but would welcome a knowledgeable five-person AC to help with the decision, and it wouldn't take much argument to change my mind. All this assumes that the 2H bid is Alertable over there, as it is in ACBL-land (unusual length for a suit bid). It also assumes that L12C3 will not be brought in to combine the various possibilities. If that's too tough a task, it's better to apply L12C2 rather than give up and resort to L12C1, as this TD did. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum censeo prohibitandas esse quaestiones multas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 2 19:29:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 19:29:34 +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 TAA19323 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 19:25:59 +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 KAA00419 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 10:20:40 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from svk@int.kiev.ua) Message-ID: <001001be1dcb$ad41f4a0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Ukraine Cup-98 Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 10:13:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by hunter2.int.kiev.ua id KAA00419 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all! A think the next real example links with the "Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1)" and "Artificial AS in (KO) team play". Ukraine Cup-98, Swiss Team-Patton Round 10 from 11, Table 2 Board 3, EW VOLNURABLE Using bidding boxes, but without screens. S Axx H =3D D xxxx C AQxxxx N S KJxxxx S Qxxx H A10xxx H KQxxxx D x D AK C x C x S S =3D H xx D QJ10xxx C Kxxxx E S W N 2H! P 3 NT! 5C P! S summoned the TD. NS had asked opponents about their call and happened next: W about E: -"2H - strong, 13-16PO, H5+ and S4+". E about W: - "3 NT - Blackwood". W about E: - "P - zero aces". In that moment E looked down and said - "Oh, sorry I leapt wrong bidding-card!". Last E pass was made after 20 or more seconds. The director explained that E may substitute his stupid mistake and L25b will be applyed, but E didn=92t want to substitute his pass (the mistake = is not stupid enough to warrant playing for Av-?). The director explained W about UI and required the auction to continue. S asked W about Blackwood responses, and W explained: pass - 0 aces; 5D - 1; 5H - 2; 5S - 3; 5NT - 4; Double - penalty, not abo= ut aces. Then bidding continued: E S W N 2H! P 3NT! 5C P! 6C 6H Dbl P P P 6H was made after 1 or more minutes. Opening lead was DQ and the result was 12 tricks. (NS have no agreements about a lead on doubled contract). After the play TD asked W about his 6H and W said that his main problem w= as "what kind of his actions may not choose from another one that could demonstrable=85" and he though if EW had only 1 ace and 21+ cards in majo= r, then NS had 3 aces and 21+ cards in minor. So, it is easy to understand, that 6H will be good defense upon 6C and if he passes or doubles 6C - it will be more demonstrable by extraneous information. Moreover, if his partner=92s mind call was "double" then his pass will give to his partner= an illegal chance for next "double". But he was not certain that his action = was made without the irregulation. Nevertheless TD awarded for both sides: NS 6CDbl, 11 tricks. E/W didn't appear at the committee. In close room the real result was the same as AS. So, I have the next questions: 1)Is it possible to apply L25b in this case? 2)What is Av- in Team-Patton? I think it may be 0.8:1.2 and -100 points? 3) About material from Lille "Procedure for awarding assigned adjusted score". Before Lille I applied the non-balancing score - AS only for OS. = Is it that case that Committee described? As LORMANT Philippe wrote: "I know one or two bridge players who don't pl= ay Bermuda Bowl=85" as I think that not all people know the method of scorin= g Team-Patton in Ukraine)):. So: there are 4 boards in a match, and: 1) each board is calculated in Matchpoint Scoring 2:0 or 1:1 2) the net total point scoring difference is converted into Matchpoint according to the following scale 0 - 90 =3D 2:2; 100 - 290 =3D 3:1; 300 or more 4:0. 3) the result of the match is calculated as total all Matchpoints. This is the protocol from that match: open room close room board team1/ team2 team1/team2 1 120 120 2 100 130 3 200 200 4 630 600 Total team1=3D920 team2=3D1180 Difference =3D 260 =3D> 3:1 Matchpoint board team1/ team2 1 1:1 2 2:0 3 1:1 4 2:0 The result is 7:5 Thank you for attention Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 2 20:00:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 20:00:34 +1100 Received: from educ.microinform.ru (educ.microinform.ru [194.87.166.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA19401 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 20:00:26 +1100 Received: from lte5000 by educ.microinform.ru with ESMTP id LAA23993; (8.8.3/D) Wed, 2 Dec 1998 11:46:28 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199812020846.LAA23993@educ.microinform.ru> From: "Evgeny Martchenko" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Law 92D Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 12:10:38 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SGVsbG8sDQoNCk15IG5hbWUgaXMgRXZnZW55LiBJIGFtIGEgcGF0aWVudCByZWFkZXIgb2YgdGhl IEJMTUwgc2luY2UgSmFudWFyeSAxOTk4LiBJIGFtIG5vdCB0aGUgdG91cm5hbWVudCBkaXJlY3Rv ciwgbm9yIHRoZSBhcHBlYWwgY29tbWl0dGVlIG1lbWJlci4gSSBhbSBvbmx5IHBsYXkgYnJpZGdl Lg0KDQpNeSBxdWVzdGlvbiBpczogZG9lcyB0aGUgdmlvbGF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBMYXcgOTJEIGJ5 IHRoZSwgbGV0IHNheSwgcmVnaW9uYWwgYXBwZWFsIGNvbW1pdHRlZSBnaXZlIHRoZSBlbm91Z2gg Z3JvdW5kIHRvIGFwcGVhbCB0aGlzIGNvbW1pdHRlZSdzIGRlY2lzaW9uIHRvIHRoZSBuYXRpb25h bCBhdXRob3JpdHk/IEZvciBpbnN0YW5jZSwgb25lIG1lbWJlciBvZiB0aGUgYXBwZWFsaW5nIHBh aXIgd2FzIE5PVCBpbnZpdGVkIChidXQgaGUgd2FzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSkgdG8gdGhlIEFDIG1lZXRp bmcuDQoNClRoYW5rcyBmb3IgeW91ciBhZHZpc2UgaW4gYWR2YW5jZS4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcywNCkV2 Z2VueQ== From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 2 21:06:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 21:06:34 +1100 Received: from educ.microinform.ru (educ.microinform.ru [194.87.166.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA19542 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 21:06:26 +1100 Received: from lte5000 by educ.microinform.ru with ESMTP id MAA24578; (8.8.3/D) Wed, 2 Dec 1998 12:52:55 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199812020952.MAA24578@educ.microinform.ru> From: "Evgeny Martchenko" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Law 92D Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:12:48 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SGVsbG8sDQoNCkkgZmVlbCBJIGhhdmUgdG8gYWRkIHNvbWUgY29tbWVudCB0byBteSBwcmV2aW91 cyBtZXNzYWdlLiBJIG1lYW4gdGhlIHNpdHVhdGlvbiB3aGVuIHRoZSBib3RoIG1lbWJlcnMgb2Yg dGhlIGFwcGVhbGluZyBwYWlyIGhhdmUgc29tZSBhcmd1bWVudHMgaW4gc3VwcG9ydCBvZiB0aGUg YXBwZWFsLCBidXQgb25seSBvbmUgb2YgdGhlbSB3YXMgaW52aXRlZCB0byB0aGUgYXBwZWFsIGNv bW1pdGVlIG1lZXRpbmcuDQoNCj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBFdmdlbnkgTWFydGNoZW5r byANCj4gVG86IEJyaWRnZSBMYXdzIE1haWxpbmcgTGlzdCANCj4gU3ViamVjdDogTGF3IDkyRA0K PiBEYXRlOiAyIMTFy8HC0tEgMTk5OCDHLiAxMjoxMA0KDQo+IEhlbGxvLA0KDQo+IE15IHF1ZXN0 aW9uIGlzOiBkb2VzIHRoZSB2aW9sYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIExhdyA5MkQgYnkgdGhlLCBsZXQgc2F5 LCByZWdpb25hbCBhcHBlYWwgY29tbWl0dGVlID4gPiBnaXZlIHRoZSBlbm91Z2ggZ3JvdW5kIHRv IGFwcGVhbCB0aGlzIGNvbW1pdHRlZSdzIGRlY2lzaW9uIHRvIHRoZSBuYXRpb25hbCBhdXRob3Jp dHk/IEZvciA+ID4gaW5zdGFuY2UsIG9uZSBtZW1iZXIgb2YgdGhlIGFwcGVhbGluZyBwYWlyIHdh cyBOT1QgaW52aXRlZCAoYnV0IGhlIHdhcyBhdmFpbGFibGUpIHRvIHRoZSBBQyA+ID4gbWVldGlu Zy4NCg0KRXZnZW55DQoNCg== From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 2 22:54:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 22:54:53 +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 WAA19813 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 22:54:43 +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 NAA03443 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:53:17 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from svk@int.kiev.ua) Message-ID: <002501be1de9$60c10300$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Ukraine Cup-98 Sorry Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:46:18 +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 Hi all! Sorry, there was the mistake in my mail "Ukraine Cup-98". In the example of the culculation (last line in the mail) total result is 9:3, not 7:5 Sorry (: Thank you for attention Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 2 23:58:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 23:58:17 +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 XAA20017 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 23:58:11 +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 NAA23387 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:02:28 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 NAA07944 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:02:15 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA24237 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:02:13 GMT Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:02:13 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199812021302.NAA24237@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: established revoke? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk South is declarer, plays a heart from dummy: Hx, HA, discard. South plays HK from hand. Scenario 1: West puts a heart on the table and says "oh look, I revoked on the last trick". Card played, therefore establish revoke. Scenario 2: West says "oh look, I revoked on the last trick" and put a heart on the table. West has become aware of the irregularity, revoke must be corrected. Scenario 3: No one is paying much attention and West says "oh look, I revoked on the last trick" while putting a card on the table. No one really know which happens first? Established revoke? Scenario 4: Before West plays to HK, _East_ puts a heart on the table and says "oh look, I revoked on the last trick". Play out of turn establishing the revoke or East becoming aware of the irregalarity? 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 Dec 3 00:42:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 00:42:50 +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 AAA22365 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 00:42:43 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zlCcZ-0007K7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:47:12 +0000 Message-ID: <6qMHbdAjHUZ2EwN5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:34:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 92D References: <199812020846.LAA23993@educ.microinform.ru> In-Reply-To: <199812020846.LAA23993@educ.microinform.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Evgeny Martchenko wrote: >My name is Evgeny. I am a patient reader of the BLML since January 1998. I am >not the tournament director, nor the appeal committee member. I am only play >bridge. Hi Evgeny. Welcome. You have cats? >My question is: does the violation of the Law 92D by the, let say, regional >appeal committee give the enough ground to appeal this committee's decision to >the national authority? For instance, one member of the appealing pair was NOT >invited (but he was available) to the AC meeting. Individual national authorities will make their own rules. However, a violation of procedure by the ordinary appeals committee seems the best reason of all for an ATTNA [appeal to the National authority], and the EBU and WBU laws & Ethics Committees [who act as the National Authorities in England and Wales respectively] have heard appeals based on this. >I feel I have to add some comment to my previous message. I mean the situation >when the both members of the appealing pair have some arguments in support of >the appeal, but only one of them was invited to the appeal commitee meeting. It certainly sounds an undesirable practice, and very reasonable for an ATTNA. It is interesting, though, to discover what the rules are for appeals. The EBU has laid down rules to cover this which are used in England/Wales, and give the four players at the table plus non-playing captains plus the TD at the table plus the TDic the *right* to be present and to be heard. Other people can only be heard at the decision of the Appeals Chairman. However, according to TBW editorial, appeals in the ACBL are solely subject to the decisions of the DIC of the event, so presumably if he decrees that players should not be heard this is legal. ** Looking back at this I seem to be using more initials than even I normally do so here is a Glossary: ATTNA Appeal to the National authority DIC Director in charge EBU English Bridge Union L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee NA National authority TBW The Bridge World TD Tournament Director TDic Tournament Director in charge WBU Welsh Bridge Union The whole list appears on my Bridgepage, specifically at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/usenet_br.htm and is posted here occasionally. -- 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 Dec 3 04:40:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 04:40:04 +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 EAA23349 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 04:39:57 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-196.uunet.be [194.7.9.196]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA10285 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:44:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <000301be1e1b$53d3eae0$c40907c2@uunet.uunet.be> From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Ukraine Cup-98 Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 12:57:05 +0100 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 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Hi all! >Ukraine Cup-98, Swiss Team-Patton >In that moment E looked down and said - "Oh, sorry I leapt wrong >bidding-card!". >1)Is it possible to apply L25b in this case? I believe it may be, but as you see, this really does not matter, as they are not likely to be going for Av- in a situation like this. >2)What is Av- in Team-Patton? >I think it may be 0.8:1.2 and -100 points? I would agree that this is a good suggestion in the Ukrainian method, but the French method of Patton is slightly different, the total points being awarded on quotient. In that case, I would let the other table result stand and put for this table the same result minus 100 (in the correct direction of course). After all, in a case like this, the other team will keep their score, so you can get: > open room close room > board team1/ team2 team1/team2 > 1 120 120 > 2 100 130 > 3 200 200 > 4 630 600 >Total team1=920 > team2=1180 >Difference = 260 => 3:1 In french system : 260/2100 < 10% => 2:2 (or something) >Matchpoint > board team1/ team2 > 1 1:1 > 2 2:0 > 3 1:1 > 4 2:0 > The result is 7:5 Now with the original score : > open room close room > board team1/ team2 team1/team2 > 1 120 120 1:1 > 2 100 130 0:2 > 3 200 920 2:0 > 4 630 600 0:2 >Total team1=1840 > team2=980 >Difference = 860 => 3:1 In french system : 860/2820 > 33% => 4:0 (or something) So team two get 5 points, and they keep this For team 1 the 920 is changed to Av-, and I would calculate : > open room close room > board team1/ team2 team1/team2 > 1 120 120 1:1 > 2 100 130 0:2 > 3 200 Av-(-300) 0:2 > 4 630 600 0:2 >Total team1=920 > team2=1280 360/2200 > 10% = 1:3 total for team one : 2 - result 2/5 (normal total 12!) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 3 05:06:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 05:06:05 +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 FAA23421 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 05:05:56 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zlGjI-0006lI-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:10:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 17:23:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Ukraine Cup-98 In-Reply-To: <001001be1dcb$ad41f4a0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001001be1dcb$ad41f4a0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua>, Sergey=20 Kapustin writes >Hi all! >A think the next real example links with the >"Screen problem - Help! (UK Premier League Div 1)" and long (for me) reply, read it all first :) >"Artificial AS in (KO) team play". >Ukraine Cup-98, Swiss Team-Patton certainly similar standard to my problem >Round 10 from 11, Table 2 >Board 3, EW VOLNURABLE >Using bidding boxes, but without screens. > > S Axx > H =3D > D xxxx > C AQxxxx > N >S KJxxxx S Qxxx >H A10xxx H KQxxxx >D x D AK >C x C x > S > S =3D > H xx > D QJ10xxx > C Kxxxx > > E S W N > 2H! P 3 NT! 5C > P! >S summoned the TD. >NS had asked opponents about their call and happened next: >W about E: -"2H - strong, 13-16PO, H5+ and S4+". >E about W: - "3 NT - Blackwood". >W about E: - "P - zero aces". >In that moment E looked down and said - "Oh, sorry I leapt wrong >bidding-card!". Are you sure L25A doesn't apply here? >Last E pass was made after 20 or more seconds. >The director explained that E may substitute his stupid mistake and L25b >will be applyed, but E didn=92t want to substitute his pass (the mistake is >not stupid enough to warrant playing for Av-?). >The director explained W about UI and required the auction to continue. >S asked W about Blackwood responses, and W explained: >pass - 0 aces; 5D - 1; 5H - 2; 5S - 3; 5NT - 4; Double - penalty, not about >aces. > >Then bidding continued: >E S W N >2H! P 3NT! 5C >P! 6C 6H Dbl >P P P > L25B2b1 "If the substituted call is not accepted, it is cancelled, and=20 .. if the first call was legal, the offender must either .. let his=20 first call stand, in which case (penalty) his partner must pass when=20 next it is his turn to call (see law 23 etc..) .. thus for the 6H call=20 to be allowed we have *not* applied L25B In order to get into the position we are in it requires East to say he=20 wishes to change his call (*and not state what he wants to change it=20 to*); for South not to call before East says this; for the TD to be competent enough to find out L25A doesn't apply; for the TD to make sure East doesn't tell the table what his new call=20 would be, because if he does and South says "I don't accept it" then you=20 are in L25B whether you want to be or not (and will have to make a post=20 facto adjustment IMO); for the TD to ask why he wants to change his call in a non-L25A context=20 (and this will have to be away from the table); for the TD not to allow L25B; for the TD to explain the UI implications to West; ... and probably for an AC to understand all this. because if the TD were to allow L25B then I think East is going to have=20 to nominate what his alternative call would have been and then the 6H=20 bid is an inadmissible call, if East decides to let his first call=20 stand. >6H was made after 1 or more minutes. > No problem with this >Opening lead was DQ and the result was 12 tricks. (NS have no agreements >about a lead on doubled contract). > >After the play TD asked W about his 6H and W said that his main problem was >"what kind of his actions may not choose from another one that could >demonstrable=85" and he though if EW had only 1 ace and 21+ cards in major, >then NS had 3 aces and 21+ cards in minor. So, it is easy to understand, >that 6H will be good defense upon 6C and if he passes or doubles 6C - it >will be more demonstrable by extraneous information. Moreover, if his >partner=92s mind call was "double" then his pass will give to his partner = an >illegal chance for next "double". But he was not certain that his action w= as >made without the irregulation. >Nevertheless TD awarded for both sides: NS 6CDbl, 11 tricks. Legally this is ok, the adjustment applies after the infraction, but if=20 L12C3 is in use they might have awarded a weighted non-balancing=20 adjustment (which makes the arithmetic even more complex) !! >E/W didn't appear at the committee. >In close room the real result was the same as AS. >So, I have the next questions: >1)Is it possible to apply L25b in this case? I believe not. David Stevenson and I have had a long private=20 conversation about this and we are unanimously of the view that the=20 correct procedure is to take East away from the table and ask him why he=20 wishes to change his call. When he gives an explanation we advise him=20 there and then that we will or will not apply L25A or L25B and then=20 return to the table. If he tells me he had in mind to bid 5D and only just noticed the pass=20 then L25A applies but ... "I gave the wrong blackwood response", I am of the view, is not a=20 "stupid mistake" but a common bridge error, and is not covered by the=20 current interpretation (post Lille) of L25B and in this case ... I would return to the table with East and say that the call stands and=20 UI applies to West. >2)What is Av- in Team-Patton? >I think it may be 0.8:1.2 and -100 points? This looks right to me, but only the OS gets the penalty. The NOS gets=20 its score and the effect of the non-balancing scores gets averaged IMO. We can therefore have (OS first) 0:2 0.8:1 0.8:0 which averaged become 0:2 0.9:1.1 1.4:0.6 This opens a whole new problem area of course >3) About material from Lille "Procedure for awarding assigned adjusted >score". Before Lille I applied the non-balancing score - AS only for OS. Is >it that case that Committee described? I believe so > >As LORMANT Philippe wrote: "I know one or two bridge players who don't play >Bermuda Bowl=85" as I think that not all people know the method of scoring >Team-Patton in Ukraine)):. So: there are 4 boards in a match, and: >1) each board is calculated in Matchpoint Scoring 2:0 or 1:1 >2) the net total point scoring difference is converted into Matchpoint >according to the following scale >0 - 90 =3D 2:2; 100 - 290 =3D 3:1; 300 or more 4:0. >3) the result of the match is calculated as total all Matchpoints. >This is the protocol from that match: > open room close room > board team1/ team2 team1/team2 > 1 120 120 > 2 100 130 > 3 200 200 > 4 630 600 >Total team1=3D920 > team2=3D1180 >Difference =3D 260 =3D> 3:1 >Matchpoint > board team1/ team2 > 1 1:1 > 2 2:0 > 3 1:1 > 4 2:0 Surely Total 3:1 Result 9:3 You can't push two boards, win 2 and lose the difference :) > The result is 7:5 Where we want to apply a different result for team 1 and team 2 we do=20 both sums separately producing for example Team1 4:0, and Team2 1:3, =20 which would average to 3.5:0.5 and board 3 might be 1.1:0.9 (from=20 above) so our final result would be 6.1:1.9 + 3.5:0.5 giving 9.6 : 2.4 > >Thank you for attention >Sergey Kapustin > Absolutely fascinating. Cheers John --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 3 05:06:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 05:06:07 +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 FAA23422 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 05:05:57 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zlGjK-0006lP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:10:27 +0000 Message-ID: <+6quySA9qXZ2EwdV@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 17:37:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 92D In-Reply-To: <199812020846.LAA23993@educ.microinform.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199812020846.LAA23993@educ.microinform.ru>, Evgeny Martchenko writes >Hello, > >My name is Evgeny. I am a patient reader of the BLML since January 1998. I am >not the tournament director, nor the appeal committee member. I am only play >bridge. > >My question is: does the violation of the Law 92D by the, let say, regional >appeal committee give the enough ground to appeal this committee's decision to >the national authority? For instance, one member of the appealing pair was NOT >invited (but he was available) to the AC meeting. > >Thanks for your advise in advance. > >Regards, >Evgeny Your regional AC *is* the AC. The sequence is TD, AC, NA, no more, no less In the UK in major events we publish a regulation which defines the appeal procedure. Failure to follow this regulation would, IMO, give a prima face case to appeal to the NA. However the NA does not, in the UK, normally change the result, they would merely pass comment on the procedures. The point being that they meet seldom, and it may well be that play-by dates would have expired for the next round, before they next met. I would have to take advice on whether an emergency meeting could be arranged, with a view to changing a result. Even by 'phone it would be very expensive. (Send out copies of all statements agreed by all parties, before we even get started) -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 3 06:10:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 06:10:26 +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 GAA23659 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 06:10:15 +1100 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zlHjW-0007dN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 19:14:42 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:46:24 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Law 92D Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:46:15 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maddog wrote: SNIP > In the UK in major events we publish a regulation which defines the > appeal procedure. Failure to follow this regulation would, IMO, give a > prima face case to appeal to the NA. However the NA does not, in the > UK, normally change the result, they would merely pass comment on the > procedures. > > ######## The L&EC will hear an appeal for various reasons: > > 1 There has been an error of direction > 2 There has been an error in the application of rule or law > 3 The case involves a matter of principle > > The L&EC does not normally revise value judgements unless they are > grossly inappropriate. > > IIRC, at a meeting of the L&EC this year, we established that an > appeal was not automatically flawed simply because it failed to follow > correct procedure. What mattered was whether or not one of the > participants was denied natural justice as result of the procedural > irregularity in which case the L&EC could, if necessary, rehear the > appeal. What is absolutely clear though is that any change of result > would only affect the draw for the next round of a knock-out > competition if it was known in time. ########## > > The point being that they meet seldom, > > ####### The L&EC meets approximately every six to eight weeks > depending on workload. ######### > > and it may well be that play-by > dates would have expired for the next round, before they next met. I > would have to take advice on whether an emergency meeting could be > arranged, with a view to changing a result. Even by 'phone it would be > very expensive. (Send out copies of all statements agreed by all > parties, before we even get started) > > > ######### It was also agreed in an L&EC meeting that appeals to the > NA would only be heard quickly if there happened, by coincidence, to > be a conveniently scheduled regular meeting of the L&EC which all > relevant parties found it convenient to attend. There are several > reasons for this policy, the prime one being that rushing an appeal > through could prejudicially damage the process, eg. where one side > does not have adequate time to prepare its case or arrange for > suitable witnesses at short notice. It would also set a dangerous > precedent and be open to abuse as one side might delay the process on > the pretext of not being able to attend at short notice in order to > ensure its progess to the next round. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 3 21:38:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:38:03 +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 VAA25290 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:37:55 +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 KAA25614 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:42:14 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 KAA03776 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:42:11 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA27800 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:42:09 GMT Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:42:09 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199812031042.KAA27800@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: established revoke? CORRECTION Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I messed up the final scenario (thanks Anne). Try this instead. Scenario 5: (scenario 4 corrected) South is declarer, plays a HA from hand: Hx, Hx, discard. South plays HK from hand. Before West plays to HK, _East_ puts a heart on the table and says "oh look, I revoked on the last trick". Play out of turn establishing the revoke or East becoming aware of the irregalarity? John (who read scenario 4 as I intended) said: > the revoke is not established and E is trying to correct, > this is so much more likely than a POOT. In general I agree. David Burn's excellent book has a hand where West leads a heart against 6NTxx, East "wins" with DA and attempts to cash HA (LOOT). As East was clearly unaware he had revoked, the HA established the previous revoke and 6NTxx sailed in (with an overtrick, the defence's SA went as the one trick penalty - IIRC). 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 Dec 3 21:42:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:42:13 +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 VAA25344 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:42:07 +1100 Received: from p44s05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.69] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zlWHN-0007tI-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:46:38 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: established revoke? Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:49:38 -0000 Message-ID: <01be1eaa$9fb893e0$458593c3@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 Sorry Robin, I inavertently failed to alter my "To" box! A mistake I can all too easily make with this software. (Blame the tools) A -----Original Message----- From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 1:54 PM Subject: established revoke? >South is declarer, plays a heart from dummy: Hx, HA, discard. >South plays HK from hand. > >Scenario 1: > West puts a heart on the table and > says "oh look, I revoked on the last trick". > > Card played, therefore establish revoke. I think so. > >Scenario 2: > West says "oh look, I revoked on the last trick" > and put a heart on the table. > > West has become aware of the irregularity, > revoke must be corrected. No, I think this heart is also "played". Thus establishing the revoke. > >Scenario 3: > No one is paying much attention and West says > "oh look, I revoked on the last trick" while > putting a card on the table. > No one really know which happens first? > > Established revoke? Yes I think so, for the same reason as Senario 2 > >Scenario 4: > Before West plays to HK, > _East_ puts a heart on the table and > says "oh look, I revoked on the last trick". > > Play out of turn establishing the revoke > or East becoming aware of the irregularity? I'm not quite sure what you mean, as it does not seem that East has revoked, but his card is "played"to the next trick, albeit OOT, establishing Wests' revoke. All these were defenders cards, and they were on the table so that they could have been seen by defenders' partner.Thus, they were played, and IMO establish the revoke.Law 45C1 I would consider that as East had not revoked, but had mentioned a revoke situation this should be treated as "attention illegally drawn" Law 63B Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 3 23:03:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 23:03:40 +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 XAA25620 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 23:03:33 +1100 Received: from pafs02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.176] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zlXYC-0001JQ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:08:05 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: established revoke? CORRECTION Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:10:32 -0000 Message-ID: <01be1eb5$eceb25a0$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: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, December 03, 1998 11:29 AM Subject: established revoke? CORRECTION >I messed up the final scenario (thanks Anne). >Try this instead. > >Scenario 5: (scenario 4 corrected) > >South is declarer, plays a HA from hand: Hx, Hx, discard. >South plays HK from hand. > > Before West plays to HK, > _East_ puts a heart on the table and > says "oh look, I revoked on the last trick". > > Play out of turn establishing the revoke > or East becoming aware of the irregalarity? > >John (who read scenario 4 as I intended) said: >> the revoke is not established and E is trying to correct, >> this is so much more likely than a POOT. > >In general I agree. David Burn's excellent book has a hand >where West leads a heart against 6NTxx, East "wins" with DA >and attempts to cash HA (LOOT). As East was clearly unaware >he had revoked, the HA established the previous revoke and >6NTxx sailed in (with an overtrick, the defence's SA went as >the one trick penalty - IIRC). It seems to me that when a defender becomes aware of an irregularity, the way to sort it is to call the TD. Facing a card during the play of the next trick, in a manner that indicates that it is a played card is unlikely to convince the TD that he was drawing attention to an irregularity on the previous trick!:)) I am going to rule that the revoke is established. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 3 23:05:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 23:05:21 +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 XAA25631 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 23:05:16 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zlXZi-0005oY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:09:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 00:48:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 92D References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >> ######### It was also agreed in an L&EC meeting that appeals to the >> NA would only be heard quickly if there happened, by coincidence, to >> be a conveniently scheduled regular meeting of the L&EC which all >> relevant parties found it convenient to attend. There are several >> reasons for this policy, the prime one being that rushing an appeal >> through could prejudicially damage the process, eg. where one side >> does not have adequate time to prepare its case or arrange for >> suitable witnesses at short notice. It would also set a dangerous >> precedent and be open to abuse as one side might delay the process on >> the pretext of not being able to attend at short notice in order to >> ensure its progess to the next round. ########## There was an attempt to appeal to the NA [national authority] from a Welsh event where, by coincidence, a meeting of the Welsh L&EC [which acts as the NA] was being held. The appeal would have affected qualification for the final. The Welsh L&EC decided that if they heard an appeal at an event where they happened to be present then the decision would not be handed down until after the event was finished. It was deemed unsuitable for the luck of the L&EC happening to be present to affect whether such an appeal could be heard in time. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 4 04:13:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Dec 1998 04:13:10 +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 EAA28779 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 1998 04:12:54 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA04302 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 11:16:47 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-21.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.85) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma004186; Thu Dec 3 11:16:00 1998 Received: by har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE1EB6.71360780@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:14:14 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE1EB6.71360780@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Law 92D Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:11:48 -0500 Encoding: 48 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk So much for the rule of Law and the restoration of equity. One might expect this sort of an argument from a physician who declines to give life saving aid when he happens upon a motor accident, or from a swimmer who declines to rescue a drowning man because it was just "luck" that he was passong by at the time. They Were there and could have corrrected a wrong and chose not to. The argument seems self serving...they did not want to expend the effort...specious and downright bloody minded (don't bother them with the facts). Are you sure this happened on Your side of the pond? :-) ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 7:48 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 92D David Martin wrote: >> ######### It was also agreed in an L&EC meeting that appeals to the >> NA would only be heard quickly if there happened, by coincidence, to >> be a conveniently scheduled regular meeting of the L&EC which all >> relevant parties found it convenient to attend. There are several >> reasons for this policy, the prime one being that rushing an appeal >> through could prejudicially damage the process, eg. where one side >> does not have adequate time to prepare its case or arrange for >> suitable witnesses at short notice. It would also set a dangerous >> precedent and be open to abuse as one side might delay the process on >> the pretext of not being able to attend at short notice in order to >> ensure its progess to the next round. ########## There was an attempt to appeal to the NA [national authority] from a Welsh event where, by coincidence, a meeting of the Welsh L&EC [which acts as the NA] was being held. The appeal would have affected qualification for the final. The Welsh L&EC decided that if they heard an appeal at an event where they happened to be present then the decision would not be handed down until after the event was finished. It was deemed unsuitable for the luck of the L&EC happening to be present to affect whether such an appeal could be heard in time. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 4 06:07:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Dec 1998 06:07:22 +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 GAA29107 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 1998 06:07:09 +1100 Received: from p60s03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.97] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zle9w-0002W9-00; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 19:11:29 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Law 92D Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 19:13:52 -0000 Message-ID: <01be1ef1$10be2140$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, I think you oversimplified this, and made it look bad. One of the resons that we decided this was was because of the luck factor, but mainly it was the inappropriate way an ATTNA would be heard, without the usual opportunity for all concerned to consider at length of the finer details involved in an appeal, and without the opportunity for the non-appealing side to properly present a case if they wished to do so. They have won an appeal to an AC, they must be given every opportunity to keep this advantage, as the appelant to present his case. The decision to ATTNA should be a deliberate decision to do so, and to risk 50ukp, not an emotional and immediate reaction to an adverse AC ruling. Usually when an L&EC meeting is held in Wales, time is at a premium, and the hearing of an appeal would mean that other things would have to wait. I would tender the opinion that these things are of at least equal importance to the general membership, as an appeal at an event is to one player. Finally the case in question was one which involved an event where 100% of the NA had qualified for, and we were playing together. It would have been quite inappropriate for us to hear this ATTNA 10mins before the start of play, and to hear it in 10mins! FFTQFTE Anne -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, December 03, 1998 1:18 PM Subject: Re: Law 92D >David Martin wrote: > >>> ######### It was also agreed in an L&EC meeting that appeals to the >>> NA would only be heard quickly if there happened, by coincidence, to >>> be a conveniently scheduled regular meeting of the L&EC which all >>> relevant parties found it convenient to attend. There are several >>> reasons for this policy, the prime one being that rushing an appeal >>> through could prejudicially damage the process, eg. where one side >>> does not have adequate time to prepare its case or arrange for >>> suitable witnesses at short notice. It would also set a dangerous >>> precedent and be open to abuse as one side might delay the process on >>> the pretext of not being able to attend at short notice in order to >>> ensure its progess to the next round. ########## > > There was an attempt to appeal to the NA [national authority] from a >Welsh event where, by coincidence, a meeting of the Welsh L&EC [which >acts as the NA] was being held. The appeal would have affected >qualification for the final. > > The Welsh L&EC decided that if they heard an appeal at an event where >they happened to be present then the decision would not be handed down >until after the event was finished. It was deemed unsuitable for the >luck of the L&EC happening to be present to affect whether such an >appeal could be heard in time. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 4 21:43:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Dec 1998 21:43:33 +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 VAA01373 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 1998 21:43:25 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zlsmC-00046p-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:47:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:46:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 92D References: <01BE1EB6.71360780@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE1EB6.71360780@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >So much for the rule of Law and the restoration of equity. One might expect >this sort of an argument from a physician who declines to give life saving >aid when he happens upon a motor accident, or from a swimmer who declines >to rescue a drowning man because it was just "luck" that he was passong by >at the time. They Were there and could have corrrected a wrong and chose >not to. The argument seems self serving...they did not want to expend the >effort...specious and downright bloody minded (don't bother them with the >facts). Are you sure this happened on Your side of the pond? :-) Interesting. No-one has ever accused me of being unwilling to expend effort before - are you sure that was the reason? Were you there? Did you listen to our deliberations? Have you thought this through in detail? I love this business of self-serving arguments. It sounds so good once you have got the term into people's minds as "A BAD THING" [like "DISCRIMINATION"]. What you are saying is that anytime I tell you of something that has happened to me I am automatically lying? I think the suggestion that I would let a man drown because of a clearly correct Laws & Ethics Committee decision is a little childish, don't you? There is no doubt in my mind that we made a correct decision, and I think it is just possible that the reason that Craig gives for this decision is not the correct one. ---------- Anne Jones wrote: >Hi David, > >I think you oversimplified this, and made it look bad. I did not give the reasons for our decision, and I am not particularly worried if one person is prepared to assume we had ridiculous reasons for our decision. >Finally the case in question was one which involved an event where 100% >of the NA had qualified for, and we were playing together. It would have >been quite inappropriate for us to hear this ATTNA 10mins before the >start of play, and to hear it in 10mins! Whether or not that is the case in the specific case, we made a general decision which I believe to be 100% correct so the extra inappropriateness of the specific case is hardly 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 Sat Dec 5 00:31:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Dec 1998 00:31:26 +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 AAA04047 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 1998 00:31:18 +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 IAA09967 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 1998 08:35:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981204083716.006df84c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 08:37:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Just a ruling... In-Reply-To: <199812011343.OAA01271@hera.frw.uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:45 PM 12/1/98 +0000, Jan wrote: >S/All 53 >IMPs J872 > 97 > AQT95 >AK6 J8 >53 KT >T842 AKQJ6 >KJ72 8643 > QT9742 > AQ964 > 53 > - > >W N E S >- - - p >p p 1D 1S >2D* p 2H p >2NT p 3NT a.p. > >*alerted: 10+ HCP > >Before the opening lead East calls the TD and says that his 2H bid >should have been alerted. It shows a stop, not necessarily length in >hearts. North prefers not to change his last pass, leads a club(!) >and West makes 9 tricks by reeling off the diamonds and throwing in >South. > >After the play, South calls the TD and claims damage; he could have >doubled 2H for a killing heart lead if this had been alerted, and if >East would have become declarer in 3NT after this double, South would >have led a diamond and 3NT would have been defeated as well. > >The actual ruling was: NS +3 / EW -3 imps. >Agree? Clearly wrong, as we've discussed many times. The table result should either be allowed to stand or adjusted to the result the TD/AC believes would have been obtained with the heart lead. >Any other ideas? In an ACBL AC, two side-issues would be discussed: (a) Was South sufficiently experienced that he should have realized that it is not at all uncommon or unusual for a major suit rebid over an inverted minor raise to show a stopper rather than a real suit, and should therefore have been expected to "protect himself" by asking? Or is he merely using the technicalities of the alert requirements to try to recover the good score that he wasn't up to achieving at the table? (b) The actual auction would seem to call for a spade lead, yet North led a club. (Is it therefore possible or likely that he would have still led a club on the alternative auction, where 2H was doubled?) 3NT would have been -2 on the spade lead. Is letting 3NT make therefore to be considered self-inflicted damage, subsequent but not consequent to the infraction? Adjustment might be denied to N-S on either grounds, in which case the E-W score might or might not have been adjusted (or allowed to stand with N-S receiving a PP). Personally, I would support neither a split ruling nor a PP, nor, as BLML regulars would predict, would I have much sympathy for denying an adjustment based on (b). IMO the real issue here is (a), which is, of course, a judgment I'd have had to have been there to make. 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 Dec 5 02:42:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Dec 1998 02:42:32 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA04549 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 1998 02:42:24 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA18147 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 1998 09:46:24 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-06.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.38) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma018062; Fri Dec 4 09:45:55 1998 Received: by har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE1F73.06AF3B80@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:44:10 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE1F73.06AF3B80@har-pa1-06.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Law 92D Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:44:03 -0500 Encoding: 75 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How many smileys must I put on a post before you can recognise there was humourous intent? Now I know how Swift might have felt if "On Population" had been marketed by the Cookbook of the Month Club. :-) This was intended as a pastiche of the many accusations against the ACBL by people with as little direct knowledge of the deliberations involved as I have of your decision. I'm very surprised that you might think I have such a low opinion of your decision making process or your ethics...quite the contrary is fact. Perhaps next time I will use two smileys and a . Craig ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 5:46 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 92D Craig Senior wrote: >So much for the rule of Law and the restoration of equity. One might expect >this sort of an argument from a physician who declines to give life saving >aid when he happens upon a motor accident, or from a swimmer who declines >to rescue a drowning man because it was just "luck" that he was passong by >at the time. They Were there and could have corrrected a wrong and chose >not to. The argument seems self serving...they did not want to expend the >effort...specious and downright bloody minded (don't bother them with the >facts). Are you sure this happened on Your side of the pond? :-) Interesting. No-one has ever accused me of being unwilling to expend effort before - are you sure that was the reason? Were you there? Did you listen to our deliberations? Have you thought this through in detail? I love this business of self-serving arguments. It sounds so good once you have got the term into people's minds as "A BAD THING" [like "DISCRIMINATION"]. What you are saying is that anytime I tell you of something that has happened to me I am automatically lying? I think the suggestion that I would let a man drown because of a clearly correct Laws & Ethics Committee decision is a little childish, don't you? There is no doubt in my mind that we made a correct decision, and I think it is just possible that the reason that Craig gives for this decision is not the correct one. ---------- Anne Jones wrote: >Hi David, > >I think you oversimplified this, and made it look bad. I did not give the reasons for our decision, and I am not particularly worried if one person is prepared to assume we had ridiculous reasons for our decision. >Finally the case in question was one which involved an event where 100% >of the NA had qualified for, and we were playing together. It would have >been quite inappropriate for us to hear this ATTNA 10mins before the >start of play, and to hear it in 10mins! Whether or not that is the case in the specific case, we made a general decision which I believe to be 100% correct so the extra inappropriateness of the specific case is hardly 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 Sun Dec 6 04:44:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 04:44:26 +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 EAA10488 for ; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 04:44:18 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.0 201-221-107) with ESMTP id <19981205174850.HSUD20183.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sat, 5 Dec 1998 09:48:50 -0800 Message-ID: <366972BE.6CAFEBE2@home.com> Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 09:51:58 -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: Artificial AS in (KO) team play References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan 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 ~ > ++++ I have no reason to quarrel with Grattan's statement but, from a bridge point of view, I fully sympathize with what Herman says (if NO's teammates throw away 10 Imps on the board by some idiotic action, why should the net-effect to their team still be +3 Imps - wouldn't (-10)+3=-7 be more "fair"? Or maybe (-10)+6=-4, since the diff. between -3 and +3 is afterall 6 imps?). The conclusion, imo, is that TD/ACs at KO Team play should be extremely reluctant to award "-3/+3" as the artificial adjusted score, and only do so if it really is impossible to determine anything else due to "mechanical" errors. They should strive rather to give some score derived by weighting of several assigned, but real, scores. Maybe this is another area where L12C3 can be used to provide legal justification if any is needed? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 6 13:30:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA11294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 13:30:43 +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 NAA11289 for ; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 13:30:37 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zmU2P-0005Ig-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 02:35:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 22:50:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Artificial AS in (KO) team play References: <366972BE.6CAFEBE2@home.com> In-Reply-To: <366972BE.6CAFEBE2@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >Grattan 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. >I have no reason to quarrel with Grattan's statement but, from a bridge >point of view, I fully sympathize with what Herman says (if NO's >teammates throw away 10 Imps on the board by some idiotic action, why >should the net-effect to their team still be +3 Imps - wouldn't >(-10)+3=-7 be more "fair"? Or maybe (-10)+6=-4, since the diff. between >-3 and +3 is afterall 6 imps?). Maybe. But have you thought of the incredible difficulties that you are creating? While currently TDs and ACs assign scores they do not do so from scratch. It is *far* more difficult to do so. Suppose that Herman bids and makes 3NT on 24 HCP. In the other room the board is unplayable because Whosit, playing for the other team, puts the board on the table the wrong way, takes out the wrong hand and looks at it. So, you say, instead of +3/-3 we are going to provide some score based on their "good" result. How are you going to do this? How are you going to calculate a fair score? Perhaps by assigning a dummy score to Whosit's table? How? Aha, say you, how about 1NT +2? Why? To assign a score we really have to look at the possible auctions, and that is very difficult from scratch. There might be a weak two opening: there might be a sequence that will always get to 3NT because of the effects of particular ranges: there might be anything. To try to assign a score on a sequence that has started: Dealer ? is a far cry from the normal assignment of after [say]: Dealer 1S P 3S P P ? I believe it would be a very troublesome procedure, and I doubt that we should do it unless there is any suggestion that Whosit's team-mates have done something to try and cancel the board [since they know about a good score] - and that could be dealt with under other laws. >The conclusion, imo, is that TD/ACs at KO Team play should be extremely >reluctant to award "-3/+3" as the artificial adjusted score, and only do >so if it really is impossible to determine anything else due to >"mechanical" errors. They should strive rather to give some score >derived by weighting of several assigned, but real, scores. This is the normal view in this forum. >Maybe this is another area where L12C3 can be used to provide legal >justification if any is needed? Only if L12C2 applies: it may not be used as a substitute for L12C1, ie an ArtAS. -- 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 Dec 7 10:33:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 10:33:09 +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 KAA15854 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 10:33:01 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.180.174]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.0 201-221-107) with ESMTP id <19981206233736.SPPY20183.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 15:37:36 -0800 Message-ID: <366B15FB.7424069D@home.com> Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 15:40:43 -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: Artificial AS in (KO) team play References: <366972BE.6CAFEBE2@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While largely in agreement with what you say, I just noticed another aspect from Grattan's statement - concerning the "intended ...net swing...3 imps". Isn't the intention that the *net* swing is rather 6 imps? Wouldn't that also be consistent with the ability to make a "partly at fault" determination awarding -3/0 imps, where otherwise logic would dictate the net-swing to be only 1.5 imps (surely the net-swing can't be the same in both cases)? Wouldn't this also be the corollary to 40/60 at MPs, where the net swing between the pairs involved is 20%, not 10% - in other words isn't "0 imps" supposed to correspond with "50%" ? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 7 21:58:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA16734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 21:58:20 +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 VAA16729 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 21:58:11 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-120.uunet.be [194.7.9.120]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA05255 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:02:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <000401be21d1$0ad27a00$780907c2@uunet.uunet.be> From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Late arrivals - a new twist Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:53:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday I directed the Belgian championship for University players. Saturday, Belgium had been snowed under and Sunday morning at 10 o'clock proved too difficult for many to arrive. So instead, we started at 10:30. But even then, three players were missing. When one of them arrived, I put the two others together and we started the tournament with 5 tables. At 10:45, four players walk in : another pair and the two missing partners. So I split the "strange pair", and continue the tournament with six tables (it was barometer, so no problem apart from handing out new pair numbers). Boards 3 and 4 are now played correctly, but what about boards 1 and 2. I solved it like this : The scores stood, and counted for the correct pair, but I considered they played it against a pair that would finish the tournament after 2 boards. The three other pairs played 2 boards less in the tournament, and were given no score on boards 1 and 2. No doubt some of you will disagree, but I would like to know why ? Did I mention it was Butler scoring ? Herman From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 8 00:24:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 00:24:52 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f259.hotmail.com [207.82.251.150]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA19330 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 00:24:47 +1100 Received: (qmail 7414 invoked by uid 0); 7 Dec 1998 13:28:53 -0000 Message-ID: <19981207132853.7413.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 07 Dec 1998 05:28:53 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Late arrivals - a new twist MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 05:28:53 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Disagree, Herman? Seems to me that you used common sense to resolve a difficult situation entirely outside the control of you and your players. Providing instant opponents so that the pairs who had arrived didn't suffer was eminently reasonable as well. Top marks from me, then, but I'm sure you've broken about seventeen obscure rules! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 9 02:24:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 02:24:47 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA25018 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 02:24:37 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA06337 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 09:28:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-25.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.89) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma006278; Tue Dec 8 09:28:04 1998 Received: by har-pa2-25.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE2295.2B658EA0@har-pa2-25.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 10:26:08 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE2295.2B658EA0@har-pa2-25.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Test Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 10:25:17 -0500 Encoding: 1 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Test From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 9 17:13:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA26690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 17:13:13 +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 RAA26685 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 17:13:05 +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 WAA25734 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 22:17:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812090617.WAA25734@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Orlando Appeals Case #8 Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 22:16:54 -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 Here is an interesting case from the Orlando NABC Event: NABC Life Master Pairs Vulnerability: both Dealer: South S- T92 H- KT86 D- 95 C- T632 S- K63 S- QJ854 H- J94 H- 732 D- KQ D- 43 C- KQJ97 C- A85 S- A7 H- AQ5 D- AJT8762 C- 4 West North East South (usual directions) - - - 1D Dbl Pass 1S 2D Pass Pass 2S 3D Pass* Pass 3S All pass Table result: 3S made four, plus 170 for E/W The facts: The TD ruled that West's break in tempo suggested values that made a 3S bid more likely to be successful and that a pass of 3D was a logical alternative for East The TD changed the contract to 3D made four, plus 130 for N/S The appeal: E/W appealed the TDs ruling. All four players attended the hearing. East cited the Law of Total Tricks (his side had at least nine spades and the opponents had at least nine or ten diamonds so there were 18 total tricks available) and stated that regardless of partner's break in tempo his hand merited a competitive 3S bid. N/S stated that West's break in tempo suggested that a 3S bid was likely to be successful. The AC decision: The AC agreed that a break in tempo was more likely to show a spade raise than a penalty double. If the West hand contained one fewer spade and diamonds KQx he might have overcalled 1NT originally or made an in-tempo penalty double of 3D. However, the majority decided that a fifth spade and the ace of clubs offered safety at the three level and that East could have competed to 2S with a little less. In fact, as the cards lie, 3S was down one off the top and should have been minus 200 (undoubled) with a club lead or diamond ace lead and club shift at trick two. The AC changed the contract to 3S made four, plus 170 for E/W Dissenting opinion (Bill Passell, Bob Schwartz): We believe that East adequately described his hand by bidding 1S and 2S vulnerable at matchpoints. Given the hesitation, a 3S bid which at best would have been a close call, should not have been allowed. Even if the Law of Total Tricks could be used to justify bidding, that would be reason for West to compete, not East. The fact that two of the AC members indicated they would have passed was prima facie evidence that pass was a logical alternative for East. N/S should not have been penalized for bad defense against a contract they should not have had to defend. Pass by East was 100% a logical alternative. We would have changed the contract for both pairs to 3D made four, plus 130 for N/S with a club lead and continuation (the most unfavorable result that was at all probable). Committee: Bill Passell (chairman), Harvey Brody, Lou Reich, Bob Schwartz, Phil Warden ----------------------------------------------------------------- Looks like the TD got it right. Maybe TDs should do *all* the appeals in Vancouver and San Antonio. The current plan is for them to do all but NABC+ events. If the failure of N/S to go +200 in the 3S contract had been due to some "irrational, wild, or gambling action," as the WBF LC puts it, then the table result could maybe have stood for N/S, with -130 to E/W. Since the defense was merely questionable, +130 to N/S. Had E/W been non-vulnerable this might have been a more difficult case. Can we anticipate seeing the Law of Total Tricks in the next edition of the Laws? -- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 10 00:27:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:27:45 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f279.hotmail.com [207.82.251.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA29745 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:27:39 +1100 Received: (qmail 10209 invoked by uid 0); 9 Dec 1998 13:31:48 -0000 Message-ID: <19981209133148.10208.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 09 Dec 1998 05:31:47 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Orlando Appeals Case #8 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 05:31:47 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L.French wrote >Can we anticipate seeing the Law of Total Tricks in the next >edition of the Laws? Why not? Why not add a few more barmy theories as well while you're at it?:) Seems to me that the TD and the dissenting voices were spot on here. E/W claims were sophistry. Sounds like they had their story prepared when they went into the Appeals Room.Mind you, they don't appear to be that bright. For a start, E/W had eight Spades between them, not nine, and East had no reason, apart from partner's dither, to imagine that West only had two Diamonds (yes, I know he'd made a TO double, but that means nothing these days, young man). Why didn't East bid Two Spades on the first round, BTW? Seems obvious opposite partner's double to me. I'd have kicked E/W out of the Appeals room and kept the deposit ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 10 02:44:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Dec 1998 02:44:42 +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 CAA00310 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 1998 02:44:35 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA25265 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 09:47:23 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199812091547.JAA25265@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Orlando Appeals Case #8 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 09:47:23 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Dissenting opinion (Bill Passell, Bob Schwartz): We believe that > > Committee: Bill Passell (chairman), Harvey Brody, Lou Reich, Bob > Schwartz, Phil Warden > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > No, Marv, you drew the wrong conclusion. Obviously, we should conclude that we will get better rulings if we allow the Chairman of the committee to make his own decisions and overrule everyone else. [duck] :) -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 11 03:18:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 03:18:21 +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 DAA05500 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 03:18:08 +1100 Received: from default (pm30-3-05.ac.net [205.138.47.94]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA18292 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:22:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812101622.LAA18292@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:26:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: Orlando Appeals Case #8 In-Reply-To: <199812100156.RAA23146@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >The person to ask is hard-working Linda Weinstein, who processes >all the AC writeups at NABCs. I'm sending a cc of this post to her, >and to Yvan while I'm at it. So Linda and/or Yvan, please answer >Tim's question. > >-- >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Here is what I can tell you now: I believe at least 16 cases were published in the Daily Bulletin. I had up to #19 in the works. I still have 21 to process (type up, send to Chairman for review, sent to Rich for review, and then reconcile any problems.) I hope you realize what a guarguantan task this is. Again, neither Rich or I was able to play a single session of bridge at the Nationals. There are actually some very interesting cases from later in the tournament. *teaser* Chayah worked with me on the Chicago cases and they are very close to Internet release. I have recieved all the expert commentary (it was due at Orlando) and Rich will soon be hard at work on that Casebook as soon as I have it all ready for him. (by this weekend I hope to have everything to him) I will be able to speed up the process some for Orlando and hope to have all those cases ready for the Internet around the same time we send them out for expert commentary. Our goal to send them out is right after Christmas or very early next year. Of course, in the middle of all this I am leaving for California today and Brian (Trent) and I are getting married on the 25th (in Las Vegas), so I will be incognito from the 20th to the 27th and will not be working on the cases then :-) Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 11 08:12:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 08:12:00 +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 IAA05935 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 08:11:53 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA28520; Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:15:56 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.57) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028492; Thu Dec 10 15:15:41 1998 Received: by har-pa1-25.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE2458.0E2CEDA0@har-pa1-25.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:13:42 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE2458.0E2CEDA0@har-pa1-25.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws discussion group , "'Linda Weinstein'" Subject: RE: Orlando Appeals Case #8 Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:58:33 -0500 Encoding: 26 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please accept my best wishes and extend my congratulations to Brian. One of the pleasures of open competition used to be the chance to meet first rate players like Brian, who was unfailingly pleasant at the table as an opponent and in the casual social atmosphere surrounding a tournament. He was also one of the fastest men with a pencil I ever saw (a skill now in little demand). You have picked a wedding date with much to recommend it...for example the world will make it most difficult to forget your anniversary. I got a similar Christams present ten years ago the 23rd...we'll be renewing our vows as you head to Vegas. I can only wish you will have as much love for each other ten years hence as I have for her. God bless your marriage and may you have much happiness. Craig ---------- From: Linda Weinstein[SMTP:lobo@ac.net] Of course, in the middle of all this I am leaving for California today and Brian (Trent) and I are getting married on the 25th (in Las Vegas), so I will be incognito from the 20th to the 27th and will not be working on the cases then :-) Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 11 11:52:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:52:59 +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 LAA06664 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:52:53 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zoGtd-0002HJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 00:57:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 00:56:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Orlando Appeals Case #8 References: <199812100156.RAA23146@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <199812101622.LAA18292@primus.ac.net> In-Reply-To: <199812101622.LAA18292@primus.ac.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Weinstein wrote: >Of course, in the middle of all this I am leaving for California today and >Brian (Trent) and I are getting married on the 25th (in Las Vegas), so I >will be incognito from the 20th to the 27th and will not be working on the >cases then :-) Very best wishes to you and Brian. -- 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 Dec 11 15:39:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA06954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:39:17 +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 PAA06945 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:39:11 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zoKQg-0002yI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 04:43:51 +0000 Message-ID: <2kOk4VA+JKc2EwEs@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 04:41:34 +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 managed to get this wrong - sorry. I have written another set of questions for Bobby Wolff on the 'famous' Lille appeal. I have his replies which are below - but I have managed to delete the questions, and by the time I realised this Bobby had too! So you will have to imagine the questions. I do apologise but it is too late to do anything about it. I think most of the questions are fairly clear from the answers. ----------------------------------------- Dear David, Thanks for your infinite patience. Mine is running short . Too much to do, too little time to do it. Wolf Stahl did remember right that his partner said she hadn't psyched before, but almost everything else he (they) said, in the latest email is either untrue or skewed. Have they woven a story to make themselves martyrs and now they must defend themselves any way they can? My whole case is based on lack of full disclosure (and especially to inexperienced opponents). Maybe I wanted to appear an idiot and be subject to ridicule, censure and eventual dismissal. If so, I lied. The ironic fact in this matter is that I have always been a proponent of psychics as long as they are not risk free (either by system or by partner having privileged information). Adam Meredith was one of my early idols and John Collings has my current respect. In my opinion, neither of those fellows would ever consider priming partner. Please bring on the other appeals members whomever they were. ( I hope they remember, but perhaps the pressure may render them mute). Perhaps Ms. Rohan is correct, but my questions are usually direct and not subject to confusion. At the committee hearing, if I remember correctly, the two in question seemed very straightforward and honest. Wolf Stahl made a comment at their hearing that I am sure he said, "What else could 2 clubs mean but a psychic?" when I asked what he meant by his answer to his opponents of "2 clubs is not part of our system". If NS tells EW "I'm pretty sure 2 clubs is a psychic" then whatever happens (at least if I'm on the committee) NS has done their duty. Of course, if a pair is constantly misleading their opponents they should either quit, play a totally simple system, or be subject to scrutiny or else. Intentional convention disruption is a coined phrase by me which means a player or pair conveniently forgets a weak bid convention e.g (an opening 2 spade bid that shows 0-8 and the reds or the blacks) but really has 2 other suits, or no suits at all and partner always finds a reason not to bid or otherwise get the partnership in trouble. Unfortunately this practice has occurred too often among some of the US high-level partnerships. Hard to prove, but easy to feel. It's part of what I call the poison gas laboratory that our bridge Saddam Husseins practice. Finally, high-level bridge is a difficult game. Administering it properly is also tedious and trying. It gets especially so when an interested party can think I mean opening 4 spades to prevent the opponents from using their relay system is wrong in any way. Maybe that would be the thought from a 6th grader trying to understand English, but how can we (I) deal with such trivia and survive. I can assure you I can't. My writings will never be confused with Shakespeare but I don't have time or the inclination to deal with Mr. DesJardins sarcasm. Double Holiday Cheers Bobby (and becky) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 11 15:39:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA06952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:39:14 +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 PAA06943 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:39:08 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zoKQc-0002yI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 04:43:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 01:09:22 +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 Robert Harris Bobbsie Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod Rah-Rey, Leo Irv Kostal Bill, Albert, Cleo, Sabrina Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Casey, Yazzer-Cat Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Norman Scorbie Starsky, Hutch Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Grant Sterling Big Mac David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Ritske, Beer plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, and MIA is a cat missing in action. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at his Catpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/cat_menu.htm Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 11 18:17:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 18:17:39 +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 SAA07086 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 18:17:33 +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 XAA07678; Thu, 10 Dec 1998 23:21:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812110721.XAA07678@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Orlando Appeal #10 Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 23:19:47 -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=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks to Chyah Burghard, I can paste in this entire case from the text version of her web page, for convenience of the reader, without laborious typing: CASE TEN Subject: Tempo Event: NABC Open BAM Teams, 22 Nov 98, First Qualifying Session Board: 21, Dealer: North, Vul: N/S Michael Rosenberg S K Q 5 H K 8 D J 9 8 5 2 C K 8 5 Joel Wooldridge P. Morris S J 10 4 3 S A 9 6 H Q J 6 H 10 7 5 3 D Q 10 6 D K C A Q 7 C J 10 9 4 2 Zia Mahmood S 8 7 2 H A 9 4 2 D A 7 3 2 C 6 3 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - 1D Pass 1H Pass 1NT Pass Pass 2S Pass Pass Dbl All Pass Table Result: 2S doubled made two, plus 470 for E/W -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The Facts: North led a diamond, won by South, and a low heart was returned at trick two. The Director was called at the conclusion of play and was told that at trick two, declarer had paused for "a considerable time" before playing the HQ. West stated that his hesitation was to consider which card would be the best falsecard to avoid a heart ruff. The Director ruled that he accepted declarer's statement and that since Law 73F2 had not been violated, the table result would be allowed to stand. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North, East, and West attended the hearing. Both sides agreed that the hesitation by West prior to playing the HQ had been approximately 15 seconds. North claimed he was misled by the hesitation, thinking that his partner held the HJ. He therefore defended by shifting to the SK in an effort to stop a diamond ruff in dummy. West stated that his hesitation was not an attempt to deceive. He was thinking about which falsecard would be best to avoid the impending heart ruff. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The Committee Decision: Law 73F2 reads "If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score." The Committee decided that although there was some merit to declarer's claim of a bridge reason for his hesitation and that falsecarding is a legitimate form of deceit, nevertheless such actions are tempo sensitive. The Committee agreed that an infraction had occurred under law 73F. The Committee assessed a procedural penalty against E/W of one quarter of a board, emphasizing that this did not imply that the break in tempo was believed to be a conscious effort to deceive the opponents. In spite of an infraction, the non-offending side must continue to play bridge. The general test is whether they made an egregious error. At trick two a low heart (attitude) was led to North's king. North led the SK in an effort to stop a diamond ruff in dummy. South played the S8 on this trick (suit preference for hearts) to strongly suggest a heart continuation. Declarer won the SA and continued spades. When North won the SK it was still not too late to take his heart ruff, but instead he continued with his last spade. The Committee decided that the misdefense was not due to the hesitation, and that the North defender should have known from the play of a second spade by declarer that there was no plan to ruff a diamond in dummy. Thus the misdefense met the standard of egregious, and the Committee allowed the table result to stand for N/S. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Dick Budd, Jerry Gaer, Riggs Thayer, Dave Treadwell ==================================================================== == No comment on the finding of egregious play by N/S, annulling the possibility of redress for them. Also no comment on whether there was an infraction or not. Others more knowledgeable than I can discuss those matters. However, I know this: If "an infraction occurred under L73F," as the AC determined, then the penalty should be the one prescribed by that Law: an adjusted score, not a procedural penalty (PP). E/W should be assigned a score representing the must unfavorable result that was at all probable, which looks like 2S down one, -50. There is a belief within the ranks of the NABC AC organization and ACBL Laws Commission, even at a high level, that one cannot adjust a score for one side only. If the non-offenders lose their right to redress because of some blunder, then the offenders can only be penalized with a PP. Evidently that belief crept into this decision, which probably resulted in a 75% board for E/W (taking into account the PP) instead of whatever -50 would have earned. Please no one say that the PP should have reflected the matchpoint effect of -50 vs +470. In addition to the fact that any PP is inappropriate for this infraction, the illegal score of +470 would remain on the score sheet, affecting the matchpoint results of other pairs. -- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 12 01:07:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Dec 1998 01:07:20 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f289.hotmail.com [207.82.251.180]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA10044 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 1998 01:07:13 +1100 Received: (qmail 13647 invoked by uid 0); 11 Dec 1998 14:11:23 -0000 Message-ID: <19981211141123.13646.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 06:11:22 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Orlando Appeals Case #8 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 06:11:22 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Weinstein wrote:> >Of course, in the middle of all this I am leaving for California today and >Brian (Trent) and I are getting married on the 25th (in Las Vegas), so I >will be incognito from the 20th to the 27th and will not be working on the >cases then :-) > Slacker. Or, alternatively, congratulations. Norman ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 12 04:09:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Dec 1998 04:09:20 +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 EAA10564 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 1998 04:09:12 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zoW8U-0003Zn-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 17:13:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:39:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Alerting MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Harumph! I have been asked for an article on alerting outside the ACBL. I think the person concerned may have under-rated the size of the problem! Anyway, I would like if possible to see the alerting rules for as many countries as possible. I think that I already have England, Wales, Denmark, Australia, Russia, though it would not hurt to receive duplicates. I have the feeling that these may be of general interest so perhaps the answers might be sent here to BLML: no need for a copy to me. As many as possible please [said with a worried look]! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 12 06:34:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Dec 1998 06:34:53 +1100 Received: from networksgy.com (www.networksgy.com [208.130.114.177]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA10934 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 1998 06:34:42 +1100 Received: from beepatnet by networksgy.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA08000; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:35:50 +0300 (GMT) Message-ID: <000901be2535$8c7cb4f0$32177bdf@beepatnet.beepat> From: "The Staff" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Alerting Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:39:10 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE251C.6597C5F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE251C.6597C5F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi David, We here in Zone 5 of the WBF (CACBF) closely follow the WBF Alerting = Policy. With our wide variety of languages, nationalities, and cultures; we = feel that it is the most appropriate for us. John Mac Gregor CTD - CACBF ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE251C.6597C5F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi David,
We here in Zone 5 of the WBF (CACBF) = closely=20 follow the WBF Alerting Policy.
With our wide variety of languages,=20 nationalities, and cultures;  we feel that
it is the most appropriate for = us.
John Mac Gregor
CTD - CACBF
 
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE251C.6597C5F0-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 12 15:44:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Dec 1998 15:44:04 +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 PAA13135 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 1998 15:43:56 +1100 Received: from modem106.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.106] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zogyl-00077t-00; Sat, 12 Dec 1998 04:48:31 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: Artificial AS in (KO) team play Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 04:44:39 -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 superior man in the world does not set his mind either for anything or against anything; what is right he will follow." (Confucius) ======================================== > From: Jan Kamras > To: blml > Subject: Re: Artificial AS in (KO) team play > Date: 06 December 1998 23:40 > > While largely in agreement with what you say, I just noticed another > aspect from Grattan's statement - concerning the "intended ...net > swing...3 imps". > Isn't the intention that the *net* swing is rather 6 imps? ------------------\x/---------------------- +++ Sorry! Loose speech on my part ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 12 15:45:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Dec 1998 15:45:59 +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 PAA13161 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 1998 15:45:53 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092n9b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.155]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA17729 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:50:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812120450.UAA17729@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Orlando Appeals Case #13 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:50:00 -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 hope some some of you can explain this decision better than the AC did. I don't understand it at all. CASE THIRTEEN Subject: Tempo Event: Mixed Pairs, 23 Nov 98, First Session Board: 25, Dealer: North, Vul: E/W S 10 8 7 5 2 H A Q J 10 D --- C Q 8 5 2 S A 4 S Q 9 H 8 7 5 H 9 3 D K Q J 9 5 4 3 2 D A 7 6 C --- C A K 10 6 4 3 S K J 6 3 H K 6 4 2 D 10 8 C J 9 7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - Pass 1C Pass 1D Dbl 2C Dbl (1) 3D 3S 4D Pass (2) 5D 5S Pass Pass 6D All Pass (1) Intended as responsive, not Alerted (2) Break in tempo Table Result: 6D went down one, plus 100 for N/S -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The Facts: The Director was called when North bid 5S. North told the Director that he had guessed that South had the major suits from both the auction and his hand because they did play responsive doubles, although not in this situation. South hesitated before she passed 4D. The Director ruled that pass by North over 5D was not a logical alternative and allowed the table result to stand. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and all four players were present at the hearing. The Committee discovered that N/S had played together twice in the last five years. South stated that she was a non-Life Master and North stated that he was an experienced Life Master. 1NT by North at his second turn would have been undiscussed. The double of 2C was read by North as responsive based on his own club length -- they had no agreement concerning this sequence. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The Committee Decision: The Committee looked at the pass of 4D. Since South had no five-card major, and at most three clubs, the possibility of whether the pause could be based on a diamond stack had to be considered. The diamonds could have been seven-two or six-three with South having two or more diamond tricks. It was believed that North might have been able to infer from West's 5D bid that his partner was contemplating bidding 4S, so the question was whether that fact made the 5S bid more attractive. Given that two heart tricks were almost certainly cashing on the auction if partner had the HK, the next issue was whether partner had a quick trick in spades or diamonds. If so, then 5S was a heavy favorite to go down while 5D was also failing. In the context of the ability of N/S, it was believed that partner's contemplation of acting did not support anything particular about high cards. This was to some extent borne out by South's actual hand, which certainly did not seem to merit a break in tempo before the pass. That being so, the 5S bid was not made more attractive by the tempo break. The Committee decided to allow the table result of 6D down one, plus 100 for N/S, to stand. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Chairman's note: Two points were not considered by the Committee in the context of the fact that no adjustment was necessary. 1. Would the Committee have decided differently if N/S were a stronger pair, where South's slow pass might have suggested more offense and less defense? 2. If the score had been adjusted for N/S would the bid of 6D have seemed like a double shot, so that E/W might have kept minus 100? -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Committee: Barry Rigal (chair), Doug Doub, Jerry Gaer, Abby Heitner, Dave Treadwell ==================================================================== == The 5S bid was not made more attractive by the tempo break? With 10xxxx? I buy the theory that North can work out what South's double was based on, but so what? South's hesitation plainly says, "I don't have enough to bid, but if you want to do so that's okay, I have my double." Just because North's 5S bid might not have worked out, that doesn't justify it. Passing 5D is an LA, so adjust the score to 5D making five. Answers to Chairman's questions: 1. Slow passes always seem to suggest offensive values, no matter who makes them. 2. No. 6D is not an irrational, wild, or gambling action. -- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 13 14:22:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:22:10 +1100 Received: from pandora.pinehurst.net (root@pandora.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA18075 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:22:03 +1100 Received: from nancy (tc-66.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.167]) by pandora.pinehurst.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA13227; Sat, 12 Dec 1998 22:29:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007701be2647$fd382040$9561040c@nancy> From: "Nancy T. Dressing" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Quiz Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 22:23:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Re your quiz, I think I found it from the ACBL page by following some of the links, etc they have listed. Using tuition for teaching or learning was a good Canadian word when I lived there. I, too, fell for the fees bit but no it meant teaching. If you find the quiz, come back and tell us. Lots of us could learn from some of the questions. Nancy -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: Saturday, November 21, 1998 5:43 PM Subject: Quiz >Can anyone point me at the webb page where I found a smashing player >quiz on the Laws? >It was written by someone in ACBLand, who said we were welcome to use it >for tuition. >Many thanks >Anne > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 14 03:24:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 03:24:36 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA21384 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 03:24:17 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zpENt-0001xl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 16:28:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 12:34:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Quiz References: <007701be2647$fd382040$9561040c@nancy> In-Reply-To: <007701be2647$fd382040$9561040c@nancy> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T. Dressing wrote: >Re your quiz, I think I found it from the ACBL page by following some of the >links, etc they have listed. Using tuition for teaching or learning was a >good Canadian word when I lived there. I, too, fell for the fees bit but no >it meant teaching. If you find the quiz, come back and tell us. Lots of us >could learn from some of the questions. The quiz is available from Niels' page on the Laws at http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 14 06:33:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 06:33:36 +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 GAA21704 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 06:33:29 +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 OAA22634 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:38:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:38:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812131938.OAA13923@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Sun, 13 Dec 1998 12:34:08 +0000) Subject: Re: Quiz Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > The quiz is available from Niels' page on the Laws > at http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws However, the answers to the quiz should not necessarily be accepted as authoritatitive. In particular, the answer to #17 is correct, but the explanation of the penalty for a violation is wrong. The answer to #5 is right in spirit but wrong in letter (and the answers don't explain the actual rule); the answer to #2 is arguably wrong in letter. -- 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 Dec 14 11:39:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:39:38 +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 LAA22276 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:39:31 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.205] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zpM3v-0005UW-00; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 00:40:35 +0000 Message-ID: <199812140043000230.29DF427D@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 00:43:00 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Simple question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk South opens 1NT, West bids 2C (alerted) and North bids 3NT. All pass, the= opening lead is made, and the play progresses. At trick six, South asks= East what 2C meant. Is this a legal question? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 14 12:13:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:13:09 +1100 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA22332 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:13:02 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA07873 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 20:17:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 20:17:45 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Simple question In-Reply-To: <199812140043000230.29DF427D@mail.btinternet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, David Burn wrote: > South opens 1NT, West bids 2C (alerted) and North bids 3NT. All pass, > the opening lead is made, and the play progresses. At trick six, South > asks East what 2C meant. Is this a legal question? Why not? I can't find my 1997 Law book, but I don't think 20F2 has changed. I must admit that on seeing the subject line and author, I read it out to the other bridge player in the family. His reaction was the same as mine--what diabolical thing is coming up? So what's the catch? -- Richard Lighton |"It is rumored that Piso is dead. It is a great loss. He was (lighton@idt.net)| a good man and deserved a longer life. He was talented and Wood-Ridge NJ | reliable, resolute and courageous, faithful and generous. USA | Provided of course that he is really dead." --La Bruyere From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 14 13:07:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:07:10 +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 NAA22398 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:07:06 +1100 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA15247 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:11:52 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:11:52 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Simple question In-Reply-To: <199812140043000230.29DF427D@mail.btinternet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, David Burn wrote: > South opens 1NT, West bids 2C (alerted) and North bids 3NT. All pass, > the opening lead is made, and the play progresses. At trick six, South > asks East what 2C meant. Is this a legal question? So called simple questions always bother me, but I would rule that this is indeed a legal question. The authority being given by Law 20F2. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 14 17:36:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA22795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:36:37 +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 RAA22790 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:36:31 +1100 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.79.44.141]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.05 118 121 101) with SMTP id <19981214064045.GQRH16098@jay-apfelbaum>; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 06:40:45 +0000 Message-ID: <002401be272c$95601960$8d2c4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> From: "JApfelbaum" To: , Subject: Re: Simple question Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 01:23:33 -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 Simple Answer: Law 20F2 allows it. Complicated Answer: Law 20F2 allows the question. South is permitted to draw whatever inferences may be available from West's 2C bid (Law 16). However, there is a limitation in that South may not set up some scenario for the purpose of confusing E/W about the hand. Is there a catch to the question? -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, December 13, 1998 7:56 PM Subject: Simple question South opens 1NT, West bids 2C (alerted) and North bids 3NT. All pass, the opening lead is made, and the play progresses. At trick six, South asks East what 2C meant. Is this a legal question? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 00:43:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:43:12 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f157.hotmail.com [207.82.251.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA25823 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:43:06 +1100 Received: (qmail 16700 invoked by uid 0); 14 Dec 1998 13:47:20 -0000 Message-ID: <19981214134720.16699.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 05:47:17 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Simple question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 05:47:17 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >South opens 1NT, West bids 2C (alerted) and North bids 3NT. All pass, the= > opening lead is made, and the play progresses. At trick six, South asks= > East what 2C meant. Is this a legal question? > > It's legal, I think with the slight caveat that he can only ask when it's actually his turn to play. What he can't, of course, ask for, is the auction, which leads to stupid questions (if he's forgotten) like 'What did your partner's bid over 1NT mean?'This tactic can of course be countered, if appropriate, by the reply 'Natural', leaving the forgetful South none the wiser! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 00:51:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:51:23 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f88.hotmail.com [207.82.250.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA25858 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:51:18 +1100 Received: (qmail 13934 invoked by uid 0); 14 Dec 1998 13:55:32 -0000 Message-ID: <19981214135532.13933.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 05:55:31 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Orlando Appeals Case #13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 05:55:31 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Another crazy decision from Orlando. What do they put in the water down there? Where I come from, North/South would be deemed to be at it, Indeed, if I were the TD it would be N/S that were appealing, not E/W. I'd have had a bit more sympathy for North if he'd tried Five Hearts. Five Spades just suggests to me that he read the hesitation all too well. Norman ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 04:29:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA26387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:29:55 +1100 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-004.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA26382 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:29:47 +1100 Received: from meaux12-129.abo.wanadoo.fr [164.138.103.129] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:31:51 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:34:40 +0100 From: "Jean-François Chevalier" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [fr] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson , Bridge-laws Subject: Re: Alerting 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 SAA07226 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello, You can find alerting rules of French Federation at this address: http://web.avo.fr/haffner/arbitre/reg_2ca6.htm#Ax06 I am sorry it's in french but it's long and my english is toobad, I canno= t do a translation... J.F. Chevalier David Stevenson a =E9crit: > Harumph! > > I have been asked for an article on alerting outside the ACBL. I > think the person concerned may have under-rated the size of the problem= ! > Anyway, I would like if possible to see the alerting rules for as many > countries as possible. > > I think that I already have England, Wales, Denmark, Australia, > Russia, though it would not hurt to receive duplicates. > > I have the feeling that these may be of general interest so perhaps > the answers might be sent here to BLML: no need for a copy to me. > > As many as possible please [said with a worried look]! > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 05:46:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA26610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 05:46:38 +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 FAA26605 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 05:46:29 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.194]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA14440; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:51:05 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36755E22.296EB98B@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:51:14 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Lighton CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Simple question References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk HI all Nothing changed about 20F2 in 1997 laws. If the question is in a proper manner (not infringing L73F2 ) he is allowed to ask ........ Dany n.b. about Piso : usually all people around , including La Bruyere , meeting Piso in the pub or in the streets know that Piso is dead , only Piso himself doesn't know....yet !!!!! But this time ?? I think the speech was written by La Bruyere's ghost !!!!!!!! Richard Lighton wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, David Burn wrote: > > > South opens 1NT, West bids 2C (alerted) and North bids 3NT. All pass, > > the opening lead is made, and the play progresses. At trick six, South > > asks East what 2C meant. Is this a legal question? > > Why not? I can't find my 1997 Law book, but I don't think 20F2 has > changed. > > I must admit that on seeing the subject line and author, I read it out > to the other bridge player in the family. His reaction was the same > as mine--what diabolical thing is coming up? > > So what's the catch? > > -- > Richard Lighton |"It is rumored that Piso is dead. It is a great loss. He was > (lighton@idt.net)| a good man and deserved a longer life. He was talented and > Wood-Ridge NJ | reliable, resolute and courageous, faithful and generous. > USA | Provided of course that he is really dead." --La Bruyere From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 07:32:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 07:32:49 +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 HAA26822 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 07:32:45 +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 JAA13619 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:37:26 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981215093810.0093abe0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:38:10 +1300 To: Bridge-laws From: Michael Albert Subject: Re: Alerting In-Reply-To: <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk NZ regulations (not quite chapter and verse) [followed by some comments] The following calls must be alerted: Passes All passes which are forcing or promise values (not hitherto disclosed in the auction.) Doubles All penalty doubles of suits at 1 and 2 levels. All non-penalty doubles of suits at 3 and 4 levels. All doubles of 1n and 2n which do not suggest general values and a desire to penalize the opponents in nt. Suit bids All bids not promising length in the suit bid, or promising length in another suit (for opening bids at all levels, for subsequent auction only below 3n.) NT bids All NT bids (below 3) which do not constitute an invitation to play the hand in NT. Then there's a general (and IMHO very dangerous) remark that: "all calls which the opponents might be expected not to understand the meaning of should be alerted" Comments: By and large the rules seem to work fairly well despite the fact that they are very vague. This is probably due to a relative paucity of bridge lawyers on the scene here in NZ. Our local club has interpreted the general remark in the rules to imply that for example Precision 1M openings should be alerted on the grounds that opponents might not understand that they are limited. As I often play a different natural style to the local Acol (something more KS'ish) I should probably be alerting all my opening bids. On the other side of this particular coin I also have it from the absolutely highest authority within the NZCBA that the sequence: 1c p 1h x 3n is not alertable in either case: a) 3n is about a semi-balanced (except perhaps a singleton h) 20 count with 5 or 6 clubs (as played by 90+% of local players at all levels below the very top.) b) 3n is based on 6 or 7 club tricks and a side stop or two (as played by many expert pairs and hardly anyone else.) [It's a funny story actually -- we were vul vs nv at teams when this happened. Partner didn't ask and of course it was type (b) and one of those hands where 3n is cold their way and 4s is cold our way. I asked in pass out seat, but was told that it was probably (a) but might be (b) -- in any case there was no way I could really take further action unless it was surely (b) and even then there would be some danger. However, post mortem, the 3n bidder made it very clear to his partner that their agreement was (b). I was tempted to appeal, only to find that teammates had gone for 4000 on a different board, and had some similar results, so that even if the appeal swung 20 imps as it might have done, we would still lose 25-0 on VP's. I was however interested enough in the question to follow it up in a letter to the NZCBA, and was given the interpretation above.] --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue Dec 15 08:03:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 08:03:05 +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 IAA26961 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 08:02:31 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zpfCs-0005R1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 21:07:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:20:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Hesitation MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk N/Nil J5 W N E S Teams K7 1C P 1D Q84 4S P P 5C AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P AQ8 109654 P 6C P P K6 1075 D AP 2 --- Q J32 6C*-1 N AJ932 N/S -100 J9876 + Agreed unmistakable hesitation The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no values and is bidding on partners hand." I was asked for an opinion which I have given. However, I am now worrying about it, and I thought I would see what others thought of this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 08:55:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 08:55:40 +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 IAA27269 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 08:55:30 +1100 Received: from 207.205.156.134 (pool-207-205-158-49.lsan.grid.net [207.205.158.49]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA29326 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:00:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3675960C.4AB7@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:49:49 -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: Hesitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > N/Nil J5 W N E S > Teams K7 1C P 1D > Q84 4S P P 5C > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > K6 1075 D AP > 2 --- Q > J32 6C*-1 N > AJ932 N/S -100 > J9876 > > + Agreed unmistakable hesitation > > The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no values > and is bidding on partners hand." > > I was asked for an opinion which I have given. However, I am now > worrying about it, and I thought I would see what others thought of > this. This depends on your definition of LA. First, bridge lesson: West should have doubled, showing extra strength. But regardless, I'd bid 5S with the east hand all of the time. If a good partner tanked over 5C, it could be for one of two reasons: 1. He's 8-4 or 9-2-1-1, and might want to bid 5S or 2. He's got an extra values hand and wants to double. In either case, 5S is probably better than pass, so we go to step 2: Is pass a LA? It depends strongly on the level of competition and level of the player. Obviously, the director thinks pass is clear and right because he doesn't have any useful high cards, but good players don't think that way. In a good game, I think 5S is automatic. I'd rule this way even in the ACBL, although I wouldn't feel too bad if my committee mates outvoted me. In fact, I think I'd bid 5S even after the tank, and that's the strongest statement I can make. --JRM > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 08:57:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 08:57:26 +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 IAA27293 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 08:57:19 +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 RAA19413 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:02:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:02:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812142202.RAA20892@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:20:55 +0000) Subject: Re: Hesitation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > N/Nil J5 W N E S > Teams K7 1C P 1D > Q84 4S P P 5C > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > K6 1075 D AP > 2 --- Q > J32 6C*-1 N > AJ932 N/S -100 > J9876 > + Agreed unmistakable hesitation > The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no values > and is bidding on partners hand." The Director seems to have missed the issues. East's 5S bid is certainly a reasonable action, taking a sacrifice which looks like it will be -300 against -400. The Director's comment suggests that East should be given a PP for a flagrant violation, which is not correct. The test is whether pass is an LA and 5S is suggested over pass by the hesitation. West is showing extra values with the hesitation, since he would not unilaterally sacrifice in 5S when East might be waiting to double. This suggests to East that a 5S sacrifice will be inexpensive, and East's lack of defense suggests that it will not be a phantom. Thus, if pass is an LA, then the director's ruling is correct. I would say that pass is an LA, because there is the combined risk that the save ia a phantom (East's CQ scores, or West delined to double 5C because he wasn't sure of beating 5D), that it will go for 800, and that it will push opponents to a makable slam. I expect some Easts who chose not to bid an immediate 5S to pass because of this. I could be persuaded to allow 5S in a jurisdiction with a lenient definition of LA. Therefore, the 5S bid is disallowed, and 5C will always make five, so N-S get +400 and E-W get -400. -- 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 Dec 15 09:05:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:05:56 +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 JAA27348 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:05:50 +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 RAA22947 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:10:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA01828 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:10:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:10:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199812142210.RAA01828@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John R. Mayne" > In a good game, I think 5S is automatic. Opposite one of my preempts, you would be well-advised to pass. You should expect 6C to make and shouldn't be surprised if the opponents can make a grand. I'd expect -420 or -440 to be a good score. Maybe my preempts are not your idea of a good game, though. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 09:14:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:14:33 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA27383 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:14:24 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA04860; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:18:29 -0600 (CST) Received: from sbo-ca3-01.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.97) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma004814; Mon Dec 14 16:17:55 1998 Message-ID: <36758E12.33ED@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:15:46 -0800 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix20.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > N/Nil J5 W N E S > Teams K7 1C P 1D > Q84 4S P P 5C > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > K6 1075 D AP > 2 --- Q > J32 6C*-1 N > AJ932 N/S -100 > J9876 > > + Agreed unmistakable hesitation > > The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no values > and is bidding on partners hand." > > I was asked for an opinion which I have given. However, I am now > worrying about it, and I thought I would see what others thought of > this. > I'd allow the 5S call. East has little or no defense and cannot imagine that partner's pre-emptive bid could contain sufficient defensive values to beat the game. So East's problem is twofold: 1) Could a penalty in 5S doubled exceed the value of N/S's game? (highly unlikely), and 2) Will a 5S call push the opponents into a makeable slam? (possible, but maybe partner has enough defense to beat it). All told, bidding 5S seems clear, and confront the problem over 6C if it's presented. Of course the hesitation makes bidding more attractive, but if no logical alternatives to 5S exist, East is not constrained by the hesitation. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 09:46:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:46:54 +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 JAA27597 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:46:47 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lcirb.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.107]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA17593 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:51:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981214175110.006ae80c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:51:10 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Hesitation In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:20 PM 12/14/98 +0000, David S wrote: > > N/Nil J5 W N E S > Teams K7 1C P 1D > Q84 4S P P 5C > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > K6 1075 D AP > 2 --- Q > J32 6C*-1 N > AJ932 N/S -100 > J9876 > >+ Agreed unmistakable hesitation > > The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no values >and is bidding on partners hand." > > I was asked for an opinion which I have given. However, I am now >worrying about it, and I thought I would see what others thought of >this. I think the TD was correct to rule in favor of the NOS, but on appeal I would tend to reverse this call and let the table result stand, although I think it is close. The LA test is clear: East could choose to pass 5C. Indeed, it may very well be right to do so, despite the excellent trump support. The club Q is apt to be a wasted value, and there is a substantial risk of pushing the opps into a good slam which partner has jammed them out of. There is also a slight risk that the sac is a phantom, as partner's strength is apt to be ill-defined. But does the hesitation make 5S more attractive? I think not. What could partner be considering? A reasonable partner would be very unlikely to seriously consider 5S, whatever his hand, so the hesitation is at least as likely to be indiciative of defensive values as it is an attractive 5S sacrifice. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 09:51:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:51:26 +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 JAA27621 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:51:19 +1100 Received: from default (user-38lcirb.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.107]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA03333 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:56:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981214175540.006aed54@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:55:40 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Orlando Appeal #10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is an interesting and disturbing case for a number of reasons. Although I am not inclined to second-guess the committee's finding that West committed a L73F violation, none of the rest of their decision makes any sense to me. As to the judgement that North's mis-defense, rather than declarer's hesitation, was the proximal cause of the poor result, I think that the "Kaplan doctrine" has been mis-applied. They wrote that North had a continuing obligation to "play bridge", yet offer no evidence that he had switched to, say, tiddly-winks. Was North's defense the best line? Well, it was certainly unsuccessful. But it didn't come close to my understanding of "egregious" error. North formed a mental picture of the hand, and based his defense on that picture, even in the presence of possibly contradictory evidence. This may not have been optimal, but it was not an egregious error, IMO. Without beating a dead horse (too much), I agree with Marvin that the PP was, in any case, completely out of line. The Laws provide a perfectly adequate remedy if NS suffered damage, and even under the Kaplan doctrine, that adjustment would still apply if we judge that North shared responsibility for his poor result because of egregiously bad bridge. We can still award -100 to West for 2S dbled down 1, even if we (wrongly) decide to let NS keep their -470. Why give the PP? The committee report emphasized that they did not wish for the PP to reflect a judgement that West's hesitation was a deliberate effort to deceive. If in addition they decided that there was no damage, then no harm and no foul. The PP in such a case is simply another example of abuse of the AC power, and illustrates quite adequately why several of us oppose this broad reading of L91. But I am intrigued nonetheless by the 1/4 board penalty in BAM scoring. What exactly would the effect of such a penalty be? Nothing, unless the match had ended in a tie, and in that case it would determine the outcome. Did the AC realize that the scoring was BAM? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 10:02:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:02:56 +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 KAA27659 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:02:50 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199812142302.KAA27659@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:05:27 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA175936724; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:05:24 +0100 Subject: Re: Hesitation To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:05:24 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Dec 14, 1998 04:20:55 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 David Stevenson: > > > N/Nil J5 W N E S > Teams K7 1C P 1D > Q84 4S P P 5C > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > K6 1075 D AP > 2 --- Q > J32 6C*-1 N > AJ932 N/S -100 > J9876 > >+ Agreed unmistakable hesitation The CQ is a minus which makes pass look more attractive, the 11 card S fit suggests bidding 5S. I don't consider 6S to be a cheap save against 5C, and 5S might drive them into a making 6C. I consider both pass and 5S to be logical alternatives, depending strongly on the type of scoring and the preemptive bidding style. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 10:34:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:34:04 +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 KAA27749 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:33:57 +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 SAA21790 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:38:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:38:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812142338.SAA23941@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19981214175540.006aed54@pop.mindspring.com> (msd@mindspring.com) Subject: Re: Orlando Appeal #10 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis writes: > But I am intrigued nonetheless by the 1/4 board penalty in BAM scoring. > What exactly would the effect of such a penalty be? Nothing, unless the > match had ended in a tie, and in that case it would determine the outcome. > Did the AC realize that the scoring was BAM? The BAM is four sessions with a carry-over from qualifying to final. Thus a quarter-board penalty could affect the rankings after factoring; if the carryover factor was .4, for example, then the quarter-board would factor up as .1, and would cause a team with 40.25 to lead a team with 39 by exactly half a board. In any case, a quarter-board is exactly half the difference between adjacent scores, so it is a sensible penalty, just as a half-VP is in VP games. Is there an established procedure for handling average-pluses in BAM whenere is no factoring? The 60% board would otherwise be as good as a 75% board. -- 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 Dec 15 11:43:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:43:51 +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 LAA28070 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:43:44 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n34.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.52]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA01051 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:53:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981214194522.007f8560@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:45:22 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Orlando Appeal #10 In-Reply-To: <199812142338.SAA23941@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <3.0.1.32.19981214175540.006aed54@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:38 PM 12/14/98 -0500, David Grabiner wrote: >Is there an established procedure for handling average-pluses in BAM >whenere is no factoring? The 60% board would otherwise be as good as a >75% board. In Orlando the director assigned A+/A- on one board we played. That was .6/.4. This happened during the 2nd day of the Reisinger so there were already carry overs in play -- the .15 difference between .6 and .75 could easily have made a placement difference. (The table result was restored on appeal so this was moot. But, the 1/10 board procedural penalty that was given did make the difference between 20th and a tie for 18th-20th. So, a small fraction of a board can make a difference.) Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 11:47:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:47:10 +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 LAA28087 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:47:03 +1100 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:47:03 +1100 Received: (qmail 23171 invoked from network); 15 Dec 1998 00:49:13 -0000 Received: from pm02-079.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.79) by mailhub.iag.net with SMTP; 15 Dec 1998 00:49:13 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19981214194711.21df5150@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: Hesitation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:20 PM 12/14/98 +0000, you wrote: > > N/Nil J5 W N E S > Teams K7 1C P 1D > Q84 4S P P 5C > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > K6 1075 D AP > 2 --- Q > J32 6C*-1 N > AJ932 N/S -100 > J9876 > An interesting case comes up if 5Cl actually is going down here and 5sp being a phantom sac. Knowing pd have values is a 2 edged sword here, values means 5sp is probably fewer down then it was from start and that pd might have more defense tricks as well making it a bigger risk 5sp is a phantom sac. I have a feeling NOS can call the TD claiming damage regardless of what East is doing. pass 5cl and it was correct NS says you passed because of the UI that suggests defense to be the best spot. bid 5Sp and they say if that was correct you bidded 5sp because pd showed extra values with the long break in tempo. so regardless of what East do he will get the cops called on him. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 13:21:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA28526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:21:38 +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 NAA28521 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:21:32 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zpkBc-0000hn-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 02:26:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 02:12:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alerting References: <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> <3.0.1.32.19981215093810.0093abe0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981215093810.0093abe0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Albert wrote: >NZ regulations (not quite chapter and verse) [followed by some comments] Ta muchly. >Then there's a general (and IMHO very dangerous) remark that: > >"all calls which the opponents might be expected not to understand the >meaning of should be alerted" This is the big problem with alerting. If you really trust the players then some rule such as this is all that is necessary. However, in practical terms there are three types of player who fall foul of such a rule. [a] Bridge Lawyers. Shoot them! [b] Mediocre players, with irritating and silly views as to what is right. [c] Novices, who don't understand anyway. There is little you can do for [c], who will develop or fall by the wayside anyway. [a] are one of the biggest problems in the game today [see Director's Bulletin in February 1999]. Unfiortunately, it is [b] in vast numbers who make alerting rules complicated. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 13:21:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA28519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:21:27 +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 NAA28508 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:21:20 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zpkBO-0000hr-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 02:25:55 +0000 Message-ID: <7SXHlXAcEcd2EwO9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 01:53:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Simple question References: <36755E22.296EB98B@internet-zahav.net> In-Reply-To: <36755E22.296EB98B@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> So what's the catch? We are all waiting ...................... ... even Quango. He is slightly miffed over the score for birthday emails, which was: Quango 12 emails! Nanki Poo 15 emails!! David 3 emails :( He says "Mrrrrrrrooowwwwwwwwww" which means that in 1999 he expects more than Nanki Poo and me put together. :) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 13:21:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA28518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:21:27 +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 NAA28507 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:21:19 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zpkBO-0000hw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 02:25:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 02:05:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alerting References: <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Franois Chevalier wrote: >You can find alerting rules of French Federation at this address: >http://web.avo.fr/haffner/arbitre/reg_2ca6.htm#Ax06 > >I am sorry it's in french but it's long and my english is toobad, I cannot >do a translation... Merci beacoup. Je comprends francais meilleur [? = plus de bon] que je parles francais. >> I think that I already have England, Wales, Denmark, Australia, >> Russia, though it would not hurt to receive duplicates. Thanks for the Netherlands [sent to me], Belgium [promised], NZ [posted here], Caribbean [posted here], France [WWW address], Scotland [promised], England/Wales [ok, I wrote them!], Russia [sent some time ago]. I seem [harrumph] to have lost Denmark [Jesper? Jens?] and Australia [Roger? Reg? Laurie? Dennis? Grahame?]. ---------------------------------- Time for an advertisement. The best publication for Tournament Directors that I have seen is the Australian Directors' Bulletin, edited by Reg Busch. It has a wonderful section where experts give their opinion on three hands, called Appeals Committee. One of the experts [he said modestly] is ... I have just put the November Appeals Committee on my Lawspage, specifically at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/abda_ap1.htm Apart from giving you a taste of this excellent publication, this also contains details of how to subscribe. Not being Australian is no excuse! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 14:09:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:09:18 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA28763 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:09:12 +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 TAA22398; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:13:26 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812150313.TAA22398@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Hesitation Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:11:28 -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 DWS wrote: > N/Nil J5 W N E S > Teams K7 1C P 1D > Q84 4S P P 5C > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > K6 1075 D AP > 2 --- Q > J32 6C*-1 N > AJ932 N/S -100 > J9876 > > + Agreed unmistakable hesitation > > The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no values > and is bidding on partners hand." > > I was asked for an opinion which I have given. However, I am now > worrying about it, and I thought I would see what others thought of > this. > I have the definitive answer for this case, which I have written in the margin of the printout. Unfortunately, DWS filters out all my e-mail as worthless, so I cannot share it with him. (Joke) For you others, my opinion is that anyone who rationalizes the propriety of a bid opposite a hesitation, when passing is an LA, is a damn cheater who in addition has no regard for his/her reputation. Without the hint from West that 4S was not a weak preempt, East should not dream of bidding 5S, for fear of pushing the opponents to slam. If ever a 5S bid from East was right, it was on the previous round. North's 6C bid was bad, but that is not pertinent. Once 5S was bid, the damage done (no 5C contract) was irreparable, so even "irrational" bidding would not annull N/S's right to redress. Adjust the score to 5C making five, +400/-400. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 15:22:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA28935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:22:37 +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 PAA28930 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:22:32 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zpm4k-0000sy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:27:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 03:53:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Orlando Appeal #10 References: <3.0.1.32.19981214175540.006aed54@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981214175540.006aed54@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Why give the PP? The committee report emphasized that they did not wish for >the PP to reflect a judgement that West's hesitation was a deliberate >effort to deceive. If in addition they decided that there was no damage, >then no harm and no foul. The PP in such a case is simply another example >of abuse of the AC power, and illustrates quite adequately why several of >us oppose this broad reading of L91. It is never correct to attack the wrong target. A lack of faith in your ACs [whether their probity, bridge knowledge or whatever] is no reason to change the Laws. L91's "broad reading" causes us no trouble in Europe, so if there is a problem I suggest it is the wrong thing being targeted. >But I am intrigued nonetheless by the 1/4 board penalty in BAM scoring. >What exactly would the effect of such a penalty be? Nothing, unless the >match had ended in a tie, and in that case it would determine the outcome. >Did the AC realize that the scoring was BAM? In the EBU there is a "standard penalty". An AC or TD could give a double standard penalty if they wished, but the notion of a standard penalty is helpful. Naturally, the standard penalty is different dependent on the form of scoring. It seems to me more and more that you will not solve any AC problems by trying to make the Laws less flexible but by putting adequate controls on your TDs and ACs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 15:34:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA28967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:34:13 +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 PAA28962 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:34:03 +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 UAA01135; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:38:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812150438.UAA01135@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Hesitation Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:36:58 -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 Mike Dennis wrote: > > > > N/Nil J5 W N E S > > Teams K7 1C P 1D > > Q84 4S P P 5C > > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > > K6 1075 D AP > > 2 --- Q > > J32 6C*-1 N > > AJ932 N/S -100 > > J9876 > > > >+ Agreed unmistakable hesitation > > > > The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no values > >and is bidding on partners hand." > > > > I was asked for an opinion which I have given. However, I am now > >worrying about it, and I thought I would see what others thought of > >this. > > I think the TD was correct to rule in favor of the NOS, but on appeal I > would tend to reverse this call and let the table result stand, although I > think it is close. > > The LA test is clear: East could choose to pass 5C. Indeed, it may very > well be right to do so, despite the excellent trump support. The club Q is > apt to be a wasted value, and there is a substantial risk of pushing the > opps into a good slam which partner has jammed them out of. There is also a > slight risk that the sac is a phantom, as partner's strength is apt to be > ill-defined. > > But does the hesitation make 5S more attractive? I think not. What could > partner be considering? A reasonable partner would be very unlikely to > seriously consider 5S, whatever his hand, so the hesitation is at least as > likely to be indiciative of defensive values as it is an attractive 5S > sacrifice. > This sort of preemptive bid is generally of two types: (1) Weak, no defense, 8 playing tricks or (2) strong, 8+ tricks, if a strong jump overcall is not in the pair's repertoire. With (1) a player doesn't consider any action after preempting, leaving everything up to partner, hoping that the preempt has done its job. All textbooks say so. Moreover, he passes in tempo. With (2) a player may pass, bid again, or double on the next round. A slow pass (probably not deliberate) reveals a probable type (2) hand. If West had a type (1) hand, which an ethical East must assume, bidding 5S at this point would be ridiculous. As the textbooks say, it gives N/S another shot at a slam decision, while passing ends it all. Since 4S was surely not going to end the auction, East ought to have bid 5S on the previous round. Why wait? To see West's reaction when South bids? Those of us who use strong jump overcalls don't have these problems. Others might do better to double with a hand like West's, rather than get caught in a pickle after preempting. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 15:45:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA28986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:45:03 +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 PAA28981 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:44:56 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zpmQR-0001n3-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:49:36 +0000 Message-ID: <3z68w+Atoed2EwsG@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:48:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Hesitation In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > N/Nil J5 W N E S > Teams K7 1C P 1D > Q84 4S P P 5C > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > K6 1075 D AP > 2 --- Q > J32 6C*-1 N > AJ932 N/S -100 > J9876 > >+ Agreed unmistakable hesitation > > The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no values >and is bidding on partners hand." > > I was asked for an opinion which I have given. However, I am now >worrying about it, and I thought I would see what others thought of >this. > Teams: Result stands. I've got 4 spades and a stiff more than I might have. Pass is not a LA, 5S is standard insurance as TNT is about 20-21, and only likely to be wrong if both contracts fail by one trick. Tough if they bid a making 6C, perhaps pard will bid 6S. But at Pairs: A lot closer. Probably 5C tick and advise an appeal. 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 Dec 15 17:33:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:33:37 +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 RAA29139 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:33:32 +1100 Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id RAA03867; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:37:48 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma003801; Tue, 15 Dec 98 17:37:26 +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 RAA01019 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:37:26 +1100 Received: from newmanpm by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA22388; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:46:54 +1100 Message-Id: <4.1.19981215172245.0098a5e0@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:36:51 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Fumble and appeal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks everyone for your help on my last question. Another one. The following occurred: Declarer (sitting E) has a trump suit (Spades)of: QT754 (dummy) and A62 (hand) This suit has to played for 1 loser. (teams) Declarer led SA (LHO S3, RHO S8) and then the S2 LHO fumbled then played S9. Declarer now rose with the SQ and lost to the doubleton SK. This led to the contract going 1 down. The director was called. This fumble was agreed by both sides - the person fumbling stated that it was because the cards were sticky. Declarer stated that although low to the ST was percentage (they had entries back to hand) they played for SK onside after the fumble. The director ruled under 73F2 contract just making. The fumbling side now claim that declarer has just taken a double shot which should not be allowed. [ie: going anti-percentage in trumps then calling the director when this failed] What do you rule? Would it make any difference to you if S (the fumbler) said as they played a card - "sorry the cards are stuck together" TIA -- Peter Newman bridge is not a game - it is a way of life From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 17:48:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:48:15 +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 RAA29170 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:48:09 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-18.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.18]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA55889638 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 01:55:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3676072C.4795EFB1@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:52:29 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For a large number of players, 4S in this auction is a preemptive action. It is an action which might be made [a] with the expectation of making irrespective of the holdings of the other players [b] with the expectation of making with a little help from partner and/or the opponents or [c] going down less than the opponents will make. Such an action is typically used to communicate that they have said their piece. In this auction when there is no irregularity a large percentage of easts will pass because [a] 5C may go down [partner could have several clubs and some defense] [b] 5S may push them into a makable slam. There would likely be a larger [?] percentage that would bid 5S and later even 6S because opponents do go wrong. From east's point of view, the partnership normally could make from 8 tricks if west were minimum to 11 tricks when a good hand is held. With this west as a partner, anyone who wants to apply the LOTT or other such method has to bid 5S immediately to avoid being restricted by UI that might be coming. Of course, such a call would then provide west with a host of losing options when they hold the hand they actually hold. However, in the case presented, the extraneous information removes a tremendous amount of risk and suggests that west still has more they want to say. The hesitation suggests that east take whatever action his hand dictates- practically to the tune of a forcing pass. I do not think that west should get two bids for his pass so therefore, he has made his bed [he might have doubled and bid] and east must lie in it. The 5S call was made with UI and has damaged NS. The score should be adjusted to 5C making. David Stevenson wrote: > > N/Nil J5 W N E S > Teams K7 1C P 1D > Q84 4S P P 5C > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > K6 1075 D AP > 2 --- Q > J32 6C*-1 N > AJ932 N/S -100 > J9876 > > + Agreed unmistakable hesitation > > The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no values > and is bidding on partners hand." > > I was asked for an opinion which I have given. However, I am now > worrying about it, and I thought I would see what others thought of > this. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 18:41:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:41:53 +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 SAA29258 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:41:47 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.0 201-221-107) with ESMTP id <19981215074630.DMTX1741.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:46:30 -0800 Message-ID: <36761498.FE408161@home.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:49:44 -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: Hesitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No way would I consider pass an LA. My 4 cd support almost assures our lack of a spade-trick on defense. I consider anyone passing - *at IMPs* - doesn't understand IMP-strategy (frankly, I might have bid 5S the previous round!). At intermediate or lower level I might accept pass as an LA. Btw, someone should teach South to "support with support", especially if he considers voluntarily going to 5C later on opposite what is possibly a balanced minimum! David Stevenson wrote: > > N/Nil J5 W N E S > Teams K7 1C P 1D > Q84 4S P P 5C > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > K6 1075 D AP > 2 --- Q > J32 6C*-1 N > AJ932 N/S -100 > J9876 > > + Agreed unmistakable hesitation > > The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no values > and is bidding on partners hand." > > I was asked for an opinion which I have given. However, I am now > worrying about it, and I thought I would see what others thought of > this. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 20:10:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA29403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 20:10:16 +1100 Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA29398 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 20:10:10 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.229] by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zpqZa-0002tD-00; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:15:19 +0000 Message-ID: <199812150913300690.30D945AB@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199812150313.TAA22398@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> References: <199812150313.TAA22398@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:13:30 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 14/12/98, at 19:11, Marvin L. French wrote: >DWS wrote: > > >> N/Nil J5 W N E S >> Teams K7 1C P 1D > >> Q84 4S P P 5C >> AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P >> AQ8 109654 P 6C P P >> K6 1075 D AP >> 2 --- Q >> J32 6C*-1 N >> AJ932 N/S -100 >> J9876 >> >> + Agreed unmistakable hesitation >> >> The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no >values >> and is bidding on partners hand." I don't quite understand this. Of course East is bidding on partner's hand= - East would scarcely bid 5S on the strength of his own hand! If what is= meant is that "East is bidding on partner's hesitation", then the Director= should have said so. >For you others, my opinion is that anyone who rationalizes the >propriety of a bid opposite a hesitation, when passing is an LA, is >a damn cheater who in addition has no regard for his/her >reputation. Without the hint from West that 4S was not a weak >preempt, East should not dream of bidding 5S, for fear of pushing >the opponents to slam. If ever a 5S bid from East was right, it was >on the previous round. This makes almost no sense. East did not know that South was going to bid= 5C, and to bid 5S before that had happened would be ridiculous. As to the= question of whether pass is an LA for East in the actual auction, West's= tempo is obviously based on a hand that would double 5C, which does not= suggest very much to East, but does to a large extent remove the risk of= pushing the opponents into a slam that they can make. I would cancel the= 5S call, and EW would receive minus 400. >North's 6C bid was bad, but that is not pertinent. Once 5S was bid, >the damage done (no 5C contract) was irreparable, so even >"irrational" bidding would not annull N/S's right to redress. Nonsense. 6C is a quite awful bid, and North-South should not escape the= consequences of it. I have no idea on what basis Marvin wishes to= supersede the Kaplan doctrine of "wild and gambling action", but this is= the clearest case I have ever seen. Indeed, if I had reason to suspect= that North was actually taking a double shot, I might stick him with a= worse outcome than the minus 50 that he is going to keep for his= "bidding". Everybody thus gets a rotten board, which is exactly what= everybody deserves. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 21:51:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 21:51:40 +1100 Received: from mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de (mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA29593 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 21:51:29 +1100 Received: from ralf.brain.uni-freiburg.de (sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de) [132.230.63.114] by mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #3) id 0zps7d-00012g-00; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:54:34 +0100 Message-ID: <36763FE0.7FD10FB4@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:54:33 +0100 From: Ralf Teichmann Reply-To: teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson , bridge laws Subject: Re: Hesitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > N/Nil J5 W N E S > Teams K7 1C P 1D > Q84 4S P P 5C > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > K6 1075 D AP > 2 --- Q > J32 6C*-1 N > AJ932 N/S -100 > J9876 > > + Agreed unmistakable hesitation > > The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no values > and is bidding on partners hand." > > East's 5S bid seems to be o.k. with this hand (4-card support, no defense and singleton in C) WITHOUT west's hesitation. Given the hesitation east must pass because bidding is suggested by UI. So far I agree with the Director. However, the 6C bid by N smells like double shot. Without any outside ace and no spade control I consider this bid "wild and gambling". My ruling: Score N/S: -100 , the table result Score E/W: +400 , as adjusted fine N/S for double shooting - 20% of a top Ralf From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 22:28:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA29690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:28:56 +1100 Received: from mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de (mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA29685 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:28:44 +1100 Received: from ralf.brain.uni-freiburg.de (sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de) [132.230.63.114] by mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #3) id 0zpsiz-0001Zo-00; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:33:09 +0100 Message-ID: <367648F1.2B587C38@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:33:11 +0100 From: Ralf Teichmann Reply-To: teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Newman , bridge laws Subject: Re: Fumble and appeal References: <4.1.19981215172245.0098a5e0@sercit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: > Thanks everyone for your help on my last question. Another one. The > following occurred: > > Declarer (sitting E) has a trump suit (Spades)of: > QT754 (dummy) > and > A62 (hand) > This suit has to played for 1 loser. (teams) > > Declarer led SA (LHO S3, RHO S8) > and then the S2 > LHO fumbled then played S9. Declarer now rose with the SQ and lost to the > doubleton SK. This led to the contract going 1 down. > The director was called. > > This fumble was agreed by both sides - the person fumbling stated that it > was because the cards were sticky. Declarer stated that although low to the > ST was percentage (they had entries back to hand) they played for SK onside > after the fumble. > > The director ruled under 73F2 contract just making. > The fumbling side now claim that declarer has just taken a double shot > which should not be allowed. [ie: going anti-percentage in trumps then > calling the director when this failed] > > What do you rule? I like the director's ruling. This situation is not a double shot. After the fumble it is no longer a anti percentage decision to play for the king onside. Without the king LHO has nothing to think and fumble about. > > > Would it make any difference to you if S (the fumbler) said as they played > a card - "sorry the cards are stuck together" > Yes. Now south explains his fumbling as a mechanical problem rather than anything about bridge. This leaves percentages as they were. But be careful. Having always 'mechanical' problems with the king onside may change my mind. Ralf From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 15 22:59:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA29772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:59:09 +1100 Received: from gatekeeper2.agro.nl (gatekeeper2.agro.nl [145.12.10.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA29766 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:58:34 +1100 Received: from mgate.nic.agro.nl (agro01.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.12]) by gatekeeper2.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/5Jun1998) with ESMTP id NAA25179 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:03:10 +0100 (MET) Received: from gate.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) id <01J5D8WOO1XS0008R3@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:02:51 +0100 Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:02:32 +0100 Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:02:32 +0100 From: KOOYMAN Subject: TD-bulletins To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <2132021315121998/A58475/EXPERT/11CC7B421D00*@MHS> Autoforwarded: false MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Importance: normal Priority: normal Sensitivity: Company-Confidential UA-content-id: 11CC7B421D00 X400-MTS-identifier: [;2132021315121998/A58475/EXPERT] Hop-count: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Despite the recommendation given by David, I am very interested in the Australian bulletin for TD's as well as in others, as long as there is a chance to understand the language. This restricts the domain to western-europe and english or similar languages. May be some of them are available on Internet? If not, is it possible to organize a subscription? I'll pay Grenside for 5 years when I see him next year (just for the Ausrtalian one). Other arrangements can be made with other magazines. ton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 02:02:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 02:02:44 +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 CAA02682 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 02:02:34 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA01856 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:06:47 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.57) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma001840; Tue Dec 15 09:06:22 1998 Received: by har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE2812.3E26B8C0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:04:03 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE2812.3E26B8C0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Hesitation Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:01:00 -0500 Encoding: 52 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 1. Was there hesitation? YES, AGREED. 2. Could that hesitation have suggested that bidding on was mopre likely to be successful than passing? YES 3. Wss pass a logical alternative? YES Roll back to 5C making. Probably not abusive enough to justify a PPf. Masy be clear enough for a PPw depending on the class of players involved. The 4S preemption makes it most unlikely that hesitator was considering a double rather than bidding on. While I would bid on absent the UI I believe a significant number of players would **at least seriously consider** passing which makes it an LA. Perhaps at an expert level using EBL rather than ACBL standards for LAs though you might have some case for result stands. (Perhaps that is the reason for the thread) ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 11:20 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Hesitation N/Nil J5 W N E S Teams K7 1C P 1D Q84 4S P P 5C AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P AQ8 109654 P 6C P P K6 1075 D AP 2 --- Q J32 6C*-1 N AJ932 N/S -100 J9876 + Agreed unmistakable hesitation The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no values and is bidding on partners hand." I was asked for an opinion which I have given. However, I am now worrying about it, and I thought I would see what others thought of this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 03:34:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 03:34:31 +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 DAA02832 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 03:34:23 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n34.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.52]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA12579 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:44:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981215113558.007ffd60@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:35:58 -0500 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: RE: Hesitation In-Reply-To: <01BE2812.3E26B8C0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Suppose east had passed 5C. Follow the same line of questioning. At 10:01 AM 12/15/98 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: >1. Was there hesitation? YES, AGREED. Yes. >2. Could that hesitation have suggested that bidding on was mopre likely to >be successful than passing? YES Could that hesitation have suggested that passing was more likely to be successful than bidding? YES >3. Was pass a logical alternative? YES Was bidding a logical alternative? YES >Roll back to 5C making. Probably not abusive enough to justify a PPf. May >be clear enough for a PPw depending on the class of players involved. >The 4S preemption makes it most unlikely that hesitator was considering a >double rather than bidding on. It seems that is what this west was considering. Or rather, with this west hand a significant number of players would consider doubling. In fact, I think the hesitation suggests more defense than should be expected. I don't think a procedural penalty is indicated. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 04:15:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 04:15:15 +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 EAA02918 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 04:15:09 +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 MAA09101 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:19:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA02341 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:19:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:19:55 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199812151719.MAA02341@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Ralf Teichmann > fine N/S for double shooting - 20% of a top Pardon me, but I don't understand how this can be right. Does your SO have a regulation against "double-shotting?" If not, what is the infraction for which you propose to fine NS? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 04:36:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 04:36:05 +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 EAA02982 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 04:35:59 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092n9b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.155]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA01268; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:40:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812151740.JAA01268@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren" Subject: Re: Hesitation Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:38:22 -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 Robert Nordgre ecrit: > > > > N/Nil J5 W N E S > > Teams K7 1C P 1D > > Q84 4S P P 5C > > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > > K6 1075 D AP > > 2 --- Q > > J32 6C*-1 N > > AJ932 N/S -100 > > J9876 > > > > > > An interesting case comes up if 5Cl actually is going down here and 5sp > being a phantom sac. > > Knowing pd have values is a 2 edged sword here, values means 5sp is > probably fewer down then it was from start and that pd might have more > defense tricks as well making it a bigger risk 5sp is a phantom sac. > > I have a feeling NOS can call the TD claiming damage regardless of what > East is doing. > > pass 5cl and it was correct NS says you passed because of the UI that > suggests defense to be the best spot. > > bid 5Sp and they say if that was correct you bidded 5sp because pd showed > extra values with the long break in tempo. > > so regardless of what East do he will get the cops called on him. I do not remember ever seeing or hearing of a case where a player is penalized for passing opposite a slow tempo pass. Perhaps someone will refresh my memory, or plumb his, to contradict me. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Going to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 04:37:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 04:37:24 +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 EAA02998 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 04:37:17 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA21258 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:40:00 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199812151740.LAA21258@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Orlando Appeal #10 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:40:00 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Without beating a dead horse (too much), I agree with Marvin that the PP > was, in any case, completely out of line. The Laws provide a perfectly So do I. > adequate remedy if NS suffered damage, and even under the Kaplan doctrine, > that adjustment would still apply if we judge that North shared > responsibility for his poor result because of egregiously bad bridge. We > can still award -100 to West for 2S dbled down 1, even if we (wrongly) > decide to let NS keep their -470. > > Why give the PP? The committee report emphasized that they did not wish for > the PP to reflect a judgement that West's hesitation was a deliberate > effort to deceive. If in addition they decided that there was no damage, > then no harm and no foul. The PP in such a case is simply another example > of abuse of the AC power, and illustrates quite adequately why several of > us oppose this broad reading of L91. I agree with DWS here--the broad reading isn't the problem. I support the broad reading, but for the reasons I have stated before. Those reasons include the use of a PP to discourage proceedural violations that the player should have known better than commit. This AC has explicitly violated that requirement--they gave a PP while simultaneously saying that they didn't think the person who got the PP really did anything wrong. I do not think that going to the 'narrow reading' would make any difference here. _This_ AC would simply have gone ahead and awarded a PP anyway. Wait!, you say, if we go to the narrow reading we will explicitly instruct our AC's _not_ to make such rulings. Fine, I say, if we're going to explicitly instruct our AC's regarding PP's, we could just as easily explain to them that they are only to be assigned in cases where they judge that the pair clearly should have known better than to do what they did. I suspect that if we forbade this AC to give a PP, they would have just substituted an artificial score instead, and Marv could have _that_ to be upset about. :):):) > Mike Dennis > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 05:29:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 05:29:03 +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 FAA03092 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 05:28:58 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092n9b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.155]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA07964; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:33:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812151833.KAA07964@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: Hesitation Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:30:41 -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 David Burn wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: >> If ever a 5S bid from East was right, it was >> on the previous round. > > This makes almost no sense. East did not know that South was going to bid 5C, and to bid 5S before that had happened would be ridiculous. Depends on the habits of the partnerhip, I suppose. If West might have an even stronger hand than he did, then a pass to 4S would be reasonable. With some of my partners I might bid 6S! Anyone who thinks 4S will end the auction is a dreamer, and anyone who would pass a double of 5C by West, holding zero defense and four spades, is also a dreamer. > > >North's 6C bid was bad, but that is not pertinent. Once 5S was bid, > >the damage done (no 5C contract) was irreparable, so even > >"irrational" bidding would not annull N/S's right to redress. > > Nonsense. 6C is a quite awful bid, and North-South should not escape the consequences of it. I have no idea on what basis Marvin wishes to supersede the Kaplan doctrine of "wild and gambling action", but this is the clearest case I have ever seen. Indeed, if I had reason to suspect that North was actually taking a double shot, I might stick him with a worse outcome than the minus 50 that he is going to keep for his "bidding". Everybody thus gets a rotten board, which is exactly what everybody deserves. > I believe my statement is in accord with Kaplan's doctrine, when properly applied. I have Kaplan's words on this matter somewhere, but can't locate them right now. Unfortunately he has contradicted himself on this point, if I remember rightly. Ton Kooijman will do (e-mail to BLML 22 July 1998): "If damage occurs because a player chooses to deviate from normal bridge *and normal bridge would have given him a good score* [emphasis mine] in case of an infraction by an opponent, we do not redress the score." The converse is that if normal bridge would not have have given him a good score, he gets redress. Otherwise the words I emphasized in Ton's statement would not have been necessary. Since "good score" is not a valid criterion, full redress possibly yielding a bad score, I prefer to say that if the damage is irreparable, any further damage is consequent rather than subsequent, so the NOs get redress no matter what they do. "Nonsense"? I don't get no respect! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Going to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 06:11:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 06:11:04 +1100 Received: from f10.hotmail.com (f10.hotmail.com [207.82.250.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA03187 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 06:10:56 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by f10.hotmail.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA27770 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:15:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mdfarebr@hotmail.com) Message-Id: <199812151915.LAA27770@f10.hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.128.227 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:15:12 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.128.227] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: On ACBL rulings (at least in clubs) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:15:12 PST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk With the not-so-recent discussion about "more power to TD's and AC's" coming back again, and because I feel there is something terribly wrong with the following situation, and because I think this will help our non-NA friends understand just what the ACBL is dealing with, I present the following. In the ACBL house organ (the Bulletin), there is an article every month on "Ruling the Game", by Brian Morin (who answers ruling questions) which prints cases of "general interest". I find this column to be always well-thought-out and well-explained, and am not laying any fault on Mr. Morin whatsoever. However, the three cases in the December 1998 column consist of: - A club director who ruled using Insufficient Bid rules when in fact it was a BOOT. - A club director who told the appellant that e had waived eir rights by pointing out the irregularity (this time a real IB) before calling director, then ruled the change from 2C to 3NT to be made without penalty (and when partner of the IB bid the cold 6C refused to do anything). - A person asking whether a director's ruling (on explanation of opening leads) in eir favour was correct, because e didn't understand why the director adjusted the score (the ruling was considered correct, and seems correct to me). Ok, the third one was actually non-trivial, but I bring it up both to be complete and because any competent director should be able and willing to explain eir decisions. Now I know that our tournament directors are trained more fully and judged more carefully than our club directors, and that the number of idiotic rulings goes down the higher up the tournament trail you go. But it seems to be the opinion of the ACBL that showing that their directors can't, won't or just don't RTFLB is of "general interest". Needless to say, this will not be the only thing I write on this subject (I wonder if they'll print it?) Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 06:27:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 06:27:22 +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 GAA03216 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 06:27:17 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.0 201-221-107) with ESMTP id <19981215193202.HATW1741.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:32:02 -0800 Message-ID: <3676B9F3.3CF9B699@home.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:35:15 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Hesitation References: <01BE2812.3E26B8C0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > The 4S preemption makes it most unlikely that hesitator was considering a > double rather than bidding on. This I frankly do not understand at all. Quite apart from the fact that this West clearly was considering just that (doubling rather than bidding-on), a preemptor typically *does not* bid-on unilaterally. Sometimes like here, where the "preempt" can encompass different strengths in the middle of opponents' forcing auction, the 4S bidder has undisclosed defense and can request pard's input by doubling. As a matter of fact it is interesting to judge the hypothetical case of West making a "slow" double instead. I suspect that those of you who considered Pass an LA by East would now say the hesitation suggests not leaving the double in, thus again adjust back to 5C. This "de facto" makes the hesitation an infraction, since East is not allowed to make the sensible bid (most of you seem to agree 5S is the obvious bid absent UI) whatever West bids after the hesitation. Consistent with my opinion over the slow pass by West, I still do not consider a pass by East an LA, and would thus allow 5S. Connecting this with other threads re Orlando appeals, just look at those ACs' judgements of what did *not* constitute LAs, and you will see an enormous gap in definitions. By most Orlando AC standards, a Pass by East would not even be *close* to an LA in our case (assuming they apply consistent standards!). (Ref Orlando appeals nos. 7, 13, 14 and 15) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 06:28:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 06:28:04 +1100 Received: from mpcmr1001.ac.com (MPCMR1001.ac.com [170.252.160.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA03230 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 06:27:55 +1100 Received: from emehm1101.ac.com (EMEHM1101.ac.com [10.2.102.45]) by mpcmr1001.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA29331 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:30:53 -0600 (CST) Received: by emehm1101.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id 862566DB.006B2E28 ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:30:41 -0600 X-Lotus-FromDomain: AC_TELEKOM@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING From: "Christian Farwig" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <862566DB.006B2C4C.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 20:06:01 +0100 Subject: RE: Hesitation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> 1. Was there hesitation? YES, AGREED. 2. Could that hesitation have suggested that bidding on was mopre likely to be successful than passing? YES 3. Was pass a logical alternative? YES Roll back to 5C making. Probably not abusive enough to justify a PPf. Masy be clear enough for a PPw depending on the class of players involved. << You are taking the easy route in a difficult case and reach a harsh conclusion without considering neither east's nor north's bids. North 6C was a clear double-shot and he does not deserve better score than he actually got. East 5S was the bid suggested by the hesitation, but would be the choice of the majority of experts. I have sympathy with David Burn's suggestion of a split-score, but depending on the level of competion I might judge for score stands, since for a strong player, 5S is a clear-cut action. Just my 2c worth, Christian Farwig n n n n From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 06:45:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 06:45:44 +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 GAA03257 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 06:45:37 +1100 Received: from 207.205.159.5 (pool-207-205-157-20.lsan.grid.net [207.205.157.20]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA11261 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:50:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3676C908.38E0@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:39:40 -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: Hesitation References: <199812150313.TAA22398@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <199812150913300690.30D945AB@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [hand reprinted below] David Burn wrote: DB> > Nonsense. 6C is a quite awful bid, and North-South should not DBescape the consequences of it. I have no idea on what basis Marvin DBwishes to supersede the Kaplan doctrine of "wild and gambling action", DBbut this is the clearest case I have ever seen. Indeed, if I had DBreason to suspect that North was actually taking a double shot, I DBmight stick him with a worse outcome than the minus 50 that he is DBgoing to keep for his "bidding". Everybody thus gets a rotten board, DBwhich is exactly what everybody deserves. Wow! Quite awful? I realize that DB is not alone in excoriating the 6C bid, but I would bid 6C without breathing hard; it seems like the absolutely obvious bid. Consider: I've opened 1C and passed throughout, and partner is asking me to choose between double and 6C. I have two more clubs than partner has a right to expect, and partner is making a slam try on very poor trumps. I have a golden fitting diamond card and no wasted values in spades, and we're in a forcing situation. Partner would automatically double 5S with a doubleton, and would also double on speculative-type hands with a stiff. Partner is begging me to bid 6C with a suitable hand, and what could be more suitable than this? I can hardly have a better hand on this auction. You might disagree with my bridge action here (although I submit that The Bridge World's MSC panel would bring forth a strong majority for 6C), but characterizing it as a "wild and gambling action" is far from the mark. Even opposite partner's dog of a hand, 6C has some play. --JRM David Burn wrote: > > On 14/12/98, at 19:11, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >DWS wrote: > > > > > >> N/Nil J5 W N E S > >> Teams K7 1C P 1D > > > >> Q84 4S P P 5C > >> AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > >> AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > >> K6 1075 D AP > >> 2 --- Q > >> J32 6C*-1 N > >> AJ932 N/S -100 > >> J9876 > >> > >> + Agreed unmistakable hesitation > >> > >> The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no > >values > >> and is bidding on partners hand." [snip] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 07:44:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 07:44:11 +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 HAA03339 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 07:43:51 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h58.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id XAA26548; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 23:48:23 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <3677745C.7A1E@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:50:36 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dburn@btinternet.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Simple question References: <199812140043000230.29DF427D@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="SIMPLE.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="SIMPLE.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David Burn wrote: "South opens 1NT, West bids 2C (alerted) and North bids 3NT. All pass, the opening lead is made, and the play progresses. At trick six, South asks East what 2C meant. Is this a legal question?" Let's review the Laws: "LAW 20 - REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS F. Explanation of Calls 2. During the Play Period After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of opposing auction. At his or dummy's turn to play, the declarer may request an explanation of a defender's call or card play conventions. LAW 41 - COMMENCEMENT OF PLAY B. Review of Auction and Questions ...The defenders (subject to Law 16) and the declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at his own turn to play." As it follows from these extracts - there are two limitations for requesting the explanations during the play: - proper moment - when turn to play - proper form of request - one should remember opponent's calls and ask about concrete call (because there are no right for review the auction during card-play) It provides that in South's or North's turn to play South (declarer) may ask about meaning of concrete call/bid such as 2Clubs. Moreover, it seems to be the only proper form of question. Might it be that David had tested us?:) Because I (grey-minded, you know) see no serious problem... Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 07:47:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 07:47:18 +1100 Received: from cms.peel.edu.on.ca ([207.81.165.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA03356 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 07:47:13 +1100 Received: from SUURTAMM ([10.18.128.102]) by cms.peel.edu.on.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA32741 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:51:16 -0500 Message-ID: <3676F569.14E2@cms.peel.edu.on.ca> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:48:57 -0800 From: Martin Hunter Reply-To: hunterm@cms.peel.edu.on.ca Organization: Peel Board of Education Meadowvale S.S X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: laws quiz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The quiz on the laws that was being inquired about can be found at http://www.cbf.ca/TheLawsQuiz.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 08:29:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:29:38 +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 IAA03403 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:29:32 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA11962; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:33:43 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.57) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma011745; Tue Dec 15 15:32:54 1998 Received: by har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE2848.3DDE7CA0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:30:35 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE2848.3DDE7CA0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Michael Farebrother'" Subject: RE: On ACBL rulings (at least in clubs) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:18:46 -0500 Encoding: 67 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe you mean Brian MorAn, a fine director and effective at keeping a tournament running well as well as at rulings. I second your concern. Most of the paying customers play most of their sessions in the clubs, friends in Memphis. When can we expect some help at making the rulings they get there closer to the ones that someone of Brian's calibre would give? More continuing education for club level directors...and while you at it let's upgrade the skills of the ones we meets as sectionals...PLEASE. The cost, probably one salary, of publishing a monthly (or even fortnightly) bulletin for ACBL directors online, and providing an email address for ruling questions could be recouped from table fees if we can stem the decline in play. Bad rulings send people home mad, and produce 3 1/2 table Howells. :-)) ---------- From: Michael Farebrother[SMTP:mdfarebr@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 2:15 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: On ACBL rulings (at least in clubs) With the not-so-recent discussion about "more power to TD's and AC's" coming back again, and because I feel there is something terribly wrong with the following situation, and because I think this will help our non-NA friends understand just what the ACBL is dealing with, I present the following. In the ACBL house organ (the Bulletin), there is an article every month on "Ruling the Game", by Brian Morin (who answers ruling questions) which prints cases of "general interest". I find this column to be always well-thought-out and well-explained, and am not laying any fault on Mr. Morin whatsoever. However, the three cases in the December 1998 column consist of: - A club director who ruled using Insufficient Bid rules when in fact it was a BOOT. - A club director who told the appellant that e had waived eir rights by pointing out the irregularity (this time a real IB) before calling director, then ruled the change from 2C to 3NT to be made without penalty (and when partner of the IB bid the cold 6C refused to do anything). - A person asking whether a director's ruling (on explanation of opening leads) in eir favour was correct, because e didn't understand why the director adjusted the score (the ruling was considered correct, and seems correct to me). Ok, the third one was actually non-trivial, but I bring it up both to be complete and because any competent director should be able and willing to explain eir decisions. Now I know that our tournament directors are trained more fully and judged more carefully than our club directors, and that the number of idiotic rulings goes down the higher up the tournament trail you go. But it seems to be the opinion of the ACBL that showing that their directors can't, won't or just don't RTFLB is of "general interest". Needless to say, this will not be the only thing I write on this subject (I wonder if they'll print it?) Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 08:58:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:58:36 +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 IAA03447 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:58:30 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092n9b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.155]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA02479; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:02:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812152202.OAA02479@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: Simple question Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:01:04 -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=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: > It provides that in South's or North's turn to play South (declarer) > may ask about meaning of concrete call/bid such as 2Clubs. Moreover, > it seems to be the only proper form of question. The same goes when asking for an explanation of an opponent's play. Several rounds after a three of diamonds had been discarded, I woke up to the fact that it probably had a conventional meaning. Not seeing a card in view, I asked if the diamond discard had a special meaning. The young lady's reply tickled me: "If it was an odd card, it showed encouragement, and if it was an even card it was discouraging, the size showing suit preference." Very good! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Going to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 09:33:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:33:49 +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 JAA03577 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:33:43 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h58.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id BAA05567; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 01:37:03 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36778DD5.3164@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 02:39:17 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) IMO that for right ruling we haven't enough information and I'd like to ask these players: 1. What is WE-partnership's agreement/habbit in similar jump-bid after partner;s pass? I prefer get to know it without gessing 2. What is NS-partnership's agreement/habbit when South passed over 5Spades? Is it kind of forcing Pass with Spade shortness (agreement of quite common usage)? As DWS wrote nothing about it - I will guess (but do not like such guessing in ruling). In such conditions I rather agree with position that Pass was LA (and I like Marvin's argument that such Pass - after slow partner's Pass - hardly may be penalized:) And now - hurra! For the first time I do not agree with David Burn:) Even with such poor South's hand contract 6 Clubs would be made if K of Diamonds had been placed at East hand - one could expect it after West's preempt. I agree that without Q of Diamonds (for example - with Q of Hearts instead) North's bid 6 Clubs would be too gambling. But with Q of Diamonds (figure fit in partner's suit), K of Hearts (2-nd round stopper) and no points in Spades (against indicated - by forcing Pass - void) - it is normal 50% bridge decision. My opinion that there is no double-shot. So my AC-ruling is: - for EW -400 (5 Clubs. just made), L12C2 - for NS +150 (5 Clubs in 50%, 6 Clubs in 50%), L12C3. In case NS would double 5 Spades - I would rule 5 Clubes for both sides. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 11:00:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:00:57 +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 KAA03715 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:52:35 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zq4KS-0001Ej-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 23:56:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 23:50:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Hesitation References: <01BE2812.3E26B8C0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE2812.3E26B8C0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >The 4S preemption makes it most unlikely that hesitator was considering a >double rather than bidding on. While I would bid on absent the UI I believe >a significant number of players would **at least seriously consider** >passing which makes it an LA. Perhaps at an expert level using EBL rather >than ACBL standards for LAs though you might have some case for result >stands. (Perhaps that is the reason for the thread) The reason for the thread was as I said in the original post: > I was asked for an opinion which I have given. However, I am now >worrying about it, and I thought I would see what others thought of >this. As far as the jurisdiction, it is one where a logical alternative is one that one person in four of the players peers would find playing a similar style and system. It is not ACBL [a number of players would seriously consider] the Netherlands [I *think* similar to ACBL] Denmark [a logical alternative is a logical alternative ] nor England/Wales [three in ten would find etc]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 11:07:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:07:53 +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 LAA03746 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:07:47 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092n9b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.155]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA18184; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:11:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812160011.QAA18184@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Craig Senior" , , "'Michael Farebrother'" Subject: Re: On ACBL rulings (at least in clubs) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:11:02 -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: > When can we expect some help at > making the rulings they get there closer to the ones that someone of > Brian's calibre would give? More continuing education for club level > directors...and while you at it let's upgrade the skills of the ones we > meets as sectionals...PLEASE. The cost, probably one salary, of publishing > a monthly (or even fortnightly) bulletin for ACBL directors online, and > providing an email address for ruling questions could be recouped from > table fees if we can stem the decline in play. Bad rulings send people home > mad, and produce 3 1/2 table Howells. :-)) > BLML is free, and subscribing/participation should be mandatory for all TDs with e-mail access. There is already an e-mail address for ruling questions in ACBL-land: rulings@acbl.org I don't know who replies, but it could be Brian Moran. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Going to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 11:23:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:23:18 +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 LAA03771 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:23:12 +1100 Received: from lithium.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@lithium.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.22]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA27389 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 19:27:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 19:27:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812160027.TAA08222@lithium.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <36778DD5.3164@elnet.msk.ru> (vitold@elnet.msk.ru) Subject: Re: Hesitation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold writes: > So my AC-ruling is: > - for EW -400 (5 Clubs. just made), L12C2 > - for NS +150 (5 Clubs in 50%, 6 Clubs in 50%), L12C3. Independent of whether this is the right ruling (I don't think it is, since 6C was either a double shot or an egregious error, or else it wasn't), this isn't the right way to score it. N-S should be given 50% of the IMPs for +400 and 50% of the IMPs for -100. If the other table is +300, for example, N-S should get 50% of +3 and 50% of -9 for -3 IMPs, not the -150 comparison for -4. -- 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 Dec 16 12:21:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA03886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:21:22 +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 MAA03881 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:21:17 +1100 Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id MAA14162; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:25:57 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma014041; Wed, 16 Dec 98 12:25:35 +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 MAA10081 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:25:33 +1100 Received: from newmanpm by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA28445; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:34:40 +1100 Message-Id: <4.1.19981216115719.00a3fde0@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:24:32 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Re: Hesitation In-Reply-To: References: <01BE2812.3E26B8C0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> <01BE2812.3E26B8C0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > The reason for the thread was as I said in the original post: > >> I was asked for an opinion which I have given. However, I am now >>worrying about it, and I thought I would see what others thought of >>this. > > As far as the jurisdiction, it is one where a logical alternative is >one that one person in four of the players peers would find playing a >similar style and system. It is not ACBL [a number of players would >seriously consider] the Netherlands [I *think* similar to ACBL] Denmark >[a logical alternative is a logical alternative ] nor England/Wales >[three in ten would find etc]. I have read all of the comments on this thread. I think the important thing to decide this appeal is the playing level of the parties involved. I think that if E were of expert standard then it is clear that at least 1 in 4 would pass 5C. [I would expect it to be well over half - from E's point of view (with no hesitation by prd.) the opponents could be making 7 of a minor. 5S figures to have no chance - with partner likely to also be short in Clubs your hand has far less offense than it did before the opponents revealed their fit]. It is hard to imagine taking much more than 7 spades and one, maybe two outside tricks. Why try and get +3 imps when you are likely to end -920? Hope the pre-empt worked]. If E were of normal club standard I think the 5S bid is far more automatic. It is a normal (though I believe wrong) club players bid. So I would rule table result stands. Assuming a good/expert EW pair. As for the 6C bid - I think that Vitold's comment about the location of the DK is completely correct - N bid is reasonable. The pass of 5S by S is closer to wild and gambling - Jxxxx club opposite a possible 3 card suit, bad hearts, bad diamonds.....This may depend on system - if S meant their pass as weak (seems an unusual treatment) then perhaps N is at fault. I dont have enough information to judge. I would be tempted to award 5C making for EW and 6C down one for NS. I agree with Vitold if NS doubled 5S then this should get adjusted to 5C making NS. If 12C3 is available then I would be tempted to give some percentage for 5C NS and 6C NS (about 20% 5C, 80% 6C) I wouldn't be happy about a good/expert W player bidding 5S after the hesitation. I think it would be appropriate to tell them about their responsibilities after a hesitation. This seems an area where many players do not understand their responsibilites "I made the bid I was always going to make" . I do not think a PP is appropriate - education over punishment - at least at first. Cheers, -- Peter Newman bridge is not a game - it is a way of life From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 13:02:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:02:30 +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 NAA03952 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:02:09 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zq4Oq-0001d7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:01:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 23:58:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Hesitation In-Reply-To: <862566DB.006B2C4C.00@emehm1101.ac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <862566DB.006B2C4C.00@emehm1101.ac.com>, Christian Farwig writes >>> >1. Was there hesitation? YES, AGREED. > >2. Could that hesitation have suggested that bidding on was mopre likely to >be successful than passing? YES > >3. Was pass a logical alternative? YES > IMO, pass is not a LA. Even my cats bid 5S here. I passed 4S because from time to time we'll get to play there, and I will bid 5S over 5C now, tomorrow and always. I'm only wrong when both contracts are down 1 and partner's hesitation has given me nothing to help with that. >Roll back to 5C making. Probably not abusive enough to justify a PPf. Masy >be clear enough for a PPw depending on the class of players involved. ><< >You are taking the easy route in a difficult case and reach a harsh >conclusion without considering neither east's nor north's bids. > >North 6C was a clear double-shot and he does not deserve better score than >he actually got. I don't agree with that either. He's got a far better hand than he might and pard has not doubled 5S. In fact this hand's a six level decision. There was no decision to be made at the 5-level. It's just a make them take the last guess hand. >East 5S was the bid suggested by the hesitation, but would be the choice of >the majority of experts. > >I have sympathy with David Burn's suggestion of a split-score, but >depending on the level of competion I might judge for score stands, since >for a strong player, 5S is a clear-cut action. > If this is so then why are we adjusting the score? Having held forth so strongly no doubt DWS opines the other way :) -- 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 Dec 16 17:14:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA04183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:14:11 +1100 Received: from dispatcher.fairfax.com.au (dispatcher.fairfax.com.au [203.26.177.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA04178 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:14:07 +1100 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([203.26.177.212]) by dispatcher.fairfax.com.au (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA06862 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:14:41 +1100 Message-Id: <199812160614.RAA06862@dispatcher.fairfax.com.au> Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Seasons=20Greetings=20!?= From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Tony=20Musgrove?=" Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:13:51 +1100 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Mailer: JMail 3.5.2 by Dimac (www.dimac.net) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear=20All=20on=20BLML Tony=20Musgrove=20has=20sent=20you=20a=20Christmas=20card=20from=20the=20Sydney=20Morning=20Herald=20and=20Intel's=20Chri= stmas=20Season=2098=20web=20site.=20You=20can=20pick=20up=20your=20card=20from=20the=20following=20address.=20=20Either=20= click=20it,=20if=20it=20appears=20as=20a=20link,=20or=20cut=20and=20paste=20the=20whole=20address=20into=20your=20web=20b= rowser. http://203.26.177.212/holiday/cheer.asp?uniquenum=3D23307333697539 The=20card=20is=20from=20our=20high=20card=20Gallery=20which=20features=20Shockwave=20and=20Flash=20files.=20This=20kind=20= of=20multimedia=20performs=20great=20on=20an=20Intel(R)=20Pentium(R)=20II=20processor=20using=20a=20fast=20web=20connecti= on=20such=20as=2028.8=20Kbps=20modem=20or=20faster. The=20cards=20feature=20works=20by=20some=20of=20Australia's=20best=20illustrators,=20celebrating=20Christmas=20in=20Sydn= ey. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 19:34:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:34:53 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha2.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA04428 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:34:43 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.0 201-221-107) with ESMTP id <19981216083923.VNU19611.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:39:23 -0800 Message-ID: <3677727C.C72FDAD@home.com> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:42:36 -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: Hesitation References: <01BE2812.3E26B8C0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> <01BE2812.3E26B8C0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> <4.1.19981216115719.00a3fde0@sercit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: > - from E's point of > view (with no hesitation by prd.) the opponents could be making 7 of a > minor. 5S figures to have no chance - with partner likely to also be > short in Clubs your hand has far less offense than it did before the > opponents revealed their fit]. It is hard to imagine taking much more > than 7 spades and one, maybe two outside tricks. Why try and get +3 > imps when you are likely to end -920? Hope the pre-empt worked]. Your point sounds valid but I think you partly work off an erroneous assumption and partly are contradicting yourself. First of all there is no hint whatsoever that W is also short in clubs. Don't forget N only showed really long clubs when he bid 6C. At the time of your 5S bid N's bidding was consistent with a minimum 2434 pattern (you yourself mentioned N might have only 3 clubs, but that would give W only 6 spades) that would give W 7123, ie very nice opposite your 4531. With 1 outside trick 5S is only down one while they make 5 or 6C which they won't find if N has the 2434 hand. With 2 outside tricks we'd even make 5S, but now we're entering the area influenced by the UI (W's hesitation increases the chances of some outside tricks) which is why I at least agree that this whole case is solely about determining LAs. If pass is deemed an LA in the jurisdiction in question, clearly 5S should not be allowed. Secondly, if we are likely to have "one, maybe two outside tricks", then they certainly don't make 7, and maybe not even 6. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 19:36:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:36:46 +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 TAA04437 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:36:37 +1100 Received: from phedre.meteo.fr (phedre.meteo.fr [137.129.12.11]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA15149 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:40:52 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 IAA18648 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:40:18 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981216084121.007bd210@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:41:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Alerting In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19981215093810.0093abe0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> <3.0.1.32.19981215093810.0093abe0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:12 15/12/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Michael Albert wrote: >>NZ regulations (not quite chapter and verse) [followed by some comments] > > Ta muchly. > >>Then there's a general (and IMHO very dangerous) remark that: >> >>"all calls which the opponents might be expected not to understand the >>meaning of should be alerted" > > This is the big problem with alerting. If you really trust the >players then some rule such as this is all that is necessary. However, >in practical terms there are three types of player who fall foul of such >a rule. > >[a] Bridge Lawyers. Shoot them! >[b] Mediocre players, with irritating and silly views as to what is >right. >[c] Novices, who don't understand anyway. > > There is little you can do for [c], who will develop or fall by the >wayside anyway. [a] are one of the biggest problems in the game today >[see Director's Bulletin in February 1999]. Unfiortunately, it is [b] >in vast numbers who make alerting rules complicated. >-- >David Stevenson I strongly agree with this view: this should be the more appropriate definition for alert procedure. It is very simple in its expression, if not understandable for everybody and I don't see it "very dangerous", not more dangerous than alternative and very intricated ones which involve very long lists of items. At least, this simple rule calls for players' responsability and can be expected to help to educate their understanding of alerting procedure. I would only add somewhere in the sentence "because of lack of knowledge of opponents agreement" to prevent bridge lawyers from requesting opponents to make bridge thinking in their place. Maybe the "expected" in the sentence is already enough for this restriction? JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 20:22:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:22:31 +1100 Received: from cshore.com (term.cshore.com [206.165.153.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA04495 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:22:24 +1100 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.61]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.08/64) id 5677400 ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 04:24:51 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981216042759.007f9470@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 04:27:59 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Hesitation Cc: bills@cshore.com In-Reply-To: <3676C908.38E0@mindspring.com> References: <199812150313.TAA22398@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <199812150913300690.30D945AB@mail.btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have pondered over this problem for several days and read almost all of the responses. To me, it seemed like a pretty close call. While 5S seems the obvious bid and would no doubt be chosen by many at the table, the likelihood that the opponents have slam when pard has a "normal" preempt suggests that there is substantial danger of a large loss from bidding on. This danger is clearly smaller when pard has a strong hand (the opps being less likely to make it or to bid it), as is suggested by the slow pass. Thus, while I might consider bidding 5S at the table (only without the hesitation), depending on a number of factors including partner's preempting habits and the general partnership philosophy about risk-taking, I considered pass to be a clear logical alternative. After reading the comments of some respondents suggesting that 5S was automatic in a strong game, I decided to do a little research, and emailed the problem to about a dozen friends and acquaintances, giving them only the east hand and not informing them of the slow pass or the reason for the problem. I heard back from 8 of them, all experts including several professional players and a few national champions. The results were amazing: not a smattering of passes, but *8* passes. Not a one of them bid. Having done some research, I have changed my mind. It's not close. Roll it back to 5C. Fwiw, I agree with John Mayne's defense of the 6C bid. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 21:59:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:59:58 +1100 Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA04770 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:59:51 +1100 Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA06600 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 01:44:55 -0900 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 01:44:55 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We've all seen the original question (concerning some vigorous bidding in both spades and clubs) enough times I won't quote it here. I am among those who feels that Pass in place of 5S is nowhere close to a LA if EW bid anything close to the way I do. (This is under the 1-in-4 criterion. In ACBL it probably would be.) I'm also of the school thatthinks the hesitation suggests defending, and finds 5S pretty clear over a pass or a double. In short, I can't find fault with EW on this hand. Admittedly I am being something of an idealist. Were this hand actually played in my club (which has a lot of weakish players), there would be a lot of people not bidding 5S. Seems to me the ruling was backwards: as the table director I might rule it back to 400, as an AC I would restore the table result. GRB From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 16 23:36:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:36:01 +1100 Received: from mail.magi.com (InfoWeb.Magi.com [204.191.213.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA05000 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:35:55 +1100 Received: from ms01-11.ott.istar.ca (default) [137.186.208.11] by mail.magi.com with smtp (Exim 1.80 #5) id 0zqGFt-0007Sv-00; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 07:40:41 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19981216074157.007dede0@magi.com> X-Sender: david@magi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 07:41:57 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Kent Subject: Re: Hesitation Cc: bills@cshore.com In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981216042759.007f9470@cshore.com> References: <3676C908.38E0@mindspring.com> <199812150313.TAA22398@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <199812150913300690.30D945AB@mail.btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:27 16-12-98 -0500, Bill Segraves wrote: >I have pondered over this problem for several days and read almost all of >the responses. To me, it seemed like a pretty close call. While 5S seems >the obvious bid and would no doubt be chosen by many at the table, the >likelihood that the opponents have slam when pard has a "normal" preempt >suggests that there is substantial danger of a large loss from bidding on. >This danger is clearly smaller when pard has a strong hand (the opps being >less likely to make it or to bid it), as is suggested by the slow pass. >Thus, while I might consider bidding 5S at the table (only without the >hesitation), depending on a number of factors including partner's >preempting habits and the general partnership philosophy about risk-taking, >I considered pass to be a clear logical alternative. > >After reading the comments of some respondents suggesting that 5S was >automatic >in a strong game, I decided to do a little research, and emailed the >problem to >about a dozen friends and acquaintances, giving them only the east hand and >not informing them of the slow pass or the reason for the problem. I heard >back from 8 of them, all experts including several professional players and >a few national champions. The results were amazing: not a smattering of >passes, but *8* passes. Not a one of them bid. > >Having done some research, I have changed my mind. It's not close. Roll >it back to 5C. > The problem with this analysis is that you sent the problem to expert players only. If West is going to bid 4S with the sort of hand he does hold, he MUST double 5C. Having not done so, an expert East will assume the normal preempt with little defense. East will now assume that the opponents have at least a small slam and quite possibly a grand slam. Clearly pass is correct given these conditions. If you had asked the experts whether they would bid 5S if partner had doubled 5C, I suspect you would get a very different answer. Given that the EW players are not of the expert level, I believe it quite likely that many (75%+) non-expert East's would bid 5S in the given auction. Therefore, if my analysis of the player's level is correct, the result stands. If EW are an expert partnership and West failed to double 5C with the given hand, roll the result back. David Kent david@magi.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 00:08:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:08:38 +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 AAA05063 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:08:31 +1100 Received: from pdas12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.219] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zqGlP-00002R-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:13:16 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Hesitation Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:16:53 -0000 Message-ID: <01be28f6$592f71e0$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: Gordon Bower To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 12:21 PM Subject: Re: Hesitation > >We've all seen the original question (concerning some vigorous bidding in >both spades and clubs) enough times I won't quote it here. > >I am among those who feels that Pass in place of 5S is nowhere close to a >LA if EW bid anything close to the way I do. (This is under the 1-in-4 >criterion. In ACBL it probably would be.) I'm also of the school >thatthinks the hesitation suggests defending, and finds 5S pretty clear >over a pass or a double. In short, I can't find fault with EW on this >hand. > >Admittedly I am being something of an idealist. Were this hand actually >played in my club (which has a lot of weakish players), there would be a >lot of people not bidding 5S. > >Seems to me the ruling was backwards: as the table director I might rule >it back to 400, as an AC I would restore the table result. Except for the fact that the AC might have more time to think about it, and this is not necessarily the case, I cannot understand why the same person would rule one way as a TD, and the other way as an AC. If the TD gets it right there's a fair chance it will not get to AC. My thinking on this one is that, if instead of hesitating, West had doubled, then East would have removed to 5S. East can see no defence opposite a pre-empt, to 6 or even 7 Clubs. Absent the hesitation I suspect most Easts (not novices) would Pass. I consider that the 6 Clubs is a bid that only those either of the "I've paid my table money to play the cards", or the "after that hesitation I'm on a good board anyway brigade" would make. For E/W I would rule -400 For N/S the table result. I would need to speak to the E/W pair before being too judgmental, but I would be tempted to think that there is Law 72B1 infraction here. > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 01:07:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 01:07:20 +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 BAA07474 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 01:07:12 +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 PAA22841 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:11:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36779A44.5BB220D3@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:32:20 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Hesitation References: <3.0.5.32.19981215113558.007ffd60@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > >2. Could that hesitation have suggested that bidding on was mopre likely to > >be successful than passing? YES > > Could that hesitation have suggested that passing was more likely to be > successful than bidding? YES > Which is precisely why this is not the question which needs to be asked. And is the reason why the wording has changed. The correct question is : "Which of the two actions (bidding or passing) was _demonstrably_ suggested by the hesitation". Now please demonstrate which of the actions was suggested. Then rule. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 02:10:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 02:10:12 +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 CAA07747 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 02:10:04 +1100 Received: from elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id SAA26348; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 18:14:40 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36776DC6.5CA9190D@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:22:31 +0300 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation References: <01be28f6$592f71e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------C4D8341A08A0E91E79B58572" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk üÔÏ ÓÏÏÂÝÅÎÉÅ ÚÁËÏÄÉÒÏ×ÁÎÏ × ÆÏÒÍÁÔÅ MIME É ÓÏÓÔÏÉÔ ÉÚ ÎÅÓËÏÌØËÉÈ ÞÁÓÔÅÊ. --------------C4D8341A08A0E91E79B58572 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------C4D8341A08A0E91E79B58572 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="Hesit.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Hesit.txt" Hi all:) David Grabiner wrote: "vitold writes: > So my AC-ruling is: > - for EW -400 (5 Clubs. just made), L12C2 > - for NS +150 (5 Clubs in 50%, 6 Clubs in 50%), L12C3. Independent of whether this is the right ruling (I don't think it is, since 6C was either a double shot or an egregious error, or else it wasn't), this isn't the right way to score it. N-S should be given 50% of the IMPs for +400 and 50% of the IMPs for -100. If the other table is +300, for example, N-S should get 50% of +3 and 50% of -9 for -3 IMPs, not the -150 comparison for -4." Let's reread he Law: LAW 12 - DIRECTOR'S DISCRETIONARY POWERS C. Awarding an Adjusted Score 2. Assigned Score ...The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing. 3. Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity. There are several conclusions: 1. Assigned score may be assigned in total points 2. There is no such thing as "obliged" or even "recommended" method of calculating of this adjusted score. Moreover, there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" method: each AC is free and independent to make his ruling (unless WBF or ZO decide the matter). That's why for my opinion D. Grabiner's estimation of my suggesting is rather too strong:) Nevertheless I have some points for defending: 1. Differences ("inaccuracy") between "my" (let's call it method No. 1 for simplicity, I am not its creator) method of calculating "õôåäïå-þÿþåùåïïðúð" result and "D.Grabiner's" (let's call it method No.2 - for the same reasons) is about 1 IMPS 2. Inaccuracy of both methods, depending on decision about percentage (made by will of AC-embers) is at least the same: changing of percentage for 10% will change the result for more than 1 IMP 3. It means that both method provide to approximately the same results - with accuracy of evaluating of percentage 4. Method No. 1 may be used so in pair contest as in team tourney. 5. Method No. 1 allows AC to make simple, clear and quite understandable (so for AC-members as for appellants) decisions without exercising the result from the second table That's why I prefer method No. 1 and recommend it for using when L12C3 is applied. BTW, at this very case I (as AC-member) am ready to discuss (and agree) change the percentage: 50/50 was only my personal opinion. Finally I would not argue too much against 60/40 or 40/60:) Best wishes Vitold --------------C4D8341A08A0E91E79B58572-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 02:48:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 02:48:52 +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 CAA07865 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 02:48:46 +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 KAA05889 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:53:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA03178 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:53:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:53:37 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199812161553.KAA03178@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > IMO, pass is not a LA. Even my cats bid 5S here. I don't doubt the last. > I passed 4S because > from time to time we'll get to play there, and I will bid 5S over 5C > now, tomorrow and always. I'm only wrong when both contracts are down 1 > and partner's hesitation has given me nothing to help with that. I don't understand, though, how you can possibly have missed the main argument against bidding 5S. In addition to the above cases, you are wrong when the opponents bid 6C (or 7C) and make it. Personally, I expect that to be most of the time -- until partner's hesitation tells me otherwise. I also don't understand the argument that the hesitation doesn't suggest bidding on. Of course partner was thinking about double, and of course that suggests defensive values. But those defensive values remove the main danger of the 5S bid and make it much more attractive. If partner had doubled, wouldn't you pull it without any thought?* So when partner makes a "silent double," it must suggest bidding 5S. Herman is right that we must demonstrate this, but I can't believe there is any doubt. I think Peter Newman has it exactly right: LA's depend on the level of player involved. The average club player, like John's cats, bids 5S without thought. If at least 75% of them do, and pass is not a LA for them. Good players think about what can happen next, pass, and jot +11 in their estimated scores (secretly hoping for +13). Bill Segraves' research backs me up. (Thanks, Bill!) > From: David Kent [Referring to Bill's poll of experts] > If you had asked the > experts whether they would bid 5S if partner had doubled 5C, I suspect you > would get a very different answer. Of course. That's why EW mustn't be allowed to get away with the actual auction. The double -- whether made legally via the bidding cards or silently via a hesitation -- suggests the 5S bid. ----- *It's an interesting question whether passing a possible slow double would have been a LA. I think not, even in the ACBL. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 03:21:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:21:34 +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 DAA07995 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:21:22 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zqJlw-00074w-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:26:02 +0000 Message-ID: <$TfWldA+C9d2Ewes@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:24:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Hesitation References: <3676C908.38E0@mindspring.com> <199812150313.TAA22398@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <199812150913300690.30D945AB@mail.btinternet.com> <3.0.5.32.19981216042759.007f9470@cshore.com> <3.0.6.32.19981216074157.007dede0@magi.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19981216074157.007dede0@magi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Kent wrote: >At 04:27 16-12-98 -0500, Bill Segraves wrote: >>I have pondered over this problem for several days and read almost all of >>the responses. To me, it seemed like a pretty close call. While 5S seems >>the obvious bid and would no doubt be chosen by many at the table, the >>likelihood that the opponents have slam when pard has a "normal" preempt >>suggests that there is substantial danger of a large loss from bidding on. >>This danger is clearly smaller when pard has a strong hand (the opps being >>less likely to make it or to bid it), as is suggested by the slow pass. >>Thus, while I might consider bidding 5S at the table (only without the >>hesitation), depending on a number of factors including partner's >>preempting habits and the general partnership philosophy about risk-taking, >>I considered pass to be a clear logical alternative. >> >>After reading the comments of some respondents suggesting that 5S was >>automatic >>in a strong game, I decided to do a little research, and emailed the >>problem to >>about a dozen friends and acquaintances, giving them only the east hand and >>not informing them of the slow pass or the reason for the problem. I heard >>back from 8 of them, all experts including several professional players and >>a few national champions. The results were amazing: not a smattering of >>passes, but *8* passes. Not a one of them bid. >> >>Having done some research, I have changed my mind. It's not close. Roll >>it back to 5C. >> > >The problem with this analysis is that you sent the problem to expert >players only. If West is going to bid 4S with the sort of hand he does >hold, he MUST double 5C. Having not done so, an expert East will assume >the normal preempt with little defense. East will now assume that the >opponents have at least a small slam and quite possibly a grand slam. >Clearly pass is correct given these conditions. If you had asked the >experts whether they would bid 5S if partner had doubled 5C, I suspect you >would get a very different answer. > >Given that the EW players are not of the expert level, I believe it quite >likely that many (75%+) non-expert East's would bid 5S in the given >auction. Therefore, if my analysis of the player's level is correct, the >result stands. If EW are an expert partnership and West failed to double >5C with the given hand, roll the result back. I agree with much of this. The little evidence we have suggests this is not an expert pair, so better would be if Bill were to poll all his friends who are *not* expert players and then we see the responses. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 03:21:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:21:34 +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 DAA07999 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:21:27 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zqJlw-00074u-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:26:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:53:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Selassie MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mmmeeaaoouuuuwwwwwwww !!!!!! Our friend Selassie who used to own Edgar Kaplan writes that all is well in his new home. We have put a picture of him on David's Bridgepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/slssie.htm -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 03:56:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:56:32 +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 DAA08173 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:56:12 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zqKJi-0006hj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:00:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:53:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Hesitation References: <01be28f6$592f71e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <36776DC6.5CA9190D@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <36776DC6.5CA9190D@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: >There are several conclusions: > 1. Assigned score may be assigned in total points > 2. There is no such thing as "obliged" or even "recommended" > method of calculating of this adjusted score. > > Moreover, there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" method: >each AC is free and independent to make his ruling (unless WBF or ZO >decide the matter). While this is correct, it has been established in places that use L12C3 that your method is not fair. > 4. Method No. 1 may be used so in pair contest as in team >tourney. This is one major reason why your method should not be used. Suppose that a hand is normally played in 4S making. Because of an infraction a pair stops in 2S. So the frequencies on the board are as follows: Matchpoints Result Score Frequency [English] [American] 4S+1 650 1 20 10 4S= 620 9 11 5.5 2S+2 170 1 0 0 Now, suppose the AC decides that without the infraction the pair may or may not reach game, so they assign 50% +620, 50% +170. What is that in matchpoints? Using your method, you assign +395, which is 0 matchpoints. We assign 50% +620, 50% +170, which is 50% 11, 50% 0, ie 5.5 matchopoints [or 2.75 American]. There is no doubt that our method is fairer. > 5. Method No. 1 allows AC to make simple, clear and quite >understandable (so for AC-members as for appellants) decisions without >exercising the result from the second table Absolutely not. A score of 395 is meaningless. > That's why I prefer method No. 1 and recommend it for using >when L12C3 is applied. It is a considerably poorer method, which is why our recommended method is used in EBU, WBU and WBF events. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 04:53:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 04:53:18 +1100 Received: from smtp2.mindspring.com (smtp2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA08340 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 04:53:09 +1100 Received: from 207.205.159.243 (pool-207-205-156-22.lsan.grid.net [207.205.156.22]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA06982; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:57:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3678002A.6607@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:47:25 -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: Hesitation References: <199812161553.KAA03178@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > IMO, pass is not a LA. Even my cats bid 5S here. > > I don't doubt the last. > > > I passed 4S because > > from time to time we'll get to play there, and I will bid 5S over 5C > > now, tomorrow and always. I'm only wrong when both contracts are down 1 > > and partner's hesitation has given me nothing to help with that. > > I don't understand, though, how you can possibly have missed the main > argument against bidding 5S. In addition to the above cases, you are > wrong when the opponents bid 6C (or 7C) and make it. Personally, I > expect that to be most of the time -- until partner's hesitation tells > me otherwise. > > I also don't understand the argument that the hesitation doesn't > suggest bidding on. Of course partner was thinking about double, and > of course that suggests defensive values. Well, not exactly. In a very strong game (i.e., one in which the players all agree with my theory of the world), partner may be deciding whether to bid 5S on AKJTxxxx QJTx x -- or a 9-card spade suit. In that case, perversely, bidding 5S is probably wrong, as it will push them into a making slam. Without doing a simulation, I estimate the chances of partner considering double at about 10 times the rate he's considering 5S. Also, if it's a weak game, partner is *only* considering 5S. I've never seen a weak player double on this sequence. But those defensive values > remove the main danger of the 5S bid and make it much more attractive. > If partner had doubled, wouldn't you pull it without any thought?* Without doubt. So > when partner makes a "silent double," it must suggest bidding 5S. > Herman is right that we must demonstrate this, but I can't believe > there is any doubt. Agreed. > > I think Peter Newman has it exactly right: LA's depend on the level of > player involved. The average club player, like John's cats, bids 5S > without thought. If at least 75% of them do, and pass is not a LA for > them. Good players think about what can happen next, pass, and jot +11 > in their estimated scores (secretly hoping for +13). Bill Segraves' > research backs me up. (Thanks, Bill!) I'd still bid 5S without the hesitation; I think it more likely to work than not work. However, I agree that Bill's research indicates that pass is an LA at the expert level. His poll has changed my mind. In a bad field, pass is an LA. "But I only had 2 points, partner." I'm still baffled by the continued posts that 6C was a double shot. --JRM > > > From: David Kent > [Referring to Bill's poll of experts] > > If you had asked the > > experts whether they would bid 5S if partner had doubled 5C, I suspect you > > would get a very different answer. > > Of course. That's why EW mustn't be allowed to get away with the > actual auction. The double -- whether made legally via the bidding > cards or silently via a hesitation -- suggests the 5S bid. > > ----- > *It's an interesting question whether passing a possible slow double > would have been a LA. I think not, even in the ACBL. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 05:13:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 05:13:42 +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 FAA08381 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 05:13:37 +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 KAA20408 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:17:52 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812161817.KAA20408@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Hesitation Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:16:36 -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 Let's not forget that the 4S bid could be based on either a strong or a weak hand. Use of tempo to differentiate between the two can't be accepted when there is any doubt about the LA issue. Slow tempo means go, fast tempo means stop. It's a universal language. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Going to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 05:37:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 05:37:27 +1100 Received: from cshore.com (term.cshore.com [206.165.153.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA08421 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 05:36:55 +1100 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.191]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.08/64) id 2961900 ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:40:09 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981216124459.007dd4c0@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:44:59 -0500 To: David Kent From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Hesitation Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19981216074157.007dede0@magi.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19981216042759.007f9470@cshore.com> <3676C908.38E0@mindspring.com> <199812150313.TAA22398@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <199812150913300690.30D945AB@mail.btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, >>After reading the comments of some respondents suggesting that 5S was >>automatic >>in a strong game [snip] >The problem with this analysis is that you sent the problem to expert >players only. My "experiment" was designed to test the contention of at least three respondents that good or strong players would bid 5S. If that is not the peer group in question, you are correct in pointing out that the results are not necessarily germane to the case at hand. >If West is going to bid 4S with the sort of hand he does >hold, he MUST double 5C. Having not done so, an expert East will assume >the normal preempt with little defense. East will now assume that the >opponents have at least a small slam and quite possibly a grand slam. >Clearly pass is correct given these conditions. If you had asked the >experts whether they would bid 5S if partner had doubled 5C, I suspect you >would get a very different answer. I did not ask, wanting to keep the question as straight-forward and unprejudiced as possible, but a couple of them volunteered it, and you are, of course, correct. >Given that the EW players are not of the expert level, I believe it quite >likely that many (75%+) non-expert East's would bid 5S in the given >auction. Therefore, if my analysis of the player's level is correct, the >result stands. If EW are an expert partnership and West failed to double >5C with the given hand, roll the result back. Actually, I agree with you, provided that the players are strong enough to go wrong. ;) [The couple of reasonably strong, but subexpert, players I ran this by did, in fact, bid 5S. One, when subsequently asked whether he was worried about slam, decided he wanted to pass, but conceded he would have bid 5S at the table without really fully considering the slam issues.] I think this is almost certainly a case where one would find a bimodal distribution of passes with skill level. The novice-intermediate player passes because he/she has no points. The advanced player bids automatically because he/she has not thought about slam (and perhaps modestly overestimates the potential gain due to lack of awareness that the law of total tricks progressively overestimates the number of total tricks beginning at about 19 total trumps). The stereotypical expert, it would appear, realizes that the danger of an opposing slam may outweigh the potential gain from bidding on. N.b., this is not to say that anyone who chooses to bid on is a non-expert. The results of the "experiment" notwithstanding, I am sure that some proportion of experts would bid on, and N is a small number, adequate only to demonstrate that pass is certainly an LA for this class of player. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 06:03:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 06:03:55 +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 GAA08493 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 06:03:48 +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 OAA22220 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:08:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:08:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812161908.OAA05819@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <36776DC6.5CA9190D@elnet.msk.ru> (message from Vitold on Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:22:31 +0300) Subject: Re: Hesitation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold writes: > David Grabiner writes: >> "vitold writes: >>> So my AC-ruling is: >>> - for EW -400 (5 Clubs. just made), L12C2 >>> - for NS +150 (5 Clubs in 50%, 6 Clubs in 50%), L12C3. >> Independent of whether this is the right ruling (I don't think it is, >> since 6C was either a double shot or an egregious error, or else it >> wasn't), this isn't the right way to score it. N-S should be given 50% >> of the IMPs for +400 and 50% of the IMPs for -100. If the other table >> is +300, for example, N-S should get 50% of +3 and 50% of -9 for -3 >> IMPs, not the -150 comparison for -4." > Let's reread he Law: > LAW 12 - DIRECTOR'S DISCRETIONARY POWERS > C. Awarding an Adjusted Score > 2. Assigned Score > ...The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be > assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior > to matchpointing. I interpret "latering" to allow the assigned score to be a specific score in total points. +275 is not a score. > 1. Differences ("inaccuracy") between "my" (let's call it method > No. 1 for simplicity, I am not its creator) method of calculating > "õôåäïå-þÿþåùåïïðúð" result and "D.Grabiner's" (let's call it method Please don't use 8-bit characters; I can't read that line. If it's intended to be Cyrliic, it needs to be transliterated. > No.2 - for the same reasons) is about 1 IMPS That depends on the range of scoring. 1 IMP was the difference here, but it could be more if there is a score difference near zero, because the IMP scale is more sensitive to smaller swings. Consider 80% of +1430 and 20% of +680, scored against +1370 at the other table. Method #1 makes a swing of -90, or -3 IMPs. Method #2 makes a swing of +60 80% of the time and -690 20% of the time, or -0.8 IMPs. Method #1 elimnates most of the reward for bidding a slam in spades rather than clubs when the other table is in slam. > 4. Method No. 1 may be used so in pair contest as in team > tourney. Method #1 will not work in a pairs contest at all. Suppose that most pairs in a pairs contest are +100, +110, or +140. One pair is awarded a score of X% of +200 and (100-X)% of -670 in 2H doubled. The double would have produced either a top or a bottom. If X is 80%, the resulting score of +66 is a bottom, for an action which had an 80% chance of giving a top. It's even worse with small swings. Suppose that most tables are +420, and you need to award a score of X% of +430 and (100-X)% of +400. If X is 70%, the +421 beats all the +420's; if X is 60%, the +418 loses to all of them. > 5. Method No. 1 allows AC to make simple, clear and quite > understandable (so for AC-members as for appellants) decisions without > exercising the result from the second table How do you plan to explain a score for +418? > BTW, at this very case I (as AC-member) am ready to discuss > (and agree) change the percentage: 50/50 was only my personal opinion. > Finally I would not argue too much against 60/40 or 40/60:) My disagreement with 50/50 is that I don't think a mixed score is appropriate here. I would argue that there can be no mixed score, since the damage was done when 5S was bid, and no matter what N-S do, they cannot get the +400 they were entitled to. (I also don't think 6C was an egregious error in any case.) A mixed score may be appropriate if the consequences are unknown. if 5S had been doubled for +300 and the overtrick in 5C depended on guessing a queen, a score of 50% of +400 and 50% of +420 would be approrpiate (and could matter at matchpoints). -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 06:27:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 06:27:29 +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 GAA08549 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 06:27:22 +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 LAA26917 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:31:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812161931.LAA26917@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Orlando Appeals Case #19 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:31:14 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This looks to me like a misapplication of the "egregious" principle. CASE NINETEEN Subject: Misinformation Event: NABC Life Master Open Pairs, 21 Nov 98, Second Final Session Board: 8, Dealer: West, Vul: None Eddie Wold S 10 7 3 H A Q 9 6 2 D A 2 C Q 8 6 Dan Jacob Cameron Doner S A 8 5 S K J 6 2 H K J 7 5 H 8 4 D J 10 9 3 D Q 8 4 C J 3 C A 10 7 2 George Rosenkranz S Q 9 4 H 10 3 D K 7 6 5 C K 9 5 4 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT (1) 2D (2) Pass 2H Pass Pass Dbl All Pass (1) Announced; 10-12 HCP (2) Announced; Transfer Table Result: 2H doubled went down two, plus 300 for E/W -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The Facts: The Director was called at the end of the hand. East's double, which was not Alerted, showed cards and was not specifically a penalty double. The issues were whether N/S were owed an Alert regarding the nature of the double and if so, whether the misinformation led to N/S's poor result. The Director explained to the Committee that the Alert Procedure pamphlet contained two inconsistent statements, one of which indicated that East's double required an Alert while the other indicated that it did not. Because the guidelines were inconsistent and because the result may not have been causally related to the Alert issue, the Director allowed the table result to stand. -------------------------------------------------------------------- - [Editor's note: [seconded by MLF!] The two statements in the Alert Procedure referred to by the Director are not inconsistent, as was indicated to the Committee. One statement applies to doubles made opposite a partner who has made no call other than pass while the other applies when partner has made some call other than pass. For a complete explanation of the Alert procedure as it applies to such doubles, see pages 10-11 of the ACBL Alert Procedure.] -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. All four players were present at the hearing. The first nine tricks had been played as follows: W: DJ, *DA, D4, D5 N: C6, C2, *CK, C3 S: *DK, D3, D2, D8 S: D5, D9, *H2, DQ N: S3, S2, S9, *SA W: *CJ, C8, C7, C5 W: DT, *HQ, S6, D7 N: H6, H4, HT, *HK W: H5, *HA, H8, H3 South believed, due to the failure to Alert, that the heart length and strength were behind dummy (East). He thus played to establish a favorable end position and his efforts fell short of success. South stated that he would not have embarked on this line of play had he been informed that the double was card-showing and did not promise heart values. East contended that prior to attacking trumps, South's line of play revealed that West's 1NT opening contained 6 HCP outside the heart suit. Accordingly, South's failure to modify his initial impression was clearly erroneous. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The Committee Decision: At trick seven, South knew that West likely started with four diamonds, two clubs, and either four-three or three-four in the major suits. The play of the SA and the failure to lead a spade initially, suggested that West did not begin with the ace and king of spades. Thus, West's hand must have contained either H KJx or H KJxx to be within the 10-12 HCP range required for his 1NT opening. South was in a position to reassess his initial impression that West had heart values, but evidently did not do so. His subsequent line of play could not be rationally linked to any clues he may have derived from the auction. The Committee therefore allowed the table result of 2H doubled down two, plus 300 for E/W, to stand. The merit of the appeal was considered next. The Committee, using established NABC guidelines, was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Committee: Jon Brissman (chair), Lowell Andrews, Harvey Brody, Robb Gordon, Bob Schwartz ==================================================================== == Negative doubles of suit overcalls of one-of-a-suit openings, through 4H, are not Alertable. The requirement to Alert all other non-penalty doubles when partner has previously acted should really be common knowledge among TDs. It's a simple principle. Evidently the AC didn't know this either, since they evidently accepted the TD's opinion on this matter of regulation, which they may not overturn on their own anyway. Thinking the Alert rules were inconsistent, the TD and AC seem to have looked for a way to make an Alert failure moot, and found it. The apparent penalty double put a belief in declarer's mind that he couldn't shake, that East had good hearts. Aren't we all guilty of this at times in the presence of MI? Was declarer's play really "irrational" (the current WBF guideline), or even "egregious"? Whether declarer could have made his contract at the point of trick 7 doesn't matter to me. He surely had one chance in three of making it had the double been Alerted, so my vote is for adjusted scores of +470/-470. I don't know who wrote the accurate "Editor's note." I assume it was either Chyah Burghard or Linda Weinstein, who should both perhaps be serving on the ACs instead of helping to record and publish AC cases. Why are ACs so male-dominated anyway? Looking in the St. Louis NABC casebook, my rough count shows only 20 women among the 87 members of the NABC Appeals Committee. How about some Affirmative Action? A modest proposal: Instead of the 16-page Alert Procedure "pamphlet," my complete one-page presentation ought to be in every TDs pocket and on the table at every AC meeting. I have urged this to Gary Blaiss, who is examining it, but no answer yet. Anyone wanting a copy of the one-page WordPerfect .wpd file or a two-page .txt file need only ask me for it by e-mail. -- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com (Gone to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 09:02:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:02:14 +1100 Received: from abest.com (root@mail.abest.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA08823 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:02:08 +1100 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (dial39.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.39]) by abest.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA16121; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:06:52 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adam@popserver.visalia.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199812161931.LAA26917@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:05:46 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Orlando Appeals Case #19 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:31 PM -0500 12/16/98, Marvin L. French wrote: >This looks to me like a misapplication of the "egregious" >principle. > > CASE NINETEEN > Subject: Misinformation > Event: NABC Life Master Open Pairs, 21 Nov 98, Second Final >Session [SNIP] >South was in a position to reassess his initial impression that >West had heart values, but evidently did not do so. His subsequent >line of play could not be rationally linked to any clues he may >have derived from the auction. The Committee therefore allowed the >table result of 2H doubled down two, plus 300 for E/W, to stand. [SNIP] Thanks for posting this - I've been meaning to comment. What a dreadful decision! And then the committee had the temerity to consider whether the appeal had merit! This should be simple as a matter of law. 1. Was there misinformation? (Law 40B) Yes, though no thanks to the ACBL for its complex regulations which change much too often. Page 11 indeed! 2. Was declarer damages through the misinformation? (Law 40C) Indeed he was. The correct information would have make the winning line easier, even obvious. 3a. What is the most unfavorable result for the offenders that was at all probable? (Law 12C2) -470. 4b. What is the most favorable result for the non offenders that was likely? (Law 12C2) I'd say +470, but I suppose some committees might rule -100. Look at it as a matter of justice. Can one imagine declarer going down two with the correct information? Certainly not. Should he have gone right with the information he had? Perhaps, but that's not relevant. We should not and must not allow the non-offenders to benefit from their failure to provide correct information, in this case through their failure to alert. It should not surprise us that this is the same conclusion the Laws force us to, since they are intended to promote justice! Note that the writeup provides no citations as to Law. I think every writeup should, in part as a simple check that the committee knows the Law or Laws they're ruling under. It would not surprise me here to discover that the writeup does not mention any particular Laws because the committee did not discuss any. AW From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 11:54:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:54:25 +1100 Received: from pandora.pinehurst.net (root@pandora.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA09016 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:54:19 +1100 Received: from nancy (tc-34.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.135]) by pandora.pinehurst.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA22587 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:02:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <010101be2958$04e61140$8761040c@nancy> From: "Nancy T. Dressing" To: "BLML" Subject: Revoke Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:56:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00FE_01BE292E.1AE1E980" 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_00FE_01BE292E.1AE1E980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable HI... It happened at the local dupe today. Declarer lead the CQ, RHO = trumped with D9, dummy discarded and LHO played H8. RHO now says "What = was lead?" "CQ", RHO now says, "oops, I have a club" and the director = is called. Director now states the D9 becomes a penalty card . LHO had = stated that she would not have played the heart had her partner followed = suit. The director allows LHO to play a trump, which wins the trick. = Does declarer at this point have the option of of forbidding or = requiring the lead of a diamond by LHO whose partner now has a penalty = card???? =20 Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_00FE_01BE292E.1AE1E980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
HI... It happened at the local dupe = today. =20 Declarer lead the CQ, RHO trumped with D9, dummy discarded and LHO = played=20 H8.  RHO now says "What was lead?"  "CQ", = RHO now=20 says, "oops, I have a club" and the director is called.  = Director=20 now states the D9 becomes a penalty card .  LHO had stated that she = would=20 not have played the heart had her partner followed suit.  The = director=20 allows LHO to play a trump, which wins the trick.  Does declarer at = this=20 point have the option of of forbidding  or requiring the lead of a = diamond=20 by LHO whose partner now has a penalty card???? 
 
Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_00FE_01BE292E.1AE1E980-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 12:37:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:37:37 +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 MAA09055 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:37:30 +1100 Received: from default (vn-0-12.ac.net [205.138.47.183]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA08433 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:42:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812170142.UAA08433@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:45:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: Orlando Appeals Case #19 In-Reply-To: <199812161931.LAA26917@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Since I posted this to rec.games.bridge, I might as well repeat it here.... > - > [Editor's note: [seconded by MLF!] > > The two statements in the Alert Procedure referred to by the > Director are not inconsistent, as was indicated to the Committee. > One statement applies to doubles made opposite a partner who has > made no call other than pass while the other applies when partner > has made some call other than pass. For a complete explanation of > the Alert procedure as it applies to such doubles, see pages 10-11 > of the ACBL Alert Procedure.] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > I don't know who wrote the accurate "Editor's note." I assume it > was either Chyah Burghard or Linda Weinstein, who should both > perhaps be serving on the ACs instead of helping to record and > publish AC cases. Why are ACs so male-dominated anyway? Looking in > the St. Louis NABC casebook, my rough count shows only 20 women > among the 87 members of the NABC Appeals Committee. How about some > Affirmative Action? > The editors note arose because as I was reviewing the Chairman's write-up and I noticed the inconsistency. Remember, the Director is on call to the Committee as the Laws expert and all decisions Committees make are reviewed with the Screening Director to be sure they are legal before they are disclosed to the players. Committee members are well-versed in the laws, but not experts, nor should they be required to be as long as we have Director staff support - after all, is not Laws expertise their job? Is it wrong to assume that National Directors know the Law - and should they not indicate uncertainty when it exists? Anyway - the Committee Chairman was sort of stuck. We don't change what happened just because someone goofed. We thought the best way to handle this was to add editorial comment. Any editor's note that appears in an appeal write-up is from the Appeals Administrator who at this time is Rich Colker. I guess Appeals Administrator's note would be a better way to identify these things... Rich was wearing his casebook editor hat at three in the morning when we wrote this. Linda In addition: Committees often have law books in their hands while they are deliberating and do refer to laws in their discussions and are asked to reference laws in their write-ups, but since it is very often a dull repetition of 12 and 16, they often don't. Neither do a lot of the Directors (only about 60% do) on the appeals form even though they are asked to. The dilemma is, should we as editors add them when it is clear what they are, for the purpose of our reading audience? I do when I am writing them up (especially after the tournament when I am more awake, as I am now) and of course the Chairman reviews everything I write and often thank me for including the Law numbers because they do realize it was an oversight. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 12:38:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:38:38 +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 MAA09063 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:38:26 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa22372; 16 Dec 98 17:42 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:56:00 PST." <010101be2958$04e61140$8761040c@nancy> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:42:32 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9812161742.aa22372@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy Dressing wrote: > HI... It happened at the local dupe today. Declarer lead the CQ, [LHO] > trumped with D9, dummy discarded and [RHO] played H8. [LHO] now says "What > was lead?" "CQ", [LHO] now says, "oops, I have a club" and the director > is called. Director now states the D9 becomes a penalty card . [RHO] had > stated that she would not have played the heart had her partner followed > suit. The director allows [RHO] to play a trump, which wins the trick. > Does declarer at this point have the option of of forbidding or > requiring the lead of a diamond by [RHO] whose partner now has a penalty > card???? I'm assuming that the cards were played to the trick in the correct order. In the original post, declarer played, then RHO, then dummy, then LHO, which is backward unless it's from dummy's point of view (dummy's RHO played second). Therefore, I've reversed LHO and RHO in the text above. What wasn't mentioned is that although RHO is allowed to withdraw the H8 and play a trump, the H8 now becomes a penalty card (Law 62C2). The D9 that LHO played incorrectly is also a penalty card. Both are major penalty cards. If the director didn't state that the H8 was a penalty card, he blew it. As far as I can find, the Laws don't explicitly address what happens if each defender has a penalty card and one of them gains the lead. However, I believe this clause in Law 50D1 applies: "The obligation to follow suit, or to comply with a lead or play penalty, takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card". Thus, although RHO, who is on lead, has a major penalty card, she might not be required to lead it, because LHO's penalty card has subjected RHO to lead penalties, and the lead penalties take precedence. Thus, by Law 50D2, declarer may require or forbid RHO to lead a diamond (50D2(a)). If declarer requires a diamond lead, RHO must comply with the lead penalty, and LHO picks up his/her penalty card, but RHO's H8 is still a penalty card and she must play it at the *next* legal opportunity. However, if RHO has no diamonds, the H8 is a legal lead and RHO must lead it. If declarer forbids a diamond lead (a stupid choice unless the H8 is a winner), the H8 is a legal lead, and RHO must lead it, but LHO picks up his/her penalty card. If declarer does not exercise these options (50D2(b)), LHO's diamond remains a penalty card, and now RHO, who is no longer subject to a lead penalty, must lead her penalty card, the H8. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 13:30:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:30:17 +1100 Received: from pandora.pinehurst.net (root@pandora.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA09151 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:30:11 +1100 Received: from nancy (tc-31.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.132]) by pandora.pinehurst.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA23293; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:38:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001d01be2965$69f433c0$8461040c@nancy> From: "Nancy T. Dressing" To: "BLML" , "Tony Musgrove" Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:31:54 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony, I have to put this message up for everyone! (Linda, stop laughing). I seem to be dislexic with left and right. Adam's correction was correct, I won't even take the copout that it was from dummy's perspective. The double penalty card comes up so seldom at the club (and now I know why). I tried to ask the director this question after the game and was scolded for trying to be correct. Oh, well. Your card was great. Happy Holidays and does the water reallly go down the drain counterclockwise? -----Original Message----- From: Tony Musgrove To: Nancy T. Dressing Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 9:11 PM Subject: Re: Revoke >At 07:56 PM 16/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >>HI... It happened at the local dupe today. Declarer lead the CQ, RHO >trumped with D9, dummy discarded and LHO played H8. RHO now says "What was >lead?" "CQ", RHO now says, "oops, I have a club" and the director is >called. Director now states the D9 becomes a penalty card . LHO had stated >that she would not have played the heart had her partner followed suit. The >director allows LHO to play a trump, which wins the trick. Does declarer at >this point have the option of of forbidding or requiring the lead of a >diamond by LHO whose partner now has a penalty card???? >How confusing, we play clockwise in the southern hemisphere, > >Cheers > >Tony > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 13:42:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:42:27 +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 NAA09183 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:42:19 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zqTSu-00030G-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 02:47:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 02:07:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Orlando Appeals Case #19 References: <199812161931.LAA26917@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199812161931.LAA26917@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >This looks to me like a misapplication of the "egregious" >principle. > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT (1) 2D (2) Pass 2H > Pass Pass Dbl All Pass > > (1) Announced; 10-12 HCP > (2) Announced; Transfer Why was a Transfer overcall announced? [s] >The Director explained to the Committee that the Alert Procedure >pamphlet contained two inconsistent statements, one of which >indicated that East's double required an Alert while the other >indicated that it did not. Because the guidelines were inconsistent >and because the result may not have been causally related to the >Alert issue, the Director allowed the table result to stand. This is just appalling. [s] >The Committee Decision: >South was in a position to reassess his initial impression that >West had heart values, but evidently did not do so. His subsequent >line of play could not be rationally linked to any clues he may >have derived from the auction. The Committee therefore allowed the >table result of 2H doubled down two, plus 300 for E/W, to stand. An incredible decision. >The merit of the appeal was considered next. The Committee, using >established NABC guidelines, was unable to reach a consensus that >substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed >meritorious. So, your opponents misinform you, and you claim damage, but are ruled against because the TD does not know the regulations. This leads to a discussion as to whether your appeal had merit, and the committee could not agree? [s] >A modest proposal: Instead of the 16-page Alert Procedure >"pamphlet," my complete one-page presentation ought to be in every >TDs pocket and on the table at every AC meeting. I have urged this >to Gary Blaiss, who is examining it, but no answer yet. Anyone >wanting a copy of the one-page WordPerfect .wpd file or a two-page >.txt file need only ask me for it by e-mail. This also appears on my Lawspage, specifically at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/acbl_alt.htm -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 13:42:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:42:30 +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 NAA09182 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:42:18 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zqTSu-00030H-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 02:47:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 02:41:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke References: <010101be2958$04e61140$8761040c@nancy> In-Reply-To: <010101be2958$04e61140$8761040c@nancy> 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 Nancy T. Dressing wrote: > HI... It happened at the local dupe today.=A0 Declarer lead the CQ,=20 > RHO trumped with D9, dummy discarded and LHO played H8.=A0 RHO now=20 > says "What was lead?"=A0 "CQ", RHO now says, "oops, I have a club"=20 > and the director is called.=A0 Director now states the D9 becomes a=20 > penalty card . Read it from the book, did he? >=A0 LHO had stated that she would not have played the=20 > heart had her partner followed suit. Her statement was unauthorised information to partner. She is, of course, not allowed to change the card. >=A0 The director allows LHO to=20 > play a trump, which wins the trick. Perhaps we could all club together to buy the TD a Law book? >=A0 Does declarer at this point=20 > have the option of of forbidding=A0 or requiring the lead of a=20 > diamond by LHO whose partner now has a penalty card???? With this TD, who knows? In effect, yes, but they should not be in this position. Look, Nancy, you have got to tell them, if they are just going to give joke rulings that have nothing to do with the Laws of Bridge, then it is time they got a competent Director, or at least bought a Law book. LAW 62 - CORRECTION OF A REVOKE A. Revoke Must Be Corrected=20 A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established.=20 So it is correct that the D9 is corrected . B. Correcting a Revoke=20 To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he played in revoking and follows suit with any card.=20 1. Defender's Card=20 A card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card (Law 50) if it was played from a defender's unfaced hand.=20 2. Declarer's or Dummy's Card, Defender's Faced Card=20 The card may be replaced without penalty if it was played from declarer's or dummy's hand, or if it was a defender's faced card. Furthermore, it becomes a major penalty card. C. Subsequent Cards Played to Trick=20 1. By Non-offending Side=20 Each member of the non-offending side may, without penalty, withdraw any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (see Law 16C).=20 Declarer could have changed the card played from dummy. [Incidentally, I have tended to assume that you have mixed LHO and RHO, so that the revoker was second to play. The general principles are unchanged anyway, but the story does not make sense otherwise.] Note that declarer has a *right* to know the law and its effects before he makes such a decision per L10C1: specifically he has a right to know the next section which may affect his decision. Any competent Director would read the next section out before he made his decision. 2. By Partner of Offender=20 After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw its played card, which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender (see Law 16C). So the partner has no right whatever to change her card unless the dummy's card was changed [and even then the heart she originally played would have become a major penalty card]. The D9 has become a major penalty card. Why major? LAW 50 - DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD B. Major or Minor Penalty Card?=20 A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honour rank, or any card exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card; when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards.=20 We are talking of revoking and then correcting. D. Disposition of Major Penalty Card=20 When a defender has a major penalty card, both the offender and his partner may be subject to restriction, the offender whenever he is to play, the partner when he is to lead.=20 1. Offender to Play=20 A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorised information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner). If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer designates which is to be played. The obligation to follow suit, or to comply with a lead or play penalty, takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card, but the penalty card must still be left face up on the table and played at the next legal opportunity. In principle, the D9 must be played at the first legal opportunity, unless: 2. Offender's Partner to Lead=20 When a defender has the lead while his partner has a major penalty card, he may not lead until declarer has stated which of the options below is selected (if the defender leads prematurely, he is subject to penalty under Law 49). Declarer may choose:=20 (a) Require or Forbid Lead of Suit=20 to require ** the defender to lead the suit of the penalty card, or to prohibit ** him from leading that suit for as long as he retains the lead (for two or more penalty cards, see Law 51); if declarer exercises this option, the card is no longer a penalty card, and is picked up.=20 (b) No Lead Restriction=20 not to require or prohibit a lead, in which case the defender may lead any card; the penalty card remains a penalty card. ** If the player is unable to lead as required, see Law 59. ... so if the partner of the D9 gets on lead, declarer may require or forbid a lead of that suit and the card gets picked up. Note that any English/Welsh TD who did not have a fair idea of this anyway, and did not read it from the Law book, would fail to get a Club Director's certificate. Right, Nancy, have a go at them! Feel free to quote from this posting. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 14:00:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:00:40 +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 OAA09216 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:00:33 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa27772; 16 Dec 98 19:04 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Dec 1998 02:41:51 PST." Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:04:45 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9812161904.aa27772@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > 2. By Partner of Offender=20 > After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of the > offending side next in rotation may withdraw its played card, > which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender (see > Law 16C). Ooops, I missed the word "non-offender" in the first phrase, so my previous dissertation appears to be in error. Sorry. However, I'm still curious about what happens in the general case when both defenders have major penalty cards and one of them gets the lead. Did I get that part right? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 14:04:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:04:32 +1100 Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA09232 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:04:28 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn9p09.ozemail.com.au [203.108.79.73]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA19145 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:09:13 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:09:13 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199812170309.OAA19145@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:42 PM 16/12/98 PST, you wrote: > >Nancy Dressing wrote: > >> HI... It happened at the local dupe today. Declarer lead the CQ, [LHO] >> trumped with D9, dummy discarded and [RHO] played H8. [LHO] now says "What >> was lead?" "CQ", [LHO] now says, "oops, I have a club" and the director >> is called. Director now states the D9 becomes a penalty card . [RHO] had >> stated that she would not have played the heart had her partner followed >> suit. The director allows [RHO] to play a trump, which wins the trick. >> Does declarer at this point have the option of of forbidding or >> requiring the lead of a diamond by [RHO] whose partner now has a penalty >> card???? then Adam Beneschan replied: > >I'm assuming that the cards were played to the trick in the correct >order. In the original post, declarer played, then RHO, then dummy, >then LHO, which is backward unless it's from dummy's point of view >(dummy's RHO played second). Therefore, I've reversed LHO and RHO in >the text above. > >What wasn't mentioned is that although RHO is allowed to withdraw the >H8 and play a trump, the H8 now becomes a penalty card (Law 62C2). >The D9 that LHO played incorrectly is also a penalty card. Both are >major penalty cards. If the director didn't state that the H8 was a >penalty card, he blew it. > I have always assumed that the offender's partner could only change a played card if the non-offending side withdraws one of theirs (L62C2). In the present case I would be saying that the H8 cannot be changed. Tony > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 14:23:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:23:11 +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 OAA09266 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:23:07 +1100 Received: from postoffice.utas.edu.au (raclette.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.110]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA21629 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:01:35 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <367857EA.464B506C@postoffice.utas.edu.au> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:01:30 +1100 From: Mark Abraham X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fumble and appeal References: <4.1.19981215172245.0098a5e0@sercit> <367648F1.2B587C38@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ralf Teichmann wrote: > Peter Newman wrote: > > > Thanks everyone for your help on my last question. Another one. The > > following occurred: > > > > Declarer (sitting E) has a trump suit (Spades)of: > > QT754 (dummy) > > and > > A62 (hand) > > This suit has to played for 1 loser. (teams) > > > > Declarer led SA (LHO S3, RHO S8) > > and then the S2 > > LHO fumbled then played S9. Declarer now rose with the SQ and lost to the > > doubleton SK. This led to the contract going 1 down. > > The director was called. > > > > This fumble was agreed by both sides - the person fumbling stated that it > > was because the cards were sticky. Declarer stated that although low to the > > ST was percentage (they had entries back to hand) they played for SK onside > > after the fumble. > > > > The director ruled under 73F2 contract just making. > > The fumbling side now claim that declarer has just taken a double shot > > which should not be allowed. [ie: going anti-percentage in trumps then > > calling the director when this failed] > > > > What do you rule? > > I like the director's ruling. This situation is not a double shot. After the > fumble it is no longer a anti percentage decision to play for the king onside. > Without the king LHO has nothing to think and fumble about. > > > > > > > Would it make any difference to you if S (the fumbler) said as they played > > a card - "sorry the cards are stuck together" > > > > Yes. Now south explains his fumbling as a mechanical problem rather than > anything about bridge. This leaves percentages as they were. But be careful. > Having always 'mechanical' problems with the king onside may change my mind. > > Ralf There is an Appeals Committee report from a similar case in the PABF Youth Championships held in Kobe in May this year at http://bridge.cplaza.ne.jp/pabf/blt0801.html. A defender was alleged to have thought for an undue length of time at trick one on a trump lead, and then fumbled his cards holding a singleton. Declarer acted on the information (legally available) that the defender held another trump and did not attempt to safety play for a stiff trump with the relevant defender. The ruling is complicated by the presence of screens, the defender's uncertainty as to the presence of a fumble, declarer's perceived obligation not to play unduly quickly to trick one, the "technical" play at trick two, and the perceived right of third hand to think about the hand in context after dummy has played. I found the ruling well-considered, and include it below, for any who are interested... Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------- APPEALS: CASE ONE Event: PABF Youth Teams, RR 3 Match 1, Wednesday, May 20 Teams: N/S: Hong Kong, China; E/W Australia Bd:4 Dlr: West Vul: Both KJ74 9 J73 AQ1097 Q1063 A952 Q2 KJ10543 AQ108 96 K85 J 8 A876 K542 6432 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT P 2C P 2S P 4S All pass Facts: 4S went two down, minus 200 for E/W. 1NT was 13-15 HCP. 2C was simple Stayman. The opening lead was the S4. After calling a low spade from dummy declarer stated that South took a long time before playing to trick one, pulling a card from his hand, then replacing it (fumbling), and finally following with the S8. Declarer won the ten and, believing South to have at least one more spade because of his actions at trick one, at trick two played a low spade toward dummy and rose with the ace when North followed with the seven. When South showed out West called the Director. Director's Ruling: After questioning the players the Director determined that West claimed that his play at trick two was based on the inference that, once North followed to the second round of spades, the suit was breaking. South would have had no reason to think at trick one with a singleton. Declarer's stated plan was to draw the second round of trumps and lose one trick in spades, hearts and clubs (taking the diamond finesse if necessary). Without the hesitation, given the favorable lead, West stated that he would have safety-played trumps at trick two (via a spade to dummy's nine). After consultation with several "experts," the Director ruled that declarer's play of a low spade at trick two was inferior and that it was this line of play which was responsible for the bad result. South would have played the king at trick one had he held it and the only holding consistent with his hesitation was SJ8 doubleton making the SQ the technically correct play at trick two. In addition, the Director noted that the contract was a difficult one to play and there was no guarantee that it would have been made even after playing the S9 from dummy at trick two. The Director ruled that the table result would stand and a procedural penalty was issued against N/S for South's hesitation with a singleton (Law 90). The latter was suspended and left up to the Committee as to whether it should be reissued when the Director learned that his ruling was being appealed. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. At the hearing West stated in response to a question from the Committee that he had not played from dummy immediately at trick one, realizing the ethical dilemma such an action places the next player in. Instead, he had waited 5-10 seconds before calling for a low spade. West said that the hesitation and fumble from South were clear and unmistakable. South admitted that he took a bit of time to play to trick one, but was not aware of whether or not he had fumbled or removed and then replaced a card before playing to the trick. Neither North nor East had seen what happened because the screen effectively blocked their view. The Committee's Decision: The Committee made several points in this case. First, Declarer should never play quickly from dummy at trick one; even a 5-10 second pause may be too fast. Second, regardless of declarer's tempo in playing from dummy, third hand is under no obligation to play quickly and need (should) not apologize or explain his tempo (a comment such as, "I need to think about the whole hand" is both unnecessary and inappropriate). In fact, third hand should play with due deliberation, even if his play to trick one is easy or "automatic." Third hand's slow (within reason) play at trick one should be without prejudice (declarer takes inference at his own risk however, an unduly fast play by third hand is not without prejudice). Thus, South's thinking at trick one was not material to this decision. Third, South's alleged "fumbling" was another matter. The fact that declarer was certain about the fumble, while South was uncertain whether he might have done this or not, led the Committee to find that there was a perceptible fumble. Law 73D1 gives players the right to draw inferences from variations in their opponents' manner and/or tempo. However, players may not attempt to mislead opponents through such variations (Law 73D2). Law 73F2 instructs a Director (or, by extension, an Appeal Committee) to adjust a score if an "innocent" player is misled by such a variation when there is "no demonstrable bridge reason for the action" and provided that the player who committed the act "could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit." To adjust a score based on this law does not carry any implication that there was an intent to mislead or deceive; only that the situation was such that there was no demonstrable bridge reason for the variation and that the player involved could have known that it could work to his advantage. The Committee found that this was the case here. There was no demonstrable bridge reason for South pulling a card and returning it to his hand when he held a singleton. (If the action had been inadvertent for example, if it was due to a mechanical error such as a sticky card or pulling the wrong card by mistake South should have informed West that the problem was not bridge-related.) In addition, a player holding a singleton (trump) could know that it could work to his advantage for declarer to believe that he holds more than one. Therefore, the Committee decided that the score should be adjusted. The Committee believed that it was reasonable for declarer to assume that trumps were breaking (or at least that South, not North, would have four trumps if they were not breaking) once South fumbled at trick one. In analyzing the hand the Committee also decided that, given the (presumed) three-two trump break, inserting the SA from dummy at trick two was a reasonable play. (Declarer need only make reasonable for his skill level , not superior, bids or plays to retain his right to redress.) Once South followed to the SA declarer could drive out the SA and later get to dummy to take his discards on the good hearts. This line would lose only if South held the HA, North the DK, and South found the diamond shift. In light of the foregoing, the Committee decided to adjust the result to 4S by West making four, plus 620 for E/W and minus 620 for N/S. The procedural penalty was not reinstated, but South was told of his obligation to inform the opponent(s) whenever a purely "mechanical error" caused a variation in his manner or tempo of bidding or play. The Committee: Rich Colker, Chair; Eric Kokish, Jane Choo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 15:18:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 15:18:48 +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 PAA09337 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 15:18:39 +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 UAA13256 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:22:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812170422.UAA13256@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Hesitation Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 20:21:02 -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 Kent wrote: > Given that the EW players are not of the expert level, I believe it quite > likely that many (75%+) non-expert East's would bid 5S in the given > auction. Therefore, if my analysis of the player's level is correct, the > result stands. If EW are an expert partnership and West failed to double > 5C with the given hand, roll the result back. > You mean "would bid 5S" in the absence of a hesitation, I presume. But non-experts are often tuned in to partner's tempo, which is unlikely to be even. I believe that many (75%) non-expert Wests would pass out of tempo after bidding 4S, passing slowly with a strong hand and fast with a weak hand. This particular non-expert hesitated with a strong hand, and his partner bid. We do not know how West would have passed after making a weak preempt, nor what East would have done opposite a fast pass (no way to test *that*). I think the other side should be given the benefit of the doubt. It will teach people not to bid opposite a slow pass. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Going to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 15:23:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 15:23:01 +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 PAA09354 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 15:22:56 +1100 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA18861 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:27:45 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:27:45 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso Reply-To: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: <9812161742.aa22372@flash.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Nancy Dressing wrote: > > > HI... It happened at the local dupe today. Declarer lead the CQ, [LHO] > > trumped with D9, dummy discarded and [RHO] played H8. [LHO] now says "What > > was lead?" "CQ", [LHO] now says, "oops, I have a club" and the director > > is called. Director now states the D9 becomes a penalty card . [RHO] had > > stated that she would not have played the heart had her partner followed > > suit. The director allows [RHO] to play a trump, which wins the trick. > > Does declarer at this point have the option of of forbidding or > > requiring the lead of a diamond by [RHO] whose partner now has a penalty > > card???? > > I'm assuming that the cards were played to the trick in the correct > order. In the original post, declarer played, then RHO, then dummy, > then LHO, which is backward unless it's from dummy's point of view > (dummy's RHO played second). Therefore, I've reversed LHO and RHO in > the text above. > > What wasn't mentioned is that although RHO is allowed to withdraw the > H8 and play a trump, the H8 now becomes a penalty card (Law 62C2). No! If the H8 is withdrawn, then it certainly becomes a penalty card, however the laws don't automatically allow RHO to substitute another card to this trick just because LHO has! What Law 62C actually says is: "Subsequent Cards Played to Trick 1. By Non-offending Side Each member of the non-offending side may, without penalty, withdraw any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (see Law 16C). 2. By Partner of Offender After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw its played card, which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender (see Law 16C)." Hence unless declarer elects to change the card he discarded from dummy, then the H8 stands as played. The Director got it wrong in more ways than one - This trick should have been won by declarers CQ after LHO withdrew his trump and followed suit! Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 16:01:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:01:25 +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 QAA09408 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:01:16 +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 VAA19049; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:05:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812170505.VAA19049@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" , "Linda Weinstein" Subject: Re: Orlando Appeals Case #19 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:03:03 -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 Linda Weinstein wrote: > Since I posted this to rec.games.bridge, I might as well repeat it here.... > > Remember, the Director is on call to the Committee as the Laws expert and all decisions Committees make are reviewed with the Screening > Director to be sure they are legal before they are disclosed to the players.< That's good to know, although the TD responsible for forwarding the appeal should also probably be on call. > Committee members are well-versed in the laws, but not experts, nor should they be required to be as long as we have Director staff support - after all, is not Laws expertise their job? Is it wrong to assume that National Directors know the Law - and should they not indicate uncertainty when it exists?< By the "Law" I'm sure you mean both the Laws and ACBL regulations. No, not wrong. Mistaken maybe, but not wrong. Should they indicate uncertainty when it exists? Yes, their own uncertainty. But they should not ascribe uncertainty to Laws or regs when it doesn't exist. > Anyway - the Committee Chairman was sort of stuck. We don't change what happened just because someone goofed. We thought the best way to handle this was to add editorial comment.< Very admirable. I have noticed how you and Rich let the chips fall where they may as I read the NABC Daily Bulletin and casebook writeups. Outright mistakes (e.g., vulnerability) and grammatical blunders may be corrected of course, but truths that look bad are left in, and that's how it should be. In one case I know of, Rich went to a lot of trouble to correct a writeup when the "scribe" put some, let's say inappropriate, words into the record that made an AC decision look better. > Any editor's note that appears in an appeal write-up is from the Appeals Administrator who at this time is Rich Colker. I guess Appeals Administrator's note would be a better way to identify these things... Rich was wearing his casebook editor hat at three in the morning when we wrote this.< Well then, kudos to Rich for the added note. > In addition: Committees often have law books in their hands while they are deliberating and do refer to laws in their discussions and are asked to reference laws in their write-ups,< I hope they also have ACBL regulations in their hands, including the Alert Procedure. > but since it is very often a dull repetition of 12 and 16, they often don't. Neither do a lot of the Directors (only about 60% do) on the appeals form even though they are asked to.< Omitting references to 12 and 16 is not a big sin, IMO, but completeness is probably the best course. > The dilemma is, should we as editors add them when it is clear what they are, for the purpose of our reading audience? I do when I am writing them up (especially after the tournament when I am more awake, as I am now) and of course the Chairman reviews everything I write and often thank me for including the Law numbers because they do realize it was an oversight.< Maybe the Screening Director should do that, as long as he reviews each case for legality. As a high-ranking TD, he can get after TDs who aren't doing the job correctly. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Going to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 16:13:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:13:33 +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 QAA09445 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:13:26 +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 VAA21357; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:17:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812170517.VAA21357@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Orlando Appeals Case #19 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:15:13 -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 DWS wrote: > after I wrote: > >A modest proposal: Instead of the 16-page Alert Procedure > >"pamphlet," my complete one-page presentation ought to be in every > >TDs pocket and on the table at every AC meeting. I have urged this > >to Gary Blaiss, who is examining it, but no answer yet. Anyone > >wanting a copy of the one-page WordPerfect .wpd file or a two-page > >.txt file need only ask me for it by e-mail. > > This also appears on my Lawspage, specifically at > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/acbl_alt.htm > I have sent DWS an updated version that is rearranged and revised in a number of small ways, some not so small, some arising from correspondence with Gary Blaiss, ACBL Chief Tournament Director. It might be better to give him a chance to update the web page cited, as it contains some small errors. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Going to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 16:15:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:15:27 +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 QAA09459 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:15:20 +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 VAA21661 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:19:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812170519.VAA21661@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Orlando Appeals Case #19 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:18:21 -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 DWS wrote: > after I wrote: > >A modest proposal: Instead of the 16-page Alert Procedure > >"pamphlet," my complete one-page presentation ought to be in every > >TDs pocket and on the table at every AC meeting. I have urged this > >to Gary Blaiss, who is examining it, but no answer yet. Anyone > >wanting a copy of the one-page WordPerfect .wpd file or a two-page > >.txt file need only ask me for it by e-mail. > > This also appears on my Lawspage, specifically at > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/acbl_alt.htm > I have sent DWS an updated version that is rearranged and revised in a number of small ways, some not so small, some arising from correspondence with Gary Blaiss, ACBL Chief Tournament Director. It might be better to give him a chance to update the web page cited before downloading it or quoting anything from it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Going to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 16:37:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:37:52 +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 QAA09494 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:37:46 +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 VAA24514 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:42:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812170542.VAA24514@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Orlando Appeals Case #19 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:40:12 -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 DWS wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >This looks to me like a misapplication of the "egregious" > >principle. > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 1NT (1) 2D (2) Pass 2H > > Pass Pass Dbl All Pass > > > > (1) Announced; 10-12 HCP > > (2) Announced; Transfer > > Why was a Transfer overcall announced? Good grief, I hadn't noticed that! Of course the only transfers that are Announced are diamond-to-heart and heart-to-spade transfers in response to natural notrump opening bids or overcalls (or 2NT rebid after 2C open). George Rosenkranz must have been having a hard day. As a member of the ACBL National Laws Commission, he should know better. This 2D bid must be Alerted. There are a lot of illegal Announcements these days. You glance at someone's CC, casually looking for the meaning of a bid, and LHO Announces the meaning without being asked. Maybe that's what happened here. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Going to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 17:17:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA09550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:17:28 +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 RAA09545 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:17:19 +1100 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA03086 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:22:03 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:22:03 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: <9812161904.aa27772@flash.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > 2. By Partner of Offender=20 > > After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of the > > offending side next in rotation may withdraw its played card, > > which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender (see > > Law 16C). > > Ooops, I missed the word "non-offender" in the first phrase, so my > previous dissertation appears to be in error. Sorry. > > However, I'm still curious about what happens in the general case when > both defenders have major penalty cards and one of them gets the lead. > Did I get that part right? Yes you did. Declarers lead penalty options (due to defenders partners penalty card) take precedence over the obligation to play defenders own penalty card. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 21:52:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 21:52:03 +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 VAA09834 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 21:51:46 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-147.uunet.be [194.7.13.147]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA08261 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:56:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3678E290.F067DB5D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:53:04 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Fifth Friday Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, time to announce the next set of fifth friday tournaments : world-wide simultaneous tournaments held whenever there is a fifth friday in the month. The first of these is on 29/1. Mail me if your club is interested in joining. More details on my web-pages. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 17 23:51:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:51:56 +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 XAA10091 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:51:50 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.054 #1) id 0zqcyp-0002vy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:56:36 +0000 Message-ID: <02lEMrBbUIe2EwU9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 04:14:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fumble and appeal References: <4.1.19981215172245.0098a5e0@sercit> <367648F1.2B587C38@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> <367857EA.464B506C@postoffice.utas.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <367857EA.464B506C@postoffice.utas.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: [s] > After consultation with several "experts," the Director ruled that declarer's >play of a low spade at trick two was inferior and that it was this line of play >which was responsible for the bad result. Has this got anything to do with the Laws of bridge? Some of these Directors appear to be on another planet. [s] >The Director ruled that the table result would stand >and >a procedural penalty was issued against N/S for South's hesitation with a >singleton (Law 90). The latter was suspended and left up to the Committee as to >whether it should be reissued when the Director learned that his ruling was >being >appealed. I find this difficult to actually believe. No doubt it is not meant as a joke, but does a Director really fail to apply his ruling .... [s] >First, >Declarer should never play quickly from dummy at trick one; even a 5-10 second >pause may be too fast. Second, regardless of declarer's tempo in playing from >dummy, third hand is under no obligation to play quickly and need (should) not >apologize or explain his tempo (a comment such as, "I need to think about the >whole hand" is both unnecessary and inappropriate). Apart from this statement, the Appeals committee have got it right. This depends on whether dummy has played quickly. If not, to take extra time is considered inappropriate in several jurisdictions without a disclaimer. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 18 00:27:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 00:27:01 +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 AAA12388 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 00:26:51 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n34.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.52]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA13995 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 07:36:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981217082822.007e04e0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:28:22 -0500 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Hesitation In-Reply-To: <199812170422.UAA13256@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:21 PM 12/16/98 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >It will teach people not to bid opposite a slow pass. Is this desired? Many, but not all, hesitations suggest bidding. I don't want to get into a position where anybody can force their partner to pass by taking a little extra time to consider their action. I always thought the proper thing to do when partner has hesitated is take the action you feel you would have without the hesitation and then not complain if your result is changed by a director or committee. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 18 02:33:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 02:33:34 +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 CAA12783 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 02:33:28 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 0zqfVG-0001rW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:38:14 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981217163240.009f2ab0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:32:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Hesitation In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981217082822.007e04e0@maine.rr.com> References: <199812170422.UAA13256@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:28 17-12-98 -0500, you wrote: >At 08:21 PM 12/16/98 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >>It will teach people not to bid opposite a slow pass. > >Is this desired? Many, but not all, hesitations suggest bidding. I don't >want to get into a position where anybody can force their partner to pass >by taking a little extra time to consider their action. I always thought >the proper thing to do when partner has hesitated is take the action you >feel you would have without the hesitation and then not complain if your >result is changed by a director or committee. > >Tim > > hi, You are certainly right in this, but the problem is always, THAT they complain after a correction of the score. At least that's what all the arguments are about as far as i can see. The problem is that this attitude seems to be universal in bridge, i too have lots of examples of this kind of situation. Perhaps it is an idea to redress always in this circumstance (to send the offenders in appeal). But on the other hand it's not TD-like to put the problem on someone else's plate if you can handle it yourself. regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 18 06:38:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 06:38:57 +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 GAA13163 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 06:38:49 +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 LAA21699 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:43:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812171943.LAA21699@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Hesitation Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:41:26 -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: Marvin L. French wrote: > > >It will teach people not to bid opposite a slow pass. > > Is this desired? Many, but not all, hesitations suggest bidding. I don't > want to get into a position where anybody can force their partner to pass > by taking a little extra time to consider their action. Interesting point, and I don't know the answer. Kantar and Miles used to Pre-Alert that they employed random hesitations. I thought that was an excellent idea, but it either didn't catch on or was disapproved by the authorities. > I always thought > the proper thing to do when partner has hesitated is take the action you > feel you would have without the hesitation and then not complain if your > result is changed by a director or committee. I don't think that is proper at all. A player should be able to figure out if passing is a logical alternative (LA) to acting (as hesitations always suggest, in my experience). It is not right to take an "action you feel you would have without the hesitation" if you recognize that the hesitation suggests further action and passing is an LA. L16 does not allow you to do that. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Going to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 18 08:49:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 08:49:38 +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 IAA13355 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 08:49:30 +1100 Received: from merak.cc.umanitoba.ca (wolkb@merak.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.10]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id PAA03495 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 15:54:04 -0600 (CST) Received: (from wolkb@localhost) by merak.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) id PAA24439 ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 15:54:03 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 15:54:03 -0600 (CST) From: Barry Wolk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think it's time to repeat the hand. David Stevenson wrote: > N/Nil J5 W N E S > Teams K7 1C P 1D > Q84 4S P P 5C > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > K6 1075 D AP > 2 --- Q > J32 6C*-1 N > AJ932 N/S -100 > J9876 > > + Agreed unmistakable hesitation > > The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no values > and is bidding on partners hand." > > I was asked for an opinion which I have given. However, I am now > worrying about it, and I thought I would see what others thought of > this. Without the hesitation, several people have said that E should pass 5C, primarily because NS could have a laydown 6C or 7C. However, if E trusts the NS bidding, the fact that they stopped in 5C tells E that W holds a hand much stronger than something like AKJxxxxx/xx/xx/x. And this info is AI, duplicating the UI available from the hesitation. This is one aspect of the problem that no one has yet mentioned. However, E has conflicting evidence. John R. Mayne was the first to say: > This depends on your definition of LA. First, bridge lesson: West should > have doubled, showing extra strength. [snip] > In a good game, I think 5S is automatic. I'd rule this way even in the > ACBL, although I wouldn't feel too bad if my committee mates outvoted > me. In fact, I think I'd bid 5S even after the tank, and that's the > strongest statement I can make. So E has a choice to make. Does he pass, deciding that NS made a bad error by stopping in 5C? Or does he trust NS and bid 5S, deciding that W made a small error by not doubling 5C? (Someone called the hesitation a "silent double.") Is the AC going to rule that, after W hesitates, E is not allowed to trust the NS bidding? At teams you normally do not assume your opponents at the table have made a bad error. I'm part of the group that feels 5S is obvious, and that passing 5C is not a LA. -- Barry Wolk Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 18 10:13:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 10:13:22 +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 KAA13445 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 10:11:12 +1100 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 10:11:12 +1100 Received: (qmail 6258 invoked from network); 17 Dec 1998 23:15:45 -0000 Received: from pm02-097.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.97) by mailhub.iag.net with SMTP; 17 Dec 1998 23:15:45 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19981217181343.37070518@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: Hesitation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:21 PM 12/16/98 -0800, you wrote: >David Kent wrote: > >> Given that the EW players are not of the expert level, I believe >it quite >> likely that many (75%+) non-expert East's would bid 5S in the >given >> auction. Therefore, if my analysis of the player's level is >correct, the >> result stands. If EW are an expert partnership and West failed >to double >> 5C with the given hand, roll the result back. >> >You mean "would bid 5S" in the absence of a hesitation, I presume. >But non-experts are often tuned in to partner's tempo, which is >unlikely to be even. I believe that many (75%) non-expert Wests >would pass out of tempo after bidding 4S, passing slowly with a >strong hand and fast with a weak hand. This particular non-expert >hesitated with a strong hand, and his partner bid. We do not know >how West would have passed after making a weak preempt, nor what >East would have done opposite a fast pass (no way to test *that*). > >I think the other side should be given the benefit of the doubt. It >will teach people not to bid opposite a slow pass. > Just want to snip in an "interesting case" from Dallas NABC 1997 Case #6 Board:27 Vul: none dealer:south North KQJT86 3 65 KQ83 West East A7 54 T964 AKJ2 AKJ32 84 J2 T9764 South 932 Q875 QT97 A5 West North East South -- -- -- Pass 1He 1Sp 4He Pass(1) pass 4Sp all pass 1) break in tempo The Facts: 4Sp went down one, plus 50 for E/W. Over the 4He bid, South broke tempo, pausing for 5 to 15 seconds after the Stop card was removed before passing. There was some dispute over the length of the hesitation. The Director ruled that North's 4Sp call could have been based on unauthorized information (Law 16), but there was no damage as E/W were unlikely to make 4H. The Director allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling, maintaining that North's 4Sp bid could have been influenced by South's break in tempo and that West would have made 4He had she been allowed to declare that contract. N/S stated that the hesitation was brief, basically an extension of the skip bid warning and did not convey any meaningful information to North. The Committee Decision: The Committee determined that there was a break in tempo before South passed 4He. The key issue was whether this pause indicated offensive rather than defensive values. There was a likelihood that E/W had a nine or ten-card heart fit (West had incorrectly sorted her hand and thought she had opened a five-card major). North had excessive offensive values because she was six-four and held the 10. South was known to have some values (because of the preempt) and if South had only the J, North would not be more than down two. If South had two aces, North might make 4Sp. The Committee, therefore thought the 4Sp bid was clear-cut. The Committee changed the contract to 4Sp down one, plus 50 for E/W. This case also have case to determine which LA is most LA. And the ruling looks like no matter what you do you lose. If 4Heart had made i am 100% sure that 4sp would be NOT ALLOWED and result changed to 4He making some number. Wonder what the named AC would have ruled if North had passed and they collected there income in 4He down 1. Would they allow result to stand and in that way say there first ruling is wrong? Robert From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 18 10:35:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 10:35:08 +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 KAA13520 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 10:34:58 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h119.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id CAA14288; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 02:39:38 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <367A3F7F.2C7C@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 03:41:52 -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: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="HESIT2.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="HESIT2.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) I guess that the theme we started to discuss went far away from the original one - so I dare to rename it as "L12C3 calculation" First of all I'd like to remind that I am not glad with L12C3 at all. But our ACs (Russia does be in European Zone) are trying to use it - and there are several method of calculating scores. So - I am quite interested in opinion from different origins. Second point - I am not sure that I am right. Nevertheless I will try to defend my position because arguments of opposite side will be helpful to our (Russian) body for making its decision when recommended method is discussed. So - thanks in advance to all participant, especially - to opponents. Let's discuss the matter. Both Davids (DWS and Grabiner) pointed that scores like 395 or 321 are meaningless, provides to zero result, etc. Well, but I had never wrote such numbers:) Usually (years before, when there happened to play pairs for IMPS, average were calculated and then approximated to tens) we round it off 400 (385 - to 380, arithmetical law). And nobody said that 310 was meaningless - just amount for comparison. As it is said in L12C2 - AC may award assign score in total points - and there are no restriction for amount of these points. Now let's see to DWS's example: "Suppose that a hand is normally played in 4S making. Because of an infraction a pair stops in 2S. So the frequencies on the board are as follows: Matchpoints Result Score Frequency [English] [American] 4S+1 650 1 20 10 4S= 620 9 11 5.5 2S+2 170 1 0 0 Now, suppose the AC decides that without the infraction the pair may or may not reach game, so they assign 50% +620, 50% +170. What is that in matchpoints? Using your method, you assign +395, which is 0 matchpoints. We assign 50% +620, 50% +170, which is 50% 11, 50% 0, i.e. 5.5 matchpoints [or 2.75 American]. There is no doubt that our method is fairer." But there were made several mistakes in the example: 1. Even according to "my" method with such AC-percentage this pair will receive not zero but 2 point (395=400 are greater than 170) - not too much but not zero and not too less than "your" method... 2. I guess that for this very board in reality 50/50-percentage AC's decision was wrong (bad decision?). With such frequencies experienced AC will decide 95/5 or even 100/0 - because game in the board is rather without any bidding problem. That means that David's example has inside contradiction: frequencies contradicted to AC's percentage decision - too artificial for argument. I suggest to test both methods on real AC's decision (I guess David has a lot of them in his archive, for example - from Lille. Thanks in advance:) But there remains some problem: when there are not too much records in board's protocols - I guess any calculating will be wrong, and one should rather not use L12C3: it seems that it will be better use L12C2. Especially - "my" method is very sensible to absence of "intermediate" results between 170 and 620. In reality, with great number of records there will be a lot of 180, 200, 300, 500 etc. And in such case different percentages (in "my" method) have sense. I believe (hope?) that difference (inaccuracy) between both methods for great number of records will be within limit of percentage accuracy. Now - to David Grabiner post and examples. 1. I am sorry very much - it was accidentally used Cyrillic. These words meant "average-weighted" (strictly translation from Russian) and I do not know how it should be said in English. 2. David wrote: "Consider 80% of +1430 and 20% of +680, scored against +1370 at the other table. Method #1 makes a swing of -90, or -3 IMPs. Method #2 makes a swing of +60 80% of the time and -690 20% of the time, or -0.8 IMPs. Method #1 eliminates most of the reward for bidding a slam in spades rather than clubs when the other table is in slam." Well - but I said that difference between methods is within limits of inaccuracy of percentage assign. Far 80/20 percentage difference between "my" and "your" methods for this example is 2.2 IMPs. But difference for "your" method between 80/20 and 70/30 percentage is 0.9 IMPs, between 80/20 and 90/10 percentage is 4.3 IMPs. That means my statement was right: differences between methods is within limits of inaccuracy of percentage... 3. Then David continued: "Method #1 will not work in a pairs contest at all. Suppose that most pairs in a pairs contest are +100, +110, or +140. One pair is awarded a score of X% of +200 and (100-X)% of -670 in 2H doubled. The double would have produced either a top or a bottom. If X is 80%, the resulting score of +66 is a bottom, for an action which had an 80% chance of giving a top." It seems to be killing argument: from the MP's point of view there is no difference between +50 and -7000: both are zero. The same - between +200 and +7000: both are max. I should rethink the matter, but probably "my" method does not work in pairs if there are involved results, less than minimum or greater than maximum... Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 18 10:58:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 10:58:43 +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 KAA13587 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 10:58:36 +1100 Received: from 207.205.156.88 (pool-207-205-156-88.lsan.grid.net [207.205.156.88]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA27240 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 19:03:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3679A763.497B@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:52:53 -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: Hesitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Barry Wolk wrote: > > I think it's time to repeat the hand. David Stevenson wrote: > > > N/Nil J5 W N E S > > Teams K7 1C P 1D > > Q84 4S P P 5C > > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > > K6 1075 D AP > > 2 --- Q > > J32 6C*-1 N > > AJ932 N/S -100 > > J9876 > > > > + Agreed unmistakable hesitation > > [snip] > So E has a choice to make. Does he pass, deciding that NS made a bad > error by stopping in 5C? Or does he trust NS and bid 5S, deciding that > W made a small error by not doubling 5C? (Someone called the hesitation > a "silent double.") Is the AC going to rule that, after W hesitates, > E is not allowed to trust the NS bidding? At teams you normally do not > assume your opponents at the table have made a bad error. I'm part of > the group that feels 5S is obvious, and that passing 5C is not a LA. I recognize that I may appear to be contradicting one of my earlier posts, but I'd like to note that I disagree with this particular justification for 5S. The justification for bidding 5S is that partner could easily have two defensive tricks in his hand, and it's not impossible to be a maker. (Why can't pd have KJxxxxxx AKx -- xx, in which case this could be a huge swing?) Additionally, even if they have 6C, it is not clear they can get there -- they may errantly whack 5S. But to trust partner to have made the error on an impacted auction is really insulting -- surely it's a LA to play partner to have done the right thing. And is 5C a "bad error" if the North hand is the same and South holds --- Axx AKxxx xxxxx? If it is, soften the cards a bit. These two hands make a *grand* virtually cold; make it AJTxx of diamonds and the small slam is there. Again, I've been convinced that pass *is* a LA (an LA?) in any game. In fact, it may (heavy, grumpy sigh for falling so far so fast) be (shudder) correct. I may have been wr--- about 5S being superior. I would never issue a PP for a player who bid 5S, though. It might make, it might push them into 6C off 1, and it might be a good sacrifice. There are some big plusses available for 5S to work. A player can reasonably believe this to be automatic -- several posters, including me, have thought so, although I've been enlightened. --JRM > > -- > Barry Wolk > Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 18 11:32:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:32:38 +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 LAA13634 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:29:54 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zqnsC-0000u5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 00:34:30 +0000 Message-ID: <4agHXWAMHUe2Ew3a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:39:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Hesitation References: <199812170422.UAA13256@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19981217082822.007e04e0@maine.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19981217163240.009f2ab0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981217163240.009f2ab0@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 08:28 17-12-98 -0500, you wrote: >>At 08:21 PM 12/16/98 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>>It will teach people not to bid opposite a slow pass. >> >>Is this desired? Many, but not all, hesitations suggest bidding. I don't >>want to get into a position where anybody can force their partner to pass >>by taking a little extra time to consider their action. I always thought >>the proper thing to do when partner has hesitated is take the action you >>feel you would have without the hesitation and then not complain if your >>result is changed by a director or committee. This is against the Laws of the game [L73C] and is, while reasonable, not best. You should bend over backwards not to take advantage. If, for example, you are an aggressive defensive bidder, and partner pauses indicating values, and it comes round to you in a position where you might double or pass, then you should not say to yourself "I know I would normally double, so I will double and not complain if the TD rules it back." In fact you should pass because that is what the laws require you to. It is more than the laws: personal ethics should suggest the same. Suppose you double, collect 800, and opponents say nothing: how do you feel? The way to play this game is to follow the laws and ethics and to try to keep all Directors asleep in their chairs. Any method that _requires_ a TD is less than best. Now, if you do not know whether partner's action suggests double or pass: if you do not know whether it really was a hesitation: if you do not know the effect of the Laws, and so on, then doing what you would always do is fine. But where partner's actions suggest something particular, then avoid doing that unless it is evident. >You are certainly right in this, but the problem is always, THAT they >complain after a correction of the score. At least that's what all the >arguments are about as far as i can see. >The problem is that this attitude seems to be universal in bridge, i too >have lots of examples of this kind of situation. It is certainly not universal in bridge: there are lots and lots and lots of examples where it does not happen. If you play in a place where a Director gets called for more than one hesitation in ten then it is a very unfortunate environment. Of course there are dislikeable people everywhere, and as we have seen that the approach in certain areas seems to bring them to the fore, but wherever we are we should not encourage such people. Look after your own ethics, and ignore the rats. >Perhaps it is an idea to redress always in this circumstance (to send the >offenders in appeal). But on the other hand it's not TD-like to put the >problem on someone else's plate if you can handle it yourself. It is illegal: it is damaging to the game. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 18 12:22:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:22:08 +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 MAA13714 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:22:01 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zqogo-0007Jd-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 01:26:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 00:48:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Hesitation In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981217082822.007e04e0@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.5.32.19981217082822.007e04e0@maine.rr.com>, Tim Goodwin writes >At 08:21 PM 12/16/98 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >>It will teach people not to bid opposite a slow pass. > >Is this desired? Many, but not all, hesitations suggest bidding. I don't >want to get into a position where anybody can force their partner to pass >by taking a little extra time to consider their action. I always thought >the proper thing to do when partner has hesitated is take the action you >feel you would have without the hesitation and then not complain if your >result is changed by a director or committee. > >Tim > As a player I'm broadly in agreement with this view subject to the caveat that if it is clear that the UI suggests something then I probably should do the other if both courses of action are plausible (in other words I have a genuine albeit inferior logical alternative). As a player I certainly agree that if the TD decides I was wrong then I should shrug and play the next hand. As a TD I have more stringent requirements and would, so to speak, from time to time, adjust my own chosen course of action as a player. I think this is a reasonable approach because, as a player, I try not to be influenced by partner's breaks of tempo and to allow such breaks of tempo unduly to influence my bridge judgement seems wrong. In effect I don't try to second guess the TD. On the hand in question I've been following the thread closely and have been impressed by the arguments both for and against allowing 5 spades. I am still of the view that 5S is allowable at teams (but not at pairs as I've already said) as standard insurance, and this gives partner the option to bid 6S over 6C if that's where they go. It may well be that it is not as clear to me in the UK as it seems to be in the US that the 4S bidder should have doubled to show a more defensive oriented hand than the one he might have held - and this could coloUr my judgement. In the UK I feel the decisions would be made at the six level. I am persuaded however that I should be prepared to take it to appeal myself. An excellent problem. By the way David what was your opinion? 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 Dec 18 12:22:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:22:09 +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 MAA13715 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:22:02 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zqogp-0002PE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 01:26:48 +0000 Message-ID: <9XT+pcBH6ae2Ew2m@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 01:23:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) In-Reply-To: <367A3F7F.2C7C@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <367A3F7F.2C7C@elnet.msk.ru>, vitold@elnet.msk.ru writes > > Now let's see to DWS's example: > >"Suppose that a hand is normally played in 4S making. Because of an >infraction a pair stops in 2S. So the frequencies on the board are as >follows: > Matchpoints > Result Score Frequency [English] [American] > > 4S+1 650 1 20 10 > 4S= 620 9 10 5 Corrected > 2S+2 170 1 0 0 > NB Correction, good thing we have computers eh, David :) NB Total matchpoints are: 20+ 9x10 = 110 > Now, suppose the AC decides that without the infraction the pair >may or may not reach game, so they assign 50% +620, 50% +170. What >is that in matchpoints? I feel that the best solution is to modify the frequency table as follows: 4S+1 650 1 20 10 4S= 620 9.5 9.5 4.75 2S+2 170 0.5 -0.5 -0.25 NB Total matchpoints are: 20 + 9.5x9.5 -0.5x0.5 = 110 The pair in question now get 0.5x9.5 + 0.5x-0.5 = 4.5. NB the negative matchpoint award is not a problem as it figures in a calculation, and if there were true scores of 170 then it would be positive. Further if the AC awards a non-balancing EW 75% -170 and 25% -620, one needs to construct a different frequency table for EW. This implies that NS and EW may not have the classic 20 matchpoints shared between them, but nonetheless we do share out the 110 matchpoints as fairly as possible for the NS's and the EW's >From a program design point of view one needs to allow for multiple weighted NS *and* EW scores with a key to invoke the routine which allows their input. (Needless to say mine does!) One does the same for imps, and in a head to head match one has to compute all imp outcomes and weight them appropriately (including non- balancing scores). One can reach Team A gets +4 and Team B gets -3, but that then gets averaged, and I guess rounded in favoUr of the non- offenders where the fraction is 0.5. -- 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 Dec 18 12:58:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:58:18 +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 MAA13752 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:58:12 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zqpFn-0005lw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 02:02:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 01:10:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <367A3F7F.2C7C@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <367A3F7F.2C7C@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold wrote: >I guess that the theme we started to discuss went far away from the >original one - so I dare to rename it as "L12C3 calculation" > >First of all I'd like to remind that I am not glad with L12C3 at all. >But our ACs (Russia does be in European Zone) are trying to use >it - and there are several method of calculating scores. So - I am >quite interested in opinion from different origins. > >Second point - I am not sure that I am right. Nevertheless I will try >to defend my position because arguments of opposite side will be >helpful to our (Russian) body for making its decision when >recommended method is discussed. So - thanks in advance to all >participant, especially - to opponents. > Let's discuss the matter. > > Both Davids (DWS and Grabiner) pointed that scores like >395 or 321 are meaningless, provides to zero result, etc. > Well, but I had never wrote such numbers:) Usually (years >before, when there happened to play pairs for IMPS, average were >calculated and then approximated to tens) we round it off 400 (385 >- to 380, arithmetical law). And nobody said that 310 was meaningless >- just amount for comparison. As it is said in L12C2 - AC may award >assign score in total points - and there are no restriction for amount >of these points. That is not the point. 310 is just as meaningless as 395. it does not make it easier for the players to come up with meaningless scores like 310. > > Now let's see to DWS's example: > >"Suppose that a hand is normally played in 4S making. Because of an >infraction a pair stops in 2S. So the frequencies on the board are as >follows: > Matchpoints > Result Score Frequency [English] [American] > > 4S+1 650 1 20 10 > 4S= 620 9 11 5.5 > 2S+2 170 1 0 0 > > Now, suppose the AC decides that without the infraction the pair >may or may not reach game, so they assign 50% +620, 50% +170. What >is that in matchpoints? > Using your method, you assign +395, which is 0 matchpoints. We >assign 50% +620, 50% +170, which is 50% 11, 50% 0, i.e. 5.5 matchpoints >[or 2.75 American]. There is no doubt that our method is fairer." > > But there were made several mistakes in the example: Well, thanks! > 1. Even according to "my" method with such AC-percentage this >pair will receive not zero but 2 point (395=400 are greater than 170) - not >too much but not zero and not too less than "your" method... 170 is the score being adjusted. My calculation is correct. You do not get 2 points for beating your own score which is now being changed. > 2. I guess that for this very board in reality 50/50-percentage AC's >decision was wrong (bad decision?). With such frequencies experienced >AC will decide 95/5 or even 100/0 - because game in the board is rather >without any bidding problem. That means that David's example has inside >contradiction: frequencies contradicted to AC's percentage decision - >too artificial for argument. I suggest to test both methods on real AC's >decision (I guess David has a lot of them in his archive, for example - >from Lille. Thanks in advance:) I am really annoyed by this argument. To suggest that an appeal committee has gone wrong on a board you haven't even seen solely because it does not support your totally unfair method of scoring is very bad indeed. No, the appeal committee did not make a mistake. If they looked at the scores on the board then they did a poor job: they should not do so when making a decision. Your method is totally unfair. I have produced a perfectly good example of why it is so unfair and to say I have made mistakes because it does not support your method is not correct. Right, one more time. Explaining to a player that he has scored 310 in 4S is stupid and unhelpful. Averaging the scores before matchpoint calculation is a dreadful method that does not work at pairs. Saying that a perfectly good example has mistakes because it does not support a flawed method of scoring is not helpful. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 18 13:04:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 13:04:00 +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 NAA13767 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 13:03:54 +1100 Received: from default (user-37ka97b.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.36.235]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA31035 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 21:08:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981217201240.006acdbc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 20:12:40 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Hesitation In-Reply-To: <199812161553.KAA03178@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:53 AM 12/16/98 -0500, Steve wrote: >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> IMO, pass is not a LA. Even my cats bid 5S here. > >I don't doubt the last. > >> I passed 4S because >> from time to time we'll get to play there, and I will bid 5S over 5C >> now, tomorrow and always. I'm only wrong when both contracts are down 1 >> and partner's hesitation has given me nothing to help with that. > >I don't understand, though, how you can possibly have missed the main >argument against bidding 5S. In addition to the above cases, you are >wrong when the opponents bid 6C (or 7C) and make it. Personally, I >expect that to be most of the time -- until partner's hesitation tells >me otherwise. > >I also don't understand the argument that the hesitation doesn't >suggest bidding on. Of course partner was thinking about double, and >of course that suggests defensive values. But those defensive values >remove the main danger of the 5S bid and make it much more attractive. >If partner had doubled, wouldn't you pull it without any thought?* So >when partner makes a "silent double," it must suggest bidding 5S. >Herman is right that we must demonstrate this, but I can't believe >there is any doubt. OK, as one of the people advancing the "does not demonstrably suggest line", I will confess that your contrary argument (and others in the same vein) are much stronger. I should have known better; I have been among those most consistently promoting a similar argument in the past. I am pleased, however, to have been on the apparently right side of the developing consensus that Pass was after all a LA. The vehement declarations by some that 5S was completely automatic in a strong game, coupled with the small survey by Bill and the comments of many others, should remind us of the need to temper our own strong convictions about what kinds of bids are automatic. One of the great satisfactions in Master Solvers for a less-than-world-class player like myself is to catch the experts out in this sort of hubris ("What's the problem?"). In evaluating LA's, it is not enough to have complete confidence about the rightness of our own approach; we must evaluate what kinds of considerations might be brought to bear by others with different styles, at the appropriate level of expertise. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 18 17:58:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA14050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:58:23 +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 RAA14045 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:58:19 +1100 Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id SAA19418; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:03:09 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma019396; Fri, 18 Dec 98 18:02:54 +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 SAA26997 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:02:54 +1100 Received: from newmanpm by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15015; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:12:29 +1100 Message-Id: <4.1.19981218180041.009abd10@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:02:15 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Re: Hesitation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:54 98/12/17 -0600, Barry Wolk wrote: >So E has a choice to make. Does he pass, deciding that NS made a bad >error by stopping in 5C? Or does he trust NS and bid 5S, deciding that >W made a small error by not doubling 5C? (Someone called the hesitation >a "silent double.") Is the AC going to rule that, after W hesitates, >E is not allowed to trust the NS bidding? At teams you normally do not >assume your opponents at the table have made a bad error. I'm part of >the group that feels 5S is obvious, and that passing 5C is not a LA. > Have you never missed a laydown slam when the opponents preempt? [Isnt that one of the main reasons for pre-emption - making it hard to guess the level] How about the following NS hands: J5 Axx Qxx AKxxxx -- Jxx AKxxx Jxxxx Who is at fault when the auction goes: N S 1C 1D (4S) P 5C Has S got an automatic 6C bid? Not clear. Give N the HAKx instead of HAxx and they have a reasonable but not 100% double of 4S. Now 7C is cold! [I can even hear the post mortem (PM?) "How could I know you had such good Clubs and the HA?", "How could I know you had a spade void..."] I think it is *optimistic* to trust the opponents will always bid a laydown slam after a 4S intervention - I wish I could. BTW - I have also polled experts in Australia - they *all* pass. Peter, -- Peter Newman bridge is not a game - it is a way of life From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 18 19:08:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA14116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 19:08:00 +1100 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA14111 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 19:07:52 +1100 Received: from uni-duesseldorf.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Fri, 18 Dec 1998 09:11:49 +0100 Message-ID: <367A0E56.61D4F567@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 09:12:06 +0100 From: Richard Bley X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [de]C-QXW0310J (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation References: <199812170422.UAA13256@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19981217082822.007e04e0@maine.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19981217163240.009f2ab0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <4agHXWAMHUe2Ew3a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, David Stevenson schrieb: > (snip) > >>Is this desired? Many, but not all, hesitations suggest bidding. I don't > >>want to get into a position where anybody can force their partner to pass > >>by taking a little extra time to consider their action. I always thought > >>the proper thing to do when partner has hesitated is take the action you > >>feel you would have without the hesitation and then not complain if your > >>result is changed by a director or committee. > > This is against the Laws of the game [L73C] and is, while reasonable, > not best. You should bend over backwards not to take advantage. > > If, for example, you are an aggressive defensive bidder, and partner > pauses indicating values, and it comes round to you in a position where > you might double or pass, then you should not say to yourself "I know I > would normally double, so I will double and not complain if the TD rules > it back." In fact you should pass because that is what the laws require > you to. It is more than the laws: personal ethics should suggest the > same. Suppose you double, collect 800, and opponents say nothing: how > do you feel? > > The way to play this game is to follow the laws and ethics and to try > to keep all Directors asleep in their chairs. Any method that > _requires_ a TD is less than best. > > Now, if you do not know whether partner's action suggests double or > pass: if you do not know whether it really was a hesitation: if you do > not know the effect of the Laws, and so on, then doing what you would > always do is fine. But where partner's actions suggest something > particular, then avoid doing that unless it is evident. > I dont agree. A player at the table has a more than difficult task at the table. He is surely not able to foresee the thoughts of the TD in the room. So the best he can do is, that he should try to think of the case without hesitation. The TD has a lot of time to think about the case (seing all four hands, asking other players etc.) the player cant do that for some reasons. So I dont think that you can burden the problems of LA etc. at him. As fas as I see it, this is not a problem of ethics, just of capabilities. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 19 00:24:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 00:24:47 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA16892 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 00:24:39 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-187.uunet.be [194.7.14.187]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA02226 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 14:29:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <367A515E.2BF44B1@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 13:58:06 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <9XT+pcBH6ae2Ew2m@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One interesting point in what "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > I feel that the best solution is to modify the frequency table as > follows: > > 4S+1 650 1 20 10 > 4S= 620 9.5 9.5 4.75 > 2S+2 170 0.5 -0.5 -0.25 > > NB Total matchpoints are: 20 + 9.5x9.5 -0.5x0.5 = 110 > > The pair in question now get 0.5x9.5 + 0.5x-0.5 = 4.5. > I concur with John's analysis on this point, but when replying to Vitold I was talking on the "agreed WBF position", which does not include this idea. However, I would recommend this type of calculation to become the corrct one. > NB the negative matchpoint award is not a problem as it figures in a > calculation, and if there were true scores of 170 then it would be > positive. > Indeed it does. In one other example it does not. When applying different scores to either side, I recommend doing the same. Suppose NS were awarded +170, and EW +620 (well, against them), then too I would adapt the frequency table in exactly the same manner, and +170 would indeed score -0.5, a score which would be attributed to NS for real. This is not a problem in Ascherman, where all scores are one point higher (thus making this +0.5), and it is one of the reasons why I recommend using the Ascherman system. > Further if the AC awards a non-balancing EW 75% -170 and 25% -620, one > needs to construct a different frequency table for EW. This implies > that NS and EW may not have the classic 20 matchpoints shared between > them, but nonetheless we do share out the 110 matchpoints as fairly as > possible for the NS's and the EW's > The frequency table will become, by the same token (NS 50% of each, EW 75% of -620 would be more logical as in your case you would be giving NS and EW more than 100% together) > 4S+1 650 1 20 (forget the Americans) > 4S= 620 9.625 (*) 9.375 > 2S+2 170 0.375 (**) -0.625 (*) 9 real ones, 50% of one NS, and 75% of one EW (**) 50% of one NS and 25% of one EW So NS get 50% of -0.625 and 50% of 9.375 = 4.375 and EW get the complement of 75% of 9.375 and 25% of -0.625 = 13.125 (total = 17.5, less than a top, as expected) > >From a program design point of view one needs to allow for multiple > weighted NS *and* EW scores with a key to invoke the routine which > allows their input. (Needless to say mine does!) > Does it ? - great ! Brigitte mark III (when I get around to it) will do too. > One does the same for imps, and in a head to head match one has to > compute all imp outcomes and weight them appropriately (including non- > balancing scores). One can reach Team A gets +4 and Team B gets -3, but > that then gets averaged, and I guess rounded in favoUr of the non- > offenders where the fraction is 0.5. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 19 00:24:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 00:24:37 +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 AAA16885 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 00:24:29 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-187.uunet.be [194.7.14.187]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA02178 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 14:29:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <367A46A4.EEED3135@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 13:12:20 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <367A3F7F.2C7C@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All, I have already read John and David's replies, but will comment on Vitold directly : vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > Hi all:) > > I guess that the theme we started to discuss went far away from the > original one - so I dare to rename it as "L12C3 calculation" > > First of all I'd like to remind that I am not glad with L12C3 at all. > But our ACs (Russia does be in European Zone) are trying to use > it - and there are several method of calculating scores. So - I am > quite interested in opinion from different origins. > This is in fact a problem which should be considered "settled". I am quite certain that the method I will describe is in fact the one which should be employed. I have no official position in this, but I urge you to believe me when I say that this is the "WBF-view". > Second point - I am not sure that I am right. Nevertheless I will try > to defend my position because arguments of opposite side will be > helpful to our (Russian) body for making its decision when > recommended method is discussed. So - thanks in advance to all > participant, especially - to opponents. > Let's discuss the matter. > > Both Davids (DWS and Grabiner) pointed that scores like > 395 or 321 are meaningless, provides to zero result, etc. > Well, but I had never wrote such numbers:) Usually (years > before, when there happened to play pairs for IMPS, average were > calculated and then approximated to tens) we round it off 400 (385 > - to 380, arithmetical law). And nobody said that 310 was meaningless > - just amount for comparison. As it is said in L12C2 - AC may award > assign score in total points - and there are no restriction for amount > of these points. > Indeed an AC may award an assigned score no matter how, but what we are trying to do here is to calculate the result when the AC has decided on X% of one score and (100-X)% on another one. If the AC for one reason or another decides to award a score of 397 on a hand, we calculate based on 397. No AC will ever award such a score, I hope. > Now let's see to DWS's example: > > "Suppose that a hand is normally played in 4S making. Because of an > infraction a pair stops in 2S. So the frequencies on the board are as > follows: > Matchpoints > Result Score Frequency [English] [American] > > 4S+1 650 1 20 10 > 4S= 620 9 11 5.5 > 2S+2 170 1 0 0 > > Now, suppose the AC decides that without the infraction the pair > may or may not reach game, so they assign 50% +620, 50% +170. What > is that in matchpoints? > Using your method, you assign +395, which is 0 matchpoints. We > assign 50% +620, 50% +170, which is 50% 11, 50% 0, i.e. 5.5 matchpoints > [or 2.75 American]. There is no doubt that our method is fairer." > > But there were made several mistakes in the example: > > 1. Even according to "my" method with such AC-percentage this > pair will receive not zero but 2 point (395=400 are greater than 170) - not > too much but not zero and not too less than "your" method... > No, since it is the +170 which is changed to 50% of 620, 50% of 170 > 2. I guess that for this very board in reality 50/50-percentage AC's > decision was wrong (bad decision?). With such frequencies experienced > AC will decide 95/5 or even 100/0 - because game in the board is rather > without any bidding problem. That means that David's example has inside > contradiction: frequencies contradicted to AC's percentage decision - > too artificial for argument. I suggest to test both methods on real AC's > decision (I guess David has a lot of them in his archive, for example - > from Lille. Thanks in advance:) Indeed it does seem strange that such a score should be given. But not totally so. The AC may feel that the non-offenders contributed in some manner to their not reaching game. That is why they do not get the full compensation. By giving the AC the L12C3 option, you allow them to give : No correction = 0%; or : total correction = 50%; OR - something in between = everything between 5 (if they think NO are 10% likely to reach game) and 45% (if they find this 90% likely). > But there remains some problem: when there are not too much > records in board's protocols - I guess any calculating will be wrong, and > one should rather not use L12C3: it seems that it will be better use L12C2. > Especially - "my" method is very sensible to absence of "intermediate" > results between 170 and 620. In reality, with great number of records > there will be a lot of 180, 200, 300, 500 etc. And in such case different > percentages (in "my" method) have sense. Whether or not there are intermediate scores, this makes your method very "discrete", as I shall explain below. > I believe (hope?) that difference (inaccuracy) between both > methods for great number of records will be within limit of percentage > accuracy. > > Now - to David Grabiner post and examples. > 1. I am sorry very much - it was accidentally used Cyrillic. These words > meant "average-weighted" (strictly translation from Russian) and I > do not know how it should be said in English. > > 2. David wrote: > "Consider 80% of +1430 and 20% of +680, scored against +1370 at the > other table. Method #1 makes a swing of -90, or -3 IMPs. Method #2 > makes a swing of +60 80% of the time and -690 20% of the time, or > -0.8 IMPs. Method #1 eliminates most of the reward for bidding a slam > in spades rather than clubs when the other table is in slam." > > Well - but I said that difference between methods is within limits > of inaccuracy of percentage assign. Far 80/20 percentage difference > between "my" and "your" methods for this example is 2.2 IMPs. But > difference for "your" method between 80/20 and 70/30 percentage is > 0.9 IMPs, between 80/20 and 90/10 percentage is 4.3 IMPs. That means > my statement was right: differences between methods is within limits of > inaccuracy of percentage... > > 3. Then David continued: > "Method #1 will not work in a pairs contest at all. Suppose that most > pairs in a pairs contest are +100, +110, or +140. One pair is awarded a > score of X% of +200 and (100-X)% of -670 in 2H doubled. The double > would have produced either a top or a bottom. If X is 80%, the > resulting score of +66 is a bottom, for an action which had an 80% > chance of giving a top." > > It seems to be killing argument: from the MP's point of view there is no > difference between +50 and -7000: both are zero. The same - between > +200 and +7000: both are max. I should rethink the matter, but > probably "my" method does not work in pairs if there are involved > results, less than minimum or greater than maximum... > > Best wishes Vitold This is in fact the MAIN argument against your method. If there are two possibilities, each with their score, and the AC awards X% of one and (1-X%) of the other, then the value of X determines a continuous score between the corresponding results. In your method however, some value of X will correspond to some real score, and the result will be equal to that score. A small change in X will mean the result is more or less than the real score, and the difference in Matchpoint will be enourmous. After that, a next small change will not affect the result again. Clear, no ? Let's give an example. The AC awards X% of +500 and 1-X% of -800. Suppose all other scores are at +200 and -50 (half each, scoring 75% of MP each) - +500 scores 100% of MP, -670 scores then if X equals :, Vitold's score and result is:, and the WBF score is: X Vitold score result WBF result 100% +500 100% 100% 90% +370 100% 90% 80% +240 100% 80% 76,93% +200 75% 76,93% 70% +110 50% 70% 60% - 20 50% 60% 57,69% - 50 25% 57,69% 50% -150 0% 50% 40% -280 0% 40% 0% -800 0% 0% Now do you see what I mean ? Would you like to be in the AC that has to decide whether the chance of one or the other option is really 50% or 60%, knowing that this influences the final result by half a top ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 19 04:36:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 04:36:05 +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 EAA17677 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 04:35:58 +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 JAA01239; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 09:39:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812181739.JAA01239@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Richard Bley" , Subject: Re: Hesitation Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 09:38:52 -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 Bley wrote: (big snip) > > A player at the table has a more than difficult task at the table. He is surely not able to foresee the thoughts of the TD in the room. So the best he can do is, that he should try to think of the case without hesitation. The TD has a lot of time to think about the case (seing all four hands, asking other players etc.) the player cant do that for some reasons. So I dont think that you > can burden the problems of LA etc. at him. As fas as I see it, this is not a problem of ethics, just of capabilities.<< > As when driving a car. A driver has enough to do without looking for speed-limit signs and watching the speedometer. Go as fast as you dare, and let the police worry about whether you have broken any law. It's their job, and you can't foresee what they will let you get away with. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Going to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 19 11:34:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA18446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 11:34:41 +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 LAA18441 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 11:34:34 +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 TAA18680 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 19:39:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA04969 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 19:39:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 19:39:35 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199812190039.TAA04969@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Barry Wolk > Is the AC going to rule that, after W hesitates, > E is not allowed to trust the NS bidding? Once he has the UI telling him to do so, E can "trust the NS bidding" only if there is no logical alternative. That's the whole point of L16A. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 19 11:39:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA18464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 11:39:44 +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 LAA18459 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 11:39:38 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zrAVK-0006uh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 00:44:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 13:18:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Hesitation References: <199812170422.UAA13256@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19981217082822.007e04e0@maine.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19981217163240.009f2ab0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <4agHXWAMHUe2Ew3a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <367A0E56.61D4F567@uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <367A0E56.61D4F567@uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >Hi, > >David Stevenson schrieb: > >> (snip) > >> >>Is this desired? Many, but not all, hesitations suggest bidding. I don't >> >>want to get into a position where anybody can force their partner to pass >> >>by taking a little extra time to consider their action. I always thought >> >>the proper thing to do when partner has hesitated is take the action you >> >>feel you would have without the hesitation and then not complain if your >> >>result is changed by a director or committee. >> >> This is against the Laws of the game [L73C] and is, while reasonable, >> not best. You should bend over backwards not to take advantage. >> >> If, for example, you are an aggressive defensive bidder, and partner >> pauses indicating values, and it comes round to you in a position where >> you might double or pass, then you should not say to yourself "I know I >> would normally double, so I will double and not complain if the TD rules >> it back." In fact you should pass because that is what the laws require >> you to. It is more than the laws: personal ethics should suggest the >> same. Suppose you double, collect 800, and opponents say nothing: how >> do you feel? >> >> The way to play this game is to follow the laws and ethics and to try >> to keep all Directors asleep in their chairs. Any method that >> _requires_ a TD is less than best. >> >> Now, if you do not know whether partner's action suggests double or >> pass: if you do not know whether it really was a hesitation: if you do >> not know the effect of the Laws, and so on, then doing what you would >> always do is fine. But where partner's actions suggest something >> particular, then avoid doing that unless it is evident. >> > >I dont agree. A player at the table has a more than difficult task at the table. >He is surely not able to foresee the thoughts of the TD in the room. So the best >he can do is, that he should try to think of the case without hesitation. The TD >has a lot of time to think about the case (seing all four hands, asking other >players etc.) the player cant do that for some reasons. So I dont think that you >can burden the problems of LA etc. at him. >As fas as I see it, this is not a problem of ethics, just of capabilities. LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION C. Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. It is a requirement of the Laws that he takes pains to avoid profiting from UI. And yes, it is a matter of Ethics - the law-makers have said so by including it as a _requirement_ in the Ethics section of the Law book. But I think you missed the main gist of my post. It is not difficult as you suggest to follow L73C in many cases. We all know that when partner does a slo-o-o-o-w penalty double that he will not be averse to you taking it out. You won't have any difficulty realising that to take it out now is unethical unless it is evident. If it is a doubtful case when you do not know what any TD would decide then it is alright to make the call you always would: but in a clear case you are required to follow the Laws. To make a call that takes advantage of partner's UI is improper. If done by someone who knows the Law and understands the Bridge position then it is unethical as well. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 20 04:18:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 04:18:37 +1100 Received: from carno.brus.online.be (carno.brus.online.be [194.88.127.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA19322 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 04:18:29 +1100 Received: from norbertf (t00-32.antw.online.be [62.112.1.32]) by carno.brus.online.be (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id SAA02154 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 18:23:18 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199812191723.SAA02154@carno.brus.online.be> From: "Norbert Fornoville" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Hesitation Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 18:23:45 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Hesitation > Date: maandag 14 december 1998 17:20 > > > N/Nil J5 W N E S > Teams K7 1C P 1D > Q84 4S P P 5C > AK109763 AK10543 Q852 P+ P 5S P > AQ8 109654 P 6C P P > K6 1075 D AP > 2 --- Q > J32 6C*-1 N > AJ932 N/S -100 > J9876 > > + Agreed unmistakable hesitation > > The Director ruled : "Score changed to N/S +400: East has no values > and is bidding on partners hand." I think (and several players from first national agreed) that 5 spades is normal not to say automatic at teams: (but not so clear at pairs) Your 2 tricks: Q of S and singleton club (partner must not have a singleton to) have no defense value; so I should let the result of 6C -1 stand. Norbert Fornoville From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 20 04:36:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 04:36:33 +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 EAA19373 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 04:36:28 +1100 Received: from ip91.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.91]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981219174115.XVWB6075.fep4@ip91.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 19 Dec 1998 18:41:15 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alerting Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 18:41:14 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <367bdfdb.1808109@post12.tele.dk> References: <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 02:05:31 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > I seem [harrumph] to have lost Denmark [Jesper? Jens?]=20 Here is a fairly literal translation of the Danish alert rules: ----- 9.3.2 Before the beginning of each round, a pair may request that their opponents do not alert. The request covers the complete round. If nothing is agreed, alert is to be used. 9.3.3 A call or a sequence of calls must be alerted if, by a clear of implicit partnership agreement, it has a special or artificial meaning or a meaning that is so unexpected that it might be surprising for the opponents. See the exceptions in sections 9.3.4 and 9.3.5. 9.3.4 Calls at or above the 4 level are not to be alerted. 9.3.5 Ordinary takeout doubles in the first round of bidding are not to be alerted. ----- The section about playing with screens mention that 9.3.4 is not in effect when playing with screens; i.e., with screens we also alert high-level calls. Nobody ever asks their opponents not to alert nowadays. Some people like 9.3.2 to be there anyway, so we haven't removed it yet. It is my impression that these simple rules work quite well in practice. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 20 12:31:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:31:10 +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 MAA00317 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:31:04 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zrXhx-00035k-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 01:30:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 01:26:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Hesitation References: <199812161553.KAA03178@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199812161553.KAA03178@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >I think Peter Newman has it exactly right: LA's depend on the level of >player involved. The average club player, like John's cats, bids 5S >without thought. If at least 75% of them do, and pass is not a LA for >them. Good players think about what can happen next, pass, and jot +11 >in their estimated scores (secretly hoping for +13). Bill Segraves' >research backs me up. (Thanks, Bill!) When I was asked the question originally I answered that Pass was not an LA, because whatever the logic I would expect the average player to bid 5S. Having read a lot of very convincing stuff here and on RGBO I believe that experts would be quite likely to pass, but average players would not, so I still believe my advice was correct so long as the player was not an expert player. [I was not told whether he was, but my impression was that he was not.] The 6C bid is not "irrational, wild or gambling" which is the new definition of an action that results in the NOs not being given an adjustment. Thanks to all who considered this case. All it remains is for me to explain it to an Australian female! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 21 04:22:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 04:22:32 +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 EAA03748 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 04:22:25 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zrmYY-00025L-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 17:22:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:35:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alerting References: <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> <367bdfdb.1808109@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <367bdfdb.1808109@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 02:05:31 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: > >> I seem [harrumph] to have lost Denmark [Jesper? Jens?] > >Here is a fairly literal translation of the Danish alert rules: I have been asked for a simple set of alert rules [not the original reason for the posting. OK, I suggested, how about these? If I was asked for a simple set of alerting rules I think I would go for the following: #1 If a call has a meaning that opponents are unlikely to be aware of then it should be alerted [subject to #4 and #5]. #2 If a call is forcing when opponents would expect otherwise, it should be alerted [subject to #4 and #5]. #3 If a call is non-forcing when opponents would expect otherwise, it should be alerted [subject to #4 and #5]. #4 After the opening bidder calls again, no double shall be alerted. #5 After the opening bidder calls again, no call shall be alerted once 4C is reached. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 21 04:22:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 04:22:33 +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 EAA03749 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 04:22:25 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zrmYY-00025M-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 17:22:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:37:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alerting References: <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Franois Chevalier wrote: >You can find alerting rules of French Federation at this address: >http://web.avo.fr/haffner/arbitre/reg_2ca6.htm#Ax06 > >I am sorry it's in french but it's long and my english is toobad, I cannot >do a translation... Thanks - it *is* very long, and appears to say that L40 applies, so there. :))) Did I miss something? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 21 06:55:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 06:55:35 +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 GAA04023 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 06:55:29 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092n9b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.155]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA22878 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 11:54:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812201954.LAA22878@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Redress for an Infraction Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 11:52:59 -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 The WBFLC has characterized actions that might lose right to redress for an opposing infraction as "irrational, wild, or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot.'" (Minutes from WBFLC meeting in Lille 1998). Edgar Kaplan wrote this (*The Bridge World, July 1993): #### When we think of mistakes that could cancel the usual protection, we think in terms of revokes, or other *gross* errors.#### Grattan Endicott had this to say (BLML, 21 September 1998): ++++ An error in the auction or play, however bad, does not take away that right if it is not adjudged to be "irrational, wild or gambling". A "double shot" is defined to be "gambling". A result obtained solely by the offending side's good play subsequent to an irregularity (and not related to the irregularity) is not adjusted. ++++ I'm not sure I understand the last sentence. Can someone provide an example? ++++ A result which comes only from a subsequent and unrelated breach of the laws is not adjustable by reason of the prior infraction and is subject to the relevant law. A revoke, for example, is not a considered action and does not therefore qualify to be irrational. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ I would have thought that a revoke is irrational *because* it is not a considered action. The same for BOOTs, LOOTs, and other "gross errors" that result from non-use of the brain. I do not see how the second sentence connects with the first sentence. And finally, Ton Kooijman's words (BLML 22 July 1998): @@@@ If damage occurs because a player chooses to deviate from normal bridge *and normal bridge would have given him a good result* [emphasis mine--MLF] in case of an infraction by an opponent, we do not redress the score. We follow the same line if a player not voluntarily plays "not normal bridge." @@@@ Some translation is in order: We now know that "normal bridge" means not irrational, wild, or gambling bridge. I believe the last sentence refers to such things as revokes and the like. The words I emphasized say that if the NOs could *not* have obtained a good result after the infraction, they get redress no matter what they do. Otherwise those emphasized words in Ton's statement would not have been necessary. I don't care for the words "good result" because that is not the proper criterion. I would prefer *and normal bridge would have resulted in no damage*, because absence of damage does not necessarily mean a good result. Applying all this leads me to the following conclusions: Not vul vs vul, a pair bids 6S through misuse of UI, a clear infraction, without which they would have played a spade game like everyone else. Possible outcomes: 1. The slam does not make. No damage done, so the table result stands for both sides, -50/+50, no problem there. 2. The slam makes because of very poor but not irrational defense. There is damage as a consequence of the infraction, so adjust for both sides to redress the damage per L12C2, +480/-480, even though these scores are a top for the OS and a bottom for the NOs. 3. The slam makes only because of a defender's revoke that brings a one-trick penalty. Adjust the score for the OS to +480, even though that is a top score. The NOs keep the table result, -980, because rational play would have meant +50 and a top score for them, hence no consequent damage from the infraction. 4. The slam would have made on lucky distibution, but the NOs bid an irrational, wild, gambling seven-level sacrifice that goes down 1400. Adjust for both sides +480/-480, because the NOs could not have avoided damage from the infraction. 5. Same as 4., but the slam would have gone down one on unlucky distribution. There was no damage as a consequence of the infraction, so the gamble didn't work. Adjust to -50 for the OS (most unfavorable result that was at all probable), -1400 for the NOs. 6. The double shot sacrifice works, the OS bidding 7S off one. Table result stands, -50/+50. Double shots are not illegal, just risky. Do I have all this right? As to #3, I have my doubts about letting an OS benefit from a revoke that is reflected in an adjusted score (is that the most unfavorable result that was at all probable?), but I don't remember seeing any contrary opinions. As to #4, many have disagreed with me recently, and certainly the ACBL ACs would disagree. My understanding is that when damage is irreparable, the NOs get redress no matter what they do. Only when they could easily have avoided damage does possible annullment of redress enter the picture. Opinions will be appreciated. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Going to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 21 08:19:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:19:34 +1100 Received: from pandora.pinehurst.net (root@pandora.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA04102 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:19:28 +1100 Received: from nancy (tc-61.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.162]) by pandora.pinehurst.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA15311 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 15:57:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003701be2c5a$75c9f0c0$a261040c@nancy> From: "Nancy T. Dressing" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: Bridge Night Before Xmas (fwd) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 15:49:40 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- blmlDate: Sunday, December 20, 1998 12:14 PM Subject: FW: Bridge Night Before Xmas (fwd) >Twas the night before Christmas, two guests in our house > Were playing some bridge against me and my spouse. > > Please tell me, she shouted Why didn't you double? > 'Twas plain from the start that we had them in trouble." > "Tis futile, my Dear-- I am taking no stand > So please stop your nagging. Let's play the next hand." > > The guy sitting south was like many I've known. > He bid and he played In a world all his own. > "Two Diamonds," he countered with scarcely a care: > "Remember next time" She said with a frown, > "To double a contract that's sure to go down." > > So I picked up my cards in a downtrodden state, > Then I opened one Spade and awaited my fate: > > Dealer East > N-S vulnerable > > North > S 9876 > H 65432 > D 8765 > C -- > West East > S -- S AKQJ10 > H QJ109 H AK87 > D KQJ109 D -- > C KQJ10 C A987 > > South > S 5432 > H -- > D A432 > C 65432 > > The guy sitting south was like many I've known. > He bid and he played In a world all his own. > "Two Diamonds," he countered with scarcely a care: > The ace in his hand gave him courage to spare > > My wife, smiling faintly and tossing her head, > Leaned over the table: "Double!" she said. > And North for some reason I cannot determine > Bid two Hearts like she was preaching a sermon. > I grinned as I doubled enjoying the fun, > And turned 'round to south to see where he'd run. > > But south, undistressed nor at loss for a word > Came forth with "Two Spades" -- Did I hear what I heard? > The other two passed and in sheer disbelief > I said "Double, my friend, that'll bring you to grief!" > > South passed with a nod is composure serene, > My wife with a flourish led out the Heart queen. > > I sat there and chuckled inside o'er their fix, > But South very calmly ran off his eight tricks. > > He ruffed the first Heart in his hand right away, > And then trumped a Club on the board the next play. > He crossruffed the hand at a breathtaking pace > 'Til I was left holding five Spades to the Ace > > In anguish my wife cried "Your mind's growing old > You should see that six NoTrump for us is ice-cold!!" > By doubling this time I'd committed a sin - > It just goes to prove that you never can win. > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 21 08:21:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:21:51 +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 IAA04117 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:21:45 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n34.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.52]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA11264 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 15:26:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981220161815.007e8100@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:18:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Alerting In-Reply-To: References: <367bdfdb.1808109@post12.tele.dk> <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> <367bdfdb.1808109@post12.tele.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:35 PM 12/20/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > If I was asked for a simple set of alerting rules I think I would go >for the following: > >#1 If a call has a meaning that opponents are unlikely to be aware of >then it should be alerted [subject to #4 and #5]. > >#2 If a call is forcing when opponents would expect otherwise, it >should be alerted [subject to #4 and #5]. > >#3 If a call is non-forcing when opponents would expect otherwise, it >should be alerted [subject to #4 and #5]. These all depend upon a player knowing what his opponents expect. Shouldn't there be some guidelines as to what an opponent might expect? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 21 08:35:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:35:39 +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 IAA04149 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:35:33 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092n9b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.155]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA00037 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 13:06:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812202106.NAA00037@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Hesitation Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 13:05:41 -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 > Steve Willner wrote: > > >I think Peter Newman has it exactly right: LA's depend on the level of > >player involved. The average club player, like John's cats, bids 5S > >without thought. If at least 75% of them do, and pass is not a LA for > >them. Good players think about what can happen next, pass, and jot +11 > >in their estimated scores (secretly hoping for +13). Bill Segraves' > >research backs me up. (Thanks, Bill!) > I hope everyone understands that guidelines specifying percentages of action-takers to determine what is an LA may have legitimacy in some jurisdictions, perhaps in the one where the subject case arose, but not in ACBL-land. The ACBL LC's guideline is that an LA is "an action that some number of your peers would seriously consider in a vacuum." The big difference is that "seriously consider" is not synonymous with "take." As to how this guideline should be applied in actual cases, I don't know. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Going to Tahoe/Reno 12/22 to 1/1) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 21 08:42:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:42:21 +1100 Received: from test.pacprod.com (test.pacprod.com [205.254.240.185]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA04185 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:42:16 +1100 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:42:16 +1100 Message-Id: <199812202142.IAA04185@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from localhost ([209.78.120.197]) by test.pacprod.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with SMTP id AAA361 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 13:42:10 -0800 Subject: Christmas Greetings from Nancy From: Nancy To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi! You have a Personalized Electronic Christmas Card from Nancy waiting for you at: http://www.pacprod.com To receive your card, you will need the PASSWORD: bridge-laws-2013238 ***Please Note: Passwords are CaSe Sensitive, and you must include the dash. Just connect to the above URL and scroll down to the link that says "GREETING CARDS". This link will take you to our greeting card page where you can enter your password and view your card. We'll keep your greeting card in our system for about one week. Enjoy! ************************************* Need a good laugh today? Visit the new Pacific Products Gallery "Joke Of The Day" at: http://www.pacprod.com/jokes.pl Be sure to bookmark this page to come back for a new joke each and every day!!! ************************************** Would you like some fun facts about this day in history? Visit the new Pacific Products Gallery "Today In History" at: http://www.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/today.pl Bookmark this page for some fun facts everyday! ************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 21 10:09:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 10:09:27 +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 KAA04314 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 10:09:20 +1100 Received: from modem122.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.250] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zrryJ-00021I-00; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 23:09:12 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Hesitation ( + treatment of apparent pauses behind screens) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 17:52:51 -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 man who establishes a state and prepares its laws must necessarily act upon the assumption that all men are evil and the presupposition that left to their own devices they will always act in accordance with the wickedness within them." - Macchiavelli =====================================---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Hesitation > Date: 17 December 1998 17:39 > > Anton Witzen wrote: > >At 08:28 17-12-98 -0500, you wrote: > >>At 08:21 PM 12/16/98 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >> ---------------------\x/-----\x/-------------\x/---\x/------------------------ > > This is against the Laws of the game [L73C] and is, while reasonable, > not best. You should bend over backwards not to take advantage. > > If, for example, you are an aggressive defensive bidder, and partner > pauses indicating values, and it comes round to you in a position where > you might double or pass, then you should not say to yourself "I know I > would normally double, so I will double and not complain if the TD rules > it back." In fact you should pass because that is what the laws require > you to. It is more than the laws: personal ethics should suggest the > same. Suppose you double, collect 800, and opponents say nothing: how > do you feel? > > ++++ Hesitations make for long correspondence! But my object in coming forward is to move the subject slightly to a related one. There is significant opinion that behind screens the player should disregard what he thinks he knows about a pause the other side of the screen (or other information transmitted without authorisation across the screen) and should make the call which he judges technically to be the right call based on the meaning of the auction and his hand. It is suggested that, behind screens, the requirements in Law 73C should be varied to give effect to this, leaving the question whether unauthorized information does exist and whether it has affected the auction to the Director, and to the appeal committee if one is required. It is not altogether clear whether this can or needs be achieved simply by regulation under Law 80E; the more direct application, perhaps, would be a ruling that the player is entitled to act on the basis that he has no UI, given the uncertainties of events on the other side of the screen, until the Director rules otherwise. The matter is under review. It is likely that any rule allowing players to adjust the speed of transfer of the tray would be dropped (something I would applaud since I do not believe it is appropriate for a player to be set to guard the ethics of an opponent at the table.) I am interested to measure opinion. Question 1: How strong is the support for such a change of procedure when screens are in use? Question 2: Would support extend to a change in the law applying when there are no screens, the principle being applied here too? ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 21 14:42:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:42:09 +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 OAA04683 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:42:03 +1100 Received: from lithium.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@lithium.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.22]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA07849 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:41:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:41:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812210341.WAA14159@lithium.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: When does dummy become dummy? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk South is declarer based on the auction, and East faces an opening lead. May North call attention to this error, and may he accept it, as by putting down his own hand as dummy when he can see the lead will be favorable? I would assume the answer is no; the auction ends when an opening lead is faced, regardless of who faces it. Once the auction is over, there is a dummy, even though his hand is not yet faced. -- 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 Dec 21 14:55:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:55:36 +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 OAA04732 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:55:30 +1100 Received: from zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.61.150]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA08007 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:55:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:55:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812210355.WAA16512@zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: UI ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Flight A Sectional Swiss, good but non-expert players North dealer, neither vul A9xx Axx AKxxx J KQxxx - Qxx KJT9x xx Q Qxx AT9xxxx JTxx xx JT9xx Kx N E S W 1D 2NT 3D 3H 4D 4H P P X* P 5D X *-30 second hesitation, agreed P P P Result: down 1, -100 to N-S. How you you rule as TD? As AC? -- 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 Dec 21 15:42:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA04817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:42:26 +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 PAA04812 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:42:19 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME (pool-207-205-157-153.lsan.grid.net [207.205.157.153]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA16826 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 1998 23:42:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <367DE4BE.50A2@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:03:42 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI ruling References: <199812210355.WAA16512@zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > Flight A Sectional Swiss, good but non-expert players > > North dealer, neither vul > > A9xx > Axx > AKxxx > J > KQxxx - > Qxx KJT9x > xx Q > Qxx AT9xxxx > JTxx > xx > JT9xx > Kx > > N E S W > 1D 2NT 3D 3H > 4D 4H P P > X* P 5D X *-30 second hesitation, agreed > P P P > > Result: down 1, -100 to N-S. > > How you you rule as TD? As AC? Looks like a classic whipsaw by south; he decided to defend until partner said he wanted to defend, then he decided to offend. As a LOTT theory, looks like 10 trumps vs. 8, with some positive adjustment. Still looks at least reasonable to leave in. I don't think this is too close. If south wanted to play 5D, he should have bid it before. With the tank, it's clearly a LA to bid consistently, and the tank suggests bidding rather than passing, and opponents were damaged. As director, pull back to 4Hx, and issue a warning. As AC, explain frivolous appeal rules. --JRM, e-mail jrmayne@mindspring.com, whatever above may say. > > -- > 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 Dec 21 18:30:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA04961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:30:47 +1100 Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA04956 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:30:41 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA07478 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 07:29:45 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 21 Dec 98 07:30 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Fw: Bridge Night Before Xmas (fwd) 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: <003701be2c5a$75c9f0c0$a261040c@nancy> > > In anguish my wife cried "Your mind's growing old > You should see that six NoTrump for us is ice-cold!!" I doubled, my dear, since I trusted your lead A diamond you should have produced with great speed Two thousand points you'd find then was our score (Not to mention the honours to make even more) Merry Christmas Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 21 22:32:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 22:32:11 +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 WAA05271 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 22:32:05 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zs3Z7-0003on-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:31:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 02:53:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alerting References: <367bdfdb.1808109@post12.tele.dk> <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> <367bdfdb.1808109@post12.tele.dk> <3.0.5.32.19981220161815.007e8100@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981220161815.007e8100@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 12:35 PM 12/20/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >> If I was asked for a simple set of alerting rules I think I would go >>for the following: >> >>#1 If a call has a meaning that opponents are unlikely to be aware of >>then it should be alerted [subject to #4 and #5]. >> >>#2 If a call is forcing when opponents would expect otherwise, it >>should be alerted [subject to #4 and #5]. >> >>#3 If a call is non-forcing when opponents would expect otherwise, it >>should be alerted [subject to #4 and #5]. > >These all depend upon a player knowing what his opponents expect. >Shouldn't there be some guidelines as to what an opponent might expect? No, I don't think so. My impression is that people have a fair idea of what opponents expect in various countries, and the moment you produce guidelines it is no longer simple. After all, the EBU approach is simple rules, careful explanations: the result is quite reasonable, but it is not 'simple'. Compare the Danish rules recently posted: they are simple, and are based on an expectation of what people play. Of course, the more bloody-minded people are, the less do simple rules work unless applied with a big stick. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 22 00:04:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 00:04:25 +1100 Received: from proxye3-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye3-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA05496 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 00:04:19 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n34.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.52]) by proxye3-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA07740 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:03:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981221080046.007ea5a0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:00:46 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Alerting In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19981220161815.007e8100@maine.rr.com> <367bdfdb.1808109@post12.tele.dk> <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> <367bdfdb.1808109@post12.tele.dk> <3.0.5.32.19981220161815.007e8100@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:53 AM 12/21/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > No, I don't think so. My impression is that people have a fair idea >of what opponents expect in various countries, and the moment you >produce guidelines it is no longer simple. After all, the EBU approach >is simple rules, careful explanations: the result is quite reasonable, >but it is not 'simple'. Compare the Danish rules recently posted: they >are simple, and are based on an expectation of what people play. > > Of course, the more bloody-minded people are, the less do simple rules >work unless applied with a big stick. I'm not worried about those people who will try to exploit the subjective nature of the rules. Rather I am worried about those less experienced players who simply don't know what others might expect. "Alert what should be alerted" should and probably will work for experienced players. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 22 00:59:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 00:59:08 +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 AAA07842 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 00:59:02 +1100 Received: from default (user-37ka8g2.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.34.2]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA20823 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:58:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981221085839.006be128@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:58:39 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI ruling In-Reply-To: <199812210355.WAA16512@zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:55 PM 12/20/98 -0500, David G wrote: > >Flight A Sectional Swiss, good but non-expert players > >North dealer, neither vul > > A9xx > Axx > AKxxx > J >KQxxx - >Qxx KJT9x >xx Q >Qxx AT9xxxx > JTxx > xx > JT9xx > Kx > >N E S W >1D 2NT 3D 3H >4D 4H P P >X* P 5D X *-30 second hesitation, agreed >P P P > >Result: down 1, -100 to N-S. > >How you you rule as TD? As AC? > As either TD or AC, roll back to 4H doubled, making 4. Is P an LA for South? I think so. He does have a defensive trick, and partner did open the bidding. Partner's 4D bid should be based on a hand that knows what to do over 4H, and it certainly could be right to respect his judgement in this regard. Clearly, the hesitation indicates uncertainty about the best course, and makes the removal to 5D more attractive. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 22 01:24:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 01:24:37 +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 BAA07923 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 01:24:28 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zs6Fw-0000tW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:24:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:12:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI ruling References: <199812210355.WAA16512@zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199812210355.WAA16512@zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > >Flight A Sectional Swiss, good but non-expert players > >North dealer, neither vul > > A9xx > Axx > AKxxx > J >KQxxx - >Qxx KJT9x >xx Q >Qxx AT9xxxx > JTxx > xx > JT9xx > Kx > >N E S W >1D 2NT 3D 3H >4D 4H P P >X* P 5D X *-30 second hesitation, agreed >P P P > >Result: down 1, -100 to N-S. > >How you you rule as TD? 4H*= > As AC? Keep the deposit. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 22 01:24:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 01:24:38 +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 BAA07922 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 01:24:28 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zs6Fw-0000tV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:24:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:10:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: When does dummy become dummy? References: <199812210341.WAA14159@lithium.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199812210341.WAA14159@lithium.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > >South is declarer based on the auction, and East faces an opening lead. >May North call attention to this error, and may he accept it, as by >putting down his own hand as dummy when he can see the lead will be >favorable? > >I would assume the answer is no; the auction ends when an opening lead >is faced, regardless of who faces it. Once the auction is over, there >is a dummy, even though his hand is not yet faced. > I don't see what the question has to do with the answer! Perhaps I should reword that! It does not matter when the dummy becomes dummy: the apparent dummy has no right to accept a LOOT whether he is dummy or not. L54 gives him no rights to accept anything. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 22 02:15:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 02:15:50 +1100 Received: from cav.logica.co.uk (cav.logica.co.uk [158.234.10.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08261 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 02:15:44 +1100 Received: from nlxrtd1.europe.logica.com ([158.234.122.28]) by cav.logica.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01653 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:39:04 GMT Received: by nlxrtd1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:38:43 +0100 Message-ID: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B1E@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> From: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: When does dummy become dummy? Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:38:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I puzzled over this a lot and thought that maybe the laws should include the concept of "presumed dummy" in the same way as there is a "presumed declarer" while handling the opening lead out of turn. But after a while I realised that what the writers of the laws intended was that once the bidding is complete all decisions by the declaring side should be made by the "presumed declarer". The definitions at the start of the laws state that dummy is declarer's partner and "He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced." (It is not clear whetehr definitions are part of the laws!) Declarer's partner is dummy and only ceases to be dummy when play ends or when declarer becomes dummy due to L54A. In answer to you specific questions: > May North call attention to this error? I think currently the laws don't allow him to do so although I can't imagine any TD penalising such action. If South is about to face his cards North could tell him that he should not do so(under the pretext of trying to prevent any irregularity by declarer since he (South) is not (yet) dummy). But this is dubious - is such facing an irregularity? If he wants to draw attention to it without verbally doing so he can either put down his own hand as dummy (forcing a L54C situation) or not face his cards (forcing declarer to do something, like ask "why aren't you putting your cards on the table?"). > may he accept it, as by > putting down his own hand as dummy I would say yes, at least it's not explicitly excluded - another case of the laws being vague. L54C says what should happen if declarer could have seen any cards of dummy so presumably this overrules declarer starting to face his cards. By the way, the auction doesn't end when the opening lead is faced. It ends after 3 passes (or 4 if no player has bid) - see L22. Geoff Francis. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Grabiner [mailto:grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu] > Sent: Monday, 21 December, 1998 04:42 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: When does dummy become dummy? > > > > South is declarer based on the auction, and East faces an > opening lead. > May North call attention to this error, and may he accept it, as by > putting down his own hand as dummy when he can see the lead will be > favorable? > > I would assume the answer is no; the auction ends when an opening lead > is faced, regardless of who faces it. Once the auction is over, there > is a dummy, even though his hand is not yet faced. > > -- > 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 Dec 22 02:15:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 02:15:43 +1100 Received: from cav.logica.co.uk (cav.logica.co.uk [158.234.10.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08250 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 02:15:36 +1100 Received: from nlxrtd1.europe.logica.com ([158.234.122.28]) by cav.logica.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01654 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:39:06 GMT Received: by nlxrtd1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:38:45 +0100 Message-ID: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B20@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> From: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" To: Bridge Laws Subject: Wish List Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:38:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have been an interested spectator to the BLML over the past few months. Sometimes the topics deviate quite a bit from the topic of bridge laws but there is still a lot of food for thought. Recently David Stevenson has asked about the alerting rules in different countries. Will there ever be an international consensus on what should be alerted? i.e. will the alerting rules become part of the laws? As for the laws themselves, as the correspondence has shown, they are often very vague and not clear even to those who have studied them. "Interpretations" from the law makers sometimes seem to contradict the actual letter of the law (e.g. the "stupid mistakes" of L25B) and other laws seem far too complicated for ordinary bridge players to understand and even TDs get them wrong (handling revokes is a well known case). So it would seem likely that many contributors (active or passive like me) have specific "wishes" with regard to changes to the laws that they would like to see made. Is there anyone out there in BLML land who is collecting up such wishes into a complete "Wish List"? I have been drawing up my own list but it would be useful if a) I don't repeat what others have already proposed and b) there was some way of getting them brought to the attention of officialdom. Since it is nearly Christmas, this list could be sent to the WBF "laws Santa" who may be able to fullfil them one year. (Do we have to wait 9 years until 2007 for the next update - can't it be earlier?) Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to one and all. Geoff Francis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 22 02:15:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 02:15:47 +1100 Received: from cav.logica.co.uk (cav.logica.co.uk [158.234.10.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08255 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 02:15:40 +1100 Received: from nlxrtd1.europe.logica.com ([158.234.122.28]) by cav.logica.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01652 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:39:03 GMT Received: by nlxrtd1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:38:43 +0100 Message-ID: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B1F@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> From: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: UI ruling Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:38:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As with all these cases, once the hesitation has occurred, partner of the hesitator is in a no win situation. Without the hesitation any one of pass, double or bid could be right (or wrong). The decision is made merely on the authorised information i.e. the preceding bids. Now there has been hesitation, it is nearly always the case that whichever choice is taken, there is a logical alternative. Thus in one of the previous postings, (bid 5S or not after partners slow pass on 5C) even if the player choses to pass this could be penalised as logical alternatives are 5S (if 5C actually goes down) or double (if it makes and the rest of the field also double). Similarly, if a double is chosen, logical alternatives are 5S or pass. In the particular case you quote, if the double occurred without the hesitation South would no doubt decide that EW have been pushed to a non-making game and leave the double in, especially with partner expecting at least 3 tricks and holding CK himself. So a hesitated double gives some doubt and therefore 5D seems a better bet. As TD I would adjust the score to 4H doubled made. I assume that the appeals committee would uphold my decision. Geoff. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Grabiner [mailto:grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu] > Sent: Monday, 21 December, 1998 04:55 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: UI ruling > > > > Flight A Sectional Swiss, good but non-expert players > > North dealer, neither vul > > A9xx > Axx > AKxxx > J > KQxxx - > Qxx KJT9x > xx Q > Qxx AT9xxxx > JTxx > xx > JT9xx > Kx > > N E S W > 1D 2NT 3D 3H > 4D 4H P P > X* P 5D X *-30 second hesitation, agreed > P P P > > Result: down 1, -100 to N-S. > > How you you rule as TD? As AC? > > -- > 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 Dec 22 02:19:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 02:19:08 +1100 Received: from llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08300 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 02:19:02 +1100 Received: from iphinoe.cee.hw.ac.uk ([137.195.180.75] ident=root) by llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #4) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zs76j-00078c-00; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:18:53 +0000 Received: by iphinoe.cee.hw.ac.uk (Smail3.1.28.1 #96) id m0zs76h-0000esC; Mon, 21 Dec 98 15:18 GMT Message-Id: Date: Mon, 21 Dec 98 15:18 GMT From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: UI ruling To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Grabiner wrote: > > > >Flight A Sectional Swiss, good but non-expert players > > > >North dealer, neither vul > > > > A9xx > > Axx > > AKxxx > > J > >KQxxx - > >Qxx KJT9x > >xx Q > >Qxx AT9xxxx > > JTxx > > xx > > JT9xx > > Kx > > > >N E S W > >1D 2NT 3D 3H > >4D 4H P P > >X* P 5D X *-30 second hesitation, agreed > >P P P > > > >Result: down 1, -100 to N-S. > > > >How you you rule as TD? [DWS] > 4H*= > Agree. Clear cut. > > As AC? [DWS] > Keep the deposit. > If they seem to be experienced with respect to the laws, agree. David Grabiner specifies "good but non-expert players"; it is surprising how many players I'd describe that way have no conception of what the laws actually say. In my experience on ACs they believe that 'but I was always going to bid XX with this hand, even without the hesitation' is a sufficient defence. I prefer to explain what the laws require of TDs and players in UI situations and leave it at that. If only we had the resources for pre-screening of appeals, though (puts on pessimist hat) I suspect they'd bring their own problems. --- Question: If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman to hear him... is he still wrong? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 22 02:54:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 02:54:18 +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 CAA08380 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 02:54:10 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zs7eY-00005g-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:54:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:33:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alerting References: <3.0.5.32.19981220161815.007e8100@maine.rr.com> <367bdfdb.1808109@post12.tele.dk> <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> <367bdfdb.1808109@post12.tele.dk> <3.0.5.32.19981220161815.007e8100@maine.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19981221080046.007ea5a0@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981221080046.007ea5a0@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 02:53 AM 12/21/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> No, I don't think so. My impression is that people have a fair idea >>of what opponents expect in various countries, and the moment you >>produce guidelines it is no longer simple. After all, the EBU approach >>is simple rules, careful explanations: the result is quite reasonable, >>but it is not 'simple'. Compare the Danish rules recently posted: they >>are simple, and are based on an expectation of what people play. >> >> Of course, the more bloody-minded people are, the less do simple rules >>work unless applied with a big stick. > >I'm not worried about those people who will try to exploit the subjective >nature of the rules. Rather I am worried about those less experienced >players who simply don't know what others might expect. "Alert what should >be alerted" should and probably will work for experienced players. I think it is the other way round: beginners are taught "Bridge". To them, there is only one way of playing, Acol in England, Standard American in North America, Five-card majors in France, and so on. It takes some experience to realise that other methods are not just being played because the rest of the world cheats but that there are legitimate alternatives. It will take a bit of adjustment for someone who is taught either wrong or in a non-mainstream way but for most people the right way is clear when you are a beginner. Call that way standard. As players gain more experience they realise that Standard is not best. Most of them remember Standard, or adjust when they discover that they have been taught something funny. Good players and novices probably have little difficulty with simple alerting. But some fairly experienced, mediocre and bloody-minded players are not trying to understand alerting: they then set new rules for themselves and don't listen to others: it is for them that complicated alerting rules are introduced. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 22 04:43:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:43:18 +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 EAA08645 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:43:11 +1100 Received: from p89s07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.138] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zs9MD-0007Lq-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:43:02 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: Subject: Re: Wish List Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:47:05 -0000 Message-ID: <01be2d09$ec5e2120$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It must be Christmas! One of my wishes has just been granted. How often have I thought "I wish I knew where this mailing came from" Checking e-mail addresses can sometimes help, but as Geoff has @logica.com this would not have helped me. However his (Rotterdam) has made it all clear. Thank you Geoff ( and welcome!) Anne (Wales) -----Original Message----- From: Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) To: Bridge Laws Date: Monday, December 21, 1998 4:30 PM Subject: Wish List >I have been an interested spectator to the BLML over the past few months. >Sometimes the topics deviate quite a bit from the topic of bridge laws but >there is still a lot of food for thought. Recently David Stevenson has >asked about the alerting rules in different countries. Will there ever be >an international consensus on what should be alerted? i.e. will the >alerting rules become part of the laws? > >As for the laws themselves, as the correspondence has shown, they are often >very vague and not clear even to those who have studied them. >"Interpretations" from the law makers sometimes seem to contradict the >actual letter of the law (e.g. the "stupid mistakes" of L25B) and other laws >seem far too complicated for ordinary bridge players to understand and even >TDs get them wrong (handling revokes is a well known case). So it would >seem likely that many contributors (active or passive like me) have specific >"wishes" with regard to changes to the laws that they would like to see >made. > >Is there anyone out there in BLML land who is collecting up such wishes into >a complete "Wish List"? I have been drawing up my own list but it would be >useful if a) I don't repeat what others have already proposed and b) there >was some way of getting them brought to the attention of officialdom. Since >it is nearly Christmas, this list could be sent to the WBF "laws Santa" who >may be able to fullfil them one year. (Do we have to wait 9 years until >2007 for the next update - can't it be earlier?) > >Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to one and all. > > >Geoff Francis > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 22 05:00:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 05:00:42 +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 FAA08693 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 05:00:35 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-138.uunet.be [194.7.13.138]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA10081 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:20:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <367E2CD9.89642D4@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:11:21 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Hesitation ( + treatment of apparent pauses behind screens) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > behind screens, the requirements in Law 73C should be varied to give > effect to this, leaving the question whether unauthorized information > does exist and whether it has affected the auction to the Director, and > to the appeal committee if one is required. > > > Question 1: How strong is the support for such a change of procedure > when screens are in use? > Maybe, yes > Question 2: Would support extend to a change in the law applying when > there are no screens, the principle being applied here too? > No L16 imposes on a player an extra ethical obligation. When in possession of UI, there is no need anymore to defend your actions, you should not stray from the non-suggested action, as long as it is in some way a LA. The flip side of that coin is that partner should think twice (or rather not) before handing out UI, since it will bar partner from chosing what may be the correct action. Behind screens, it is said that there can be no UI, and therefor the play can proceed more leasurely. One of the advantages of screens is that you need not play with a straight face, not keep a constant tempo, not be subjecting partner to UI and subsequent loss of choice. Many see this as a good thing, and I concur. That is why I agree that the current trend of also dealing with UI behind screens seems to go too far. When you see one player bidding fast, in order as not to give UI, his screenmate withholding a pass in order to prevent perceived UI from FAST bidding, and his partner not bidding slam because of some perceived UI which was not there, AND this matter taking up valuable TD, AC and BLML time, there is something wrong. That is why I agree with the suggestion to limit UI cases behind screens to "real" ones (say half a minute breaks, sounds and other actions, but not hesitations in the 10-20 seconds range). The same is not true without screens though, and I find the present rule quite OK. It takes away some of the more difficult decisions of TD's and AC's and replaces them with (realtively) simpler ones : was the alternative suggested ? Was it an alternative ? - Player should have taken it. Players can determine these things at the table, and they can act accordingly. Players know partner can be barred and avoid giving UI. I do not agree that this difference needs a Law change though. I might suggest that a regulation be formulated that nothing can be determined from a 10-20 second pause and that this shall not be deemed UI. That way, players need not refrain from stirring their coffee during the auction. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 22 09:54:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 09:54:33 +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 JAA09230 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 09:54:18 +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 RAA00485 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:53:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981221175622.0069a710@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:56:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fumble and appeal In-Reply-To: <4.1.19981215172245.0098a5e0@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:36 PM 12/15/98 +1100, Peter wrote: >Declarer (sitting E) has a trump suit (Spades)of: >QT754 (dummy) >and >A62 (hand) >This suit has to played for 1 loser. (teams) > >Declarer led SA (LHO S3, RHO S8) >and then the S2 >LHO fumbled then played S9. Declarer now rose with the SQ and lost to the >doubleton SK. This led to the contract going 1 down. >The director was called. > >This fumble was agreed by both sides - the person fumbling stated that it >was because the cards were sticky. Declarer stated that although low to the >ST was percentage (they had entries back to hand) they played for SK onside >after the fumble. > >The director ruled under 73F2 contract just making. >The fumbling side now claim that declarer has just taken a double shot >which should not be allowed. [ie: going anti-percentage in trumps then >calling the director when this failed] This gets right to the heart of a very difficult bit of interpretation. The last clause of L73D1 says "inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." These words have been in the laws since, as far as this discussion is concerned, time immemorial. But they do not constitute a license to blatantly coffee-house. You can't fumble for the purpose of trying to make an opponent go wrong in the play. Words similar to those of L73D2 have also been there since time immemorial, "It is grossly improper to attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture,... or by the manner in which the call or play is made." These sections, in combination with L73F2 (which addresses the procedure for dealing with violations of these proprieties), tell us that we must draw a line between variations which may give rise to inferences taken only at one's own risk and variations which violate L73D2 and are thus subject to redress under L73F2. The problem, of course, is where to draw that line. The 1975 laws drew the line in very clear language, "If the Director determines that an innocent opponent has drawn a false inference from deliberately and improperly deceptive information, he should award an adjusted score." But that meant that to give redress for a blatant coffee-house, you had to find, on the record, that the violator was being deliberately deceptive; you had to call the fumbler a cheat. So the 1987 laws used rather more roundabout language, "If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a deceptive remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who could have known, at the time of the action, that the deception could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score." That introduced "could have known", and required that the fumble be merely "deceptive", as opposed to "deliberately and improperly deceptive". But, if you weren't quite calling the fumbler a cheat, you were still calling the fumble deceptive, which means "intended to deceive", not quite libel, but, perhaps, at least in the U.S.A. in the litigious 90s, defamatory. So in 1997 the law was changed again to the, hopefully, legally bullet-proof "If the director determines that an innocent opponent has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score." Note that the word "deceptive" has disappeared. But meanwhile, back at L73D1, those famous last words, "and at his own risk", remain. I take it for granted that failing to expunge them was not an oversight on the part of the lawmakers. We still need a line. My personal theory, with which others here disagree, is that the evolution of L73F2 reflects changing times by the choice of language, but that the basic intent hasn't changed. It still says, albeit in heavily lawyer-influenced 1997 English, that you may take inferences from innocent fumbles only at your own risk, but are entitled to redress against a deliberate coffee-house. I don't believe that the lawmakers ever intended to actually move the line. But while we may argue about intent, it seems that, out there in the real world, the line has not only moved, but continues to move, in a direction away from requiring any finding of deliberateness before redress can be given. The $64 question is: To what extent, if any, must we (TDs and ACs) believe that a player has or may have violated L73D2 before we give redress to his opponents under L73F2? Or, from the other side, when an innocent player is misled by an opponents action, such as a fumble, what is the criterion for refusing redress on the grounds that the inference was "as his own risk" under L73D1? >What do you rule? I don't know. Unless we come to the extreme "avant-garde" position that only the facts matter, so that there can be no issue of intent (no "mind reading", as advocates of such a position would have it) whatsoever (although how one is supposed to distinguish between "inadvertant variations" and "intentional variations" without judging intent escapes me), we will be forced to the conclusion that the ruling in Peter's case is a judgment call. I'd have had to have been there. >Would it make any difference to you if S (the fumbler) said as they played >a card - "sorry the cards are stuck together" It might very well to me, but it wouldn't to many others. 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 Dec 22 10:49:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA09400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 10:49:38 +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 KAA09395 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 10:49:32 +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 SAA13582 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:49:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA06884 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:49:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:49:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199812212349.SAA06884@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fumble and appeal X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau Good analysis snipped. > So the 1987 laws used rather more > roundabout language, "If the Director determines that an innocent player > has drawn a false inference from a deceptive remark, manner, tempo, or the > like, of an opponent who could have known, at the time of the action, that > the deception could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an > adjusted score." > > That introduced "could have known", and required that the fumble be merely > "deceptive", as opposed to "deliberately and improperly deceptive". But, > if you weren't quite calling the fumbler a cheat, you were still calling > the fumble deceptive, which means "intended to deceive", not quite libel, Not if you read 'deceptive' as "had the effect of deceiving" or "had the capability of deceiving." Intent is absent. Yes, the language could also be read Eric's way, but why must it be? > in 1997 the law was changed again to the, hopefully, legally bullet-proof I agree that the 1997 language is much better. Good job, WBFLC! We complain when there are problems, but we should credit a good job, too. > My personal theory, with which others here disagree, is that the evolution > of L73F2 reflects changing times by the choice of language, but that the > basic intent hasn't changed. The BW "Appeals Committee" booklets, based on the 1975 Laws, promote the standard spelled out in the new L73F2. The "at his own risk" means that if there is a bridge reason for the mannerism, and an opponent guesses wrong what it is, that's tough. But if there's no bridge reason, there is protection. This standard may have been ahead of the actual language of the Laws, but it seems reasonable under the current language. > But while we may argue about intent, it seems that, out there in the real > world, the line has not only moved, but continues to move, in a direction > away from requiring any finding of deliberateness before redress can be given. Good. > Unless we come to the extreme "avant-garde" position that > only the facts matter, so that there can be no issue of intent (no "mind > reading", as advocates of such a position would have it) whatsoever > (although how one is supposed to distinguish between "inadvertant > variations" and "intentional variations" without judging intent escapes > me), we will be forced to the conclusion that the ruling in Peter's case is > a judgment call. Gee, that's the first time I've been accused of being "extreme avant- garde!" Thanks. If Kaplan (the presumed but not identified) author of the "AC" booklets thought this in the 1970's, what does that make him? :-) I vote for looking at the facts and deciding whether there was a bridge reason for the fumble. If not, adjust. Having sticky cards (or some other mental distraction) just when an opponent is about to make an important guess is unlucky, and you pay off if it happens. Why should an innocent opponent suffer? After all, you might have been able to manipulate your cards better, and you certainly could have avoided a reverie, but the opponent could do nothing. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 22 12:41:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:41:12 +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 MAA09587 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:41:06 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zsGok-0000DB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 01:40:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 01:39:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: UI ruling In-Reply-To: <199812210355.WAA16512@zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199812210355.WAA16512@zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu>, David Grabiner writes > >Flight A Sectional Swiss, good but non-expert players > >North dealer, neither vul > > A9xx > Axx > AKxxx > J >KQxxx - >Qxx KJT9x >xx Q >Qxx AT9xxxx > JTxx > xx > JT9xx > Kx > >N E S W >1D 2NT 3D 3H >4D 4H P P >X* P 5D X *-30 second hesitation, agreed >P P P > >Result: down 1, -100 to N-S. > >How you you rule as TD? I'm sure South would have passed a fast happy double. Rule back to 4Hx just made. > As AC? Buy the AC a beer with the deposit. 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 Dec 22 17:49:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA09991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:49:23 +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 RAA09986 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:49:17 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.0 201-221-107) with ESMTP id <19981222064911.GAVH19409.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 22:49:11 -0800 Message-ID: <367F41A8.BC86DECA@home.com> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 22:52:24 -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: Hesitation ( + treatment of apparent pauses behind screens) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > Question 1: How strong is the support for such a change of procedure > when screens are in use? My instinct tells me such a change makes sense. The tempo on the other side can be affected by many things. Maybe the opponent considered some action, maybe pard was busy writing an explanation of your auction, maybe...... who knows for sure? It seems wrong to force me to take an inferior action, albeit an LA, when pard possibly didn't hesitate one second. Will I get redress for our bad result if later we find it was not pard who paused?? Of course not! Such situations are not good advertising for carefully avoiding making use of UI. Better to allow me to take my normal action, still being subject to being over-ruled by a TD/AC, but at least without any connotation of inferior ethics on my part for my selected action. I don't think this neccessitates a law-change, since L73 talks about *partner's* hesitation etc. A footnote there might suffice. > Question 2: Would support extend to a change in the law applying when > there are no screens, the principle being applied here too? No. Since the reason for/ origin of whatever tempo occurred is normally fairly clear, no reason to change from the present. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 22 18:11:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 18:11:52 +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 SAA10029 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 18:11:47 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.0 201-221-107) with ESMTP id <19981222071142.GDPT19409.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 23:11:42 -0800 Message-ID: <367F46EF.30533BD3@home.com> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 23:14:55 -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: UI ruling References: <199812210355.WAA16512@zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One should be careful with expressions like "WTP", but here it might be justified :-) Surely, with one def-trick, pass is an LA. Maybe pard has them exactly where he wants them?! I told my full story, including my D-length assuming 5cM, with my 3D bid. Does the hesitation suggest 5D over pass? I sure think so. A slow double expresses doubt about it. Give South JTxx x Kxxxxx xx and I'd allow 5D. David Grabiner wrote: > > Flight A Sectional Swiss, good but non-expert players > > North dealer, neither vul > > A9xx > Axx > AKxxx > J > KQxxx - > Qxx KJT9x > xx Q > Qxx AT9xxxx > JTxx > xx > JT9xx > Kx > > N E S W > 1D 2NT 3D 3H > 4D 4H P P > X* P 5D X *-30 second hesitation, agreed > P P P > > Result: down 1, -100 to N-S. > > How you you rule as TD? As AC? > > -- > 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 Dec 22 23:45:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 23:45:21 +1100 Received: from cshore.com (term.cshore.com [206.165.153.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA10473 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 23:45:12 +1100 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.211]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.08/64) id 5815100 ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 07:43:10 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981222074620.007e3860@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 07:46:20 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Hesitation ( + treatment of apparent pauses behind screens) In-Reply-To: <367F41A8.BC86DECA@home.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Don't usually make "me, too" posts, but since Grattan is trying to assess breadth of support, Jan's analysis sounds spot on to me. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT At 10:52 PM 12/21/98 -0800, Jan wrote: >Grattan wrote: > >> Question 1: How strong is the support for such a change of procedure >> when screens are in use? > >My instinct tells me such a change makes sense. The tempo on the other >side can be affected by many things. Maybe the opponent considered some >action, maybe pard was busy writing an explanation of your auction, >maybe...... who knows for sure? It seems wrong to force me to take an >inferior action, albeit an LA, when pard possibly didn't hesitate one >second. Will I get redress for our bad result if later we find it was >not pard who paused?? Of course not! Such situations are not good >advertising for carefully avoiding making use of UI. Better to allow me >to take my normal action, still being subject to being over-ruled by a >TD/AC, but at least without any connotation of inferior ethics on my >part for my selected action. >I don't think this neccessitates a law-change, since L73 talks about >*partner's* hesitation etc. A footnote there might suffice. > >> Question 2: Would support extend to a change in the law applying when >> there are no screens, the principle being applied here too? > >No. Since the reason for/ origin of whatever tempo occurred is normally >fairly clear, no reason to change from the present. > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 22 23:51:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 23:51:36 +1100 Received: from mailhost.math.auc.dk (root@mailhost.math.auc.dk [130.225.48.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA10490 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 23:51:28 +1100 Received: from bohr.math.auc.dk (nwp@bohr.math.auc.dk [130.225.48.5]) by mailhost.math.auc.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA05295 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:51:20 +0100 (MET) Received: (from nwp@localhost) by bohr.math.auc.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA22841; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:51:19 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:51:19 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199812221251.NAA22841@bohr.math.auc.dk> From: Niels Wendell Pedersen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Rubber bridge laws. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For those interested in having the rubber bridge laws on WWW, I now have a test version of the American edition of the rubber bridge laws at http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/rlaws-a/ The files still need a final proof-reading (which will be done in the beginning of January). When this has been done the rubber bridge laws will be placed on the ACBL web site (as well as at the above mentioned URL). If you find errors in the files (typos, missing or wrong links, etc.) please let me know (email: nwp@math.auc.dk). A merry Chistmas and a happy New Year to all subscribers to BLML. Niels From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 00:20:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:20:42 +1100 Received: from cav.logica.co.uk (cav.logica.co.uk [158.234.10.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12809 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:20:35 +1100 Received: from nlxrtd1.europe.logica.com ([158.234.122.28]) by cav.logica.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA02758 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:20:24 GMT Received: by nlxrtd1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 14:20:12 +0100 Message-ID: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B23@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> From: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: When does dummy become dummy? Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 14:19:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First an apology. I stated in my last posting on this: > By the way, the auction doesn't end when the opening lead is > faced. It ends > after 3 passes (or 4 if no player has bid) - see L22. Looking again I realised thatI was wrong. L17E defines the end of action: "The auction period ends when all four players pass or when after three passes in rotation have followed any call the opening lead is faced " So thinking a bit more I realised that it is still not entirely clear if there is a dummy ("He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced."). The question really is "when is a faced card led to the first trick an opening lead?" Presumably when it is led by the player (A1) to the left of the player (B1) who made the first bid in the Denomination that was last bid and followed by 3 passes. Any other card cannot really be considered an opening lead. So the partner of B1 (B2) is not yet dummy and B1 is not yet declarer. Since B1 is only presumed declarer the intention is that he is the one who makes the decisions but B2 (who is only "presumed" (?) dummy) can call attention to the irregularity. So my conclusion is that the laws on this topic as not watertight. Although in practice there is unlikely to be any problem if dummy does call attention to the error, it would be better if the laws made it clear what the position is if this fairly common irregularity does occur. Perhaps the declarer and dummy should get their roles when the 3rd pass has been made. The roles only change if there is a OLOOT and it is handled as in L54A or the last pass is withdrawn due to L21B1. Another one for the wish list! Geoff. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 00:53:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:53:59 +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 AAA12879 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:53:53 +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 IAA12483 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 08:53:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981222085557.006f1ad8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 08:55:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Alerting In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981216084121.007bd210@phedre.meteo.fr> References: <3.0.1.32.19981215093810.0093abe0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> <3.0.1.32.19981215093810.0093abe0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:41 AM 12/16/98 +0100, Jean-Pierre wrote: >At 02:12 15/12/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >>"all calls which the opponents might be expected not to understand the >>meaning of should be alerted" >> >> This is the big problem with alerting. If you really trust the >>players then some rule such as this is all that is necessary. However,... > > I strongly agree with this view: this should be the more appropriate >definition for alert procedure. It is very simple in its expression, if not >understandable for everybody and I don't see it "very dangerous", not more >dangerous than alternative and very intricated ones which involve very long >lists of items. > At least, this simple rule calls for players' responsability and can be >expected to help to educate their understanding of alerting procedure. > I would only add somewhere in the sentence "because of lack of knowledge >of opponents agreement" to prevent bridge lawyers from requesting opponents >to make bridge thinking in their place. Maybe the "expected" in the >sentence is already enough for this restriction? What this would require is that the person who wishes to learn to play bridge in organized competition must first master four subjects: (1) How to bid. (2) How to declare. (3) How to defend. (4) How to figure out what one's opponents might be expected to understand. I wonder which is the most difficult of these subjects to master. It might well be #4. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 01:33:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 01:33:10 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA13045 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 01:33:03 +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 JAA13933 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 09:32:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981222093515.006f1068@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 09:35:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Hesitation In-Reply-To: <36779A44.5BB220D3@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.5.32.19981215113558.007ffd60@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:32 PM 12/16/98 +0100, Herman wrote: >Which is precisely why this is not the question which needs to be asked. > >And is the reason why the wording has changed. > >The correct question is : > >"Which of the two actions (bidding or passing) was _demonstrably_ >suggested by the hesitation". > >Now please demonstrate which of the actions was suggested. > >Then rule. With typical agreements, 4S was ambiguous: perhaps a pure preempt, perhaps a hand with lots of offense but not much defense that expected to have a good shot at making 4S. Therefore passing 5C suggests "I have a weak hand and was forcing the opponents to make the last guess (which turned out to be 5C); I'm content to let them live with it", so that E will normally be expected to let 5C play, while doubling 5C suggests "I have a hand that might have made 4S, so we shouldn't let the opponents get out cheaply in 5C", forcing E to choose between 5CX and 5S. In other words, the messages W can send (without adding any extraneous information) are "I think we should let them play 5C" or "I think we shouldn't let them play 5C". Hesitating then passing demonstrably suggests the latter over the former, thus suggests bidding (or doubling, which reduces to bidding with that hand) over passing. I would adjust. Obviously, I am in the camp that considers pass an LA (by anyone's standards) -- indeed, that's rather an understatement. When my partner bids 4S, then passes, and I hold that hand, I pass 5C like a shot, figuring that the most likely outcomes of my alternative actions are pass -420/440, double -650/750, 5S -920/940. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 01:51:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 01:51:16 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA13103 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 01:51:09 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA29012; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 08:50:29 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.52) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028979; Tue Dec 22 08:50:05 1998 Received: by har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE2D90.19D23660@har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 09:47:34 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE2D90.19D23660@har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Ian D Crorie'" Subject: RE: UI ruling Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:20:54 -0500 Encoding: 11 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Ian D Crorie[SMTP:idc@cee.hw.ac.uk] Question: If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman to hear him... is he still wrong? My wife tells me the answer is yes. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 03:28:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 03:28:58 +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 DAA13395 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 03:28:49 +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 LAA28242 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 11:28:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA07562 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 11:28:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 11:28:41 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199812221628.LAA07562@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation ( + treatment of apparent pauses behind screens) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > From: David Stevenson > > If, for example, you are an aggressive defensive bidder, and partner > > pauses indicating values, and it comes round to you in a position where > > you might double or pass, then you should not say to yourself "I know I > > would normally double, so I will double and not complain if the TD rules > > it back." In fact you should pass because that is what the laws require > > you to. It is more than the laws: personal ethics should suggest the > > same. Suppose you double, collect 800, and opponents say nothing: how > > do you feel? David has given the right answer but IMHO for the wrong reason. If you are _certain_ you would have doubled without the UI, then you have not taken advantage of the UI and have not violated L73C. On the other hand, if the conditions of L16A are satisfied ("suggested over another" and a LA according to the rules in your jurisdiction), you have violated that. The question is not what you yourself would have done absent the UI but rather what other players of your skill and playing your methods would have done. If the conditions are satisfied, you "may not choose" the suggested LA (or LA's). Intentional violation of any of the Laws, including L16A, is itself illegal: L72B2. So "ignore the UI" is wrong. "Follow L16A" is right. > From: "Grattan" > There is significant opinion that behind screens the player should disregard > what he thinks he knows about a pause the other side of the screen (or > other information transmitted without authorisation across the screen) > and should make the call which he judges technically to be the right call > based on the meaning of the auction and his hand. In order for L16A to apply, 1) there must be UI; 2) it must come _from partner_; 3) it must demonstrably suggest one LA over another. If, playing with screens, these conditions (especially 1 and 2) exist more often than very rarely, the screens need to be bigger. :-) > It is suggested that, > behind screens, the requirements in Law 73C should be varied to give > effect to this, leaving the question whether unauthorized information > does exist and whether it has affected the auction to the Director, and > to the appeal committee if one is required. As above, it's not L73C that's in question; it's L16A. If the conditions of L16A exist, it seems to me players have an obligation to follow the law, but the conditions should very rarely exist. What is needed, it seems to me, is simply a "rule of evidence" that unless there are special circumstances, a modest delay in returning the tray does not bring L16A into effect because there is no way for a player to know what caused the delay. There will still be a problem when there's a very long delay in an uncontested auction, but I don't see any alternative to L16A for that. Else we are back to the old black magic. > It is not altogether clear whether this can or needs be achieved simply by > regulation under Law 80E; Regulations or conditions of contest under L80E and 80F seem quite sufficient. No laws are suspended or modified; we are just giving guidelines on how to interpret evidence. > the more direct application, perhaps, would > be a ruling that the player is entitled to act on the basis that he has no > UI, given the uncertainties of events on the other side of the screen, until > the Director rules otherwise. Perhaps a better approach is to emphasize L16A1. That is, if a player believes useful UI has been transmitted across a screen, he is expected to say so at once. Failing to do so all but forfeits any right to redress. If there is a dispute, the TD can be called at once to adjudicate whether the UI existed and whose partner it came from. Of course the real key is to make transmission of UI across the screen very rare. Then anything halfway sensible will work. If screens don't allow players to take what they believe to be the correct bridge action, why use them? > Question 2: Would support extend to a change in the law applying when > there are no screens, the principle being applied here too? Back to the old black magic, is it? My vote on this one is no. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 04:11:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:11:54 +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 EAA13499 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:11:48 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092n9b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.155]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA16176 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 09:11:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812221711.JAA16176@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Rubber bridge laws. Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 09:10:22 -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 Since the ACBL has for six years ignored the rubber bridge laws of 1993, which it publishes, it's good to see someone else putting them on the internet. We ACBLers should be ashamed that a Dane has to do it for us. Watch out, Niels, the copyright notice in the front of the Laws forbids copying them in any way, so I hope you have received permission to do so. :) Anyway, many thanks! ---------- > From: Niels Wendell Pedersen > > For those interested in having the rubber bridge laws on WWW, I now > have a test version of the American edition of the rubber bridge laws > at > > http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/rlaws-a/ > > The files still need a final proof-reading (which will be done in the > beginning of January). When this has been done the rubber bridge laws > will be placed on the ACBL web site (as well as at the above mentioned > URL). > > If you find errors in the files (typos, missing or wrong links, etc.) > please let me know (email: nwp@math.auc.dk). > > A merry Chistmas and a happy New Year to all subscribers to BLML. > > Niels From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 04:34:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:34:40 +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 EAA13587 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:34:26 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zsVhH-0004Is-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:34:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 16:19:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Wish List References: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B20@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> In-Reply-To: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B20@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) wrote: >I have been an interested spectator to the BLML over the past few months. >Sometimes the topics deviate quite a bit from the topic of bridge laws but >there is still a lot of food for thought. Recently David Stevenson has >asked about the alerting rules in different countries. Will there ever be >an international consensus on what should be alerted? i.e. will the >alerting rules become part of the laws? Not, I hope, for a *very* long time. Alerting depends very much on what is understood as the norm. Thus for alerting to work with the same rules throughout the world the norm has to be similar, the basic system and approach must be similar, beginners have to be taught similarly, and international differences must disappear. I do not expect this in my lifetime nor do I wish it. I would love to play in an ACBL NABC, but it would lose its appeal if it was no different from Brighton. Remember also that there are a lot of other regulations that sponsoring organisations make. Do you want them in the Law book? Smoking regulations? In Italy, last I heard, you could smoke at the table, in EBU events there is a smoking area outside, in NAmerica there are smoking breaks: why should everyone be the same? And so on. >As for the laws themselves, as the correspondence has shown, they are often >very vague and not clear even to those who have studied them. >"Interpretations" from the law makers sometimes seem to contradict the >actual letter of the law (e.g. the "stupid mistakes" of L25B) and other laws >seem far too complicated for ordinary bridge players to understand and even >TDs get them wrong (handling revokes is a well known case). So it would >seem likely that many contributors (active or passive like me) have specific >"wishes" with regard to changes to the laws that they would like to see >made. Competent and trained TDs never get revoke situations wrong - why should they? Incompetent and untrained TDs get revoke situations wrong, but so what? You really think that changing the Laws will help an incompetent TD who never opens the Law book anyway? As for players, there are a few Laws it helps if they know and understand, but it does not matter too much if they get them wrong, and changing them will not help their understanding. >Is there anyone out there in BLML land who is collecting up such wishes into >a complete "Wish List"? I have been drawing up my own list but it would be >useful if a) I don't repeat what others have already proposed and b) there >was some way of getting them brought to the attention of officialdom. Since >it is nearly Christmas, this list could be sent to the WBF "laws Santa" who >may be able to fullfil them one year. (Do we have to wait 9 years until >2007 for the next update - can't it be earlier?) I hope not. It is not suitable to have always changing Laws - or regulations for that matter. How many changes have the ACBL made to their alerting rules since they placed a moratorium [that can't be the right word - what do I mean?] on further alerting changes for three years? It is not sensible to change the Law book frequently. It is far more difficult for anyone to know what the rules are when they are continuously changing. Note: over the years I have been on the L&EC one of the complaints about English alerting is that it is "continuously changing": this was during a period of *nine* years without a change! If there is a new Law book every three years you will find that the quality of rulings goes down, the number of complaints goes up. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 04:34:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:34:38 +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 EAA13589 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:34:26 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zsVhH-0004Iv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:34:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:17:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fumble and appeal References: <4.1.19981215172245.0098a5e0@sercit> <3.0.1.32.19981221175622.0069a710@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981221175622.0069a710@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: [s] >But, >if you weren't quite calling the fumbler a cheat, you were still calling >the fumble deceptive, which means "intended to deceive", not quite libel, >but, perhaps, at least in the U.S.A. in the litigious 90s, defamatory. It certainly does not mean "intended to deceive" in my dictionary nor in my understanding of the language. If you are driving along a road, and a tree is obscuring part of a sign, like the word "No" in "No left turn", so you make the obvious mistake, would you not say that sign was deceptive? What do you think, the tree intended to deceive you? [s] >But meanwhile, back at L73D1, those famous last words, "and at his own >risk", remain. I take it for granted that failing to expunge them was not >an oversight on the part of the lawmakers. We still need a line. The interpretation of "at his own risk" is that if you choose a meaning amongst legitimate bridge reasons, and choose the wrong one, that is tough. For example, the bidding goes 1H P 4H ..P P P [ie, the pass over 4H was slow]. The slow passer turns up with two aces and you have to decide how to play the trumps. If you now assume that he was going to double so you play him for the long trumps, and go off because he is void you might wonder whether he thought to intentionally deceive you. However, when you discover that his hand was -- x AQxxxx Axxxxx he clearly has a legitimate bridge reason for his think and you would expect no redress. You have been deceived only by your own misapprehension. [s] >The $64 question is: To what extent, if any, must we (TDs and ACs) believe >that a player has or may have violated L73D2 before we give redress to his >opponents under L73F2? Not at all! If he has violated L73D1 then redress may be given: it does not need to be L73F2. let us read L73D1: It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. Very few people who read this Law seem to consider the use of the word "Otherwise" but it is a crucial part of the law. If a player fails to "be particularly careful" to maintain a "steady tempo and unvarying manner" in "positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side" then he is in breach of the second sentence, and the third sentence **does not apply**. So long as he *is* careful then the test comes back to the "at his own risk" test, and we are back to legitimate bridge reasons. > Or, from the other side, when an innocent player is >misled by an opponents action, such as a fumble, what is the criterion for >refusing redress on the grounds that the inference was "as his own risk" >under L73D1? So we only do not apply L73F2 and adjust [assuming there was damage] if: [a] It was not an intentional hesitation [or whatever] [b] The hesitating player took adequate care not to hesitate [or whatever] in positions that might have gained [c] The damaged player misunderstood the bridge reason for the action >>What do you rule? This is an easy ruling - you adjust. the player did not take adequate care. Cards stuck together, light was bad, wondering whether to peter or not, not attending, trying to remember what was trumps, thinking about the rest of the hand, wondering what to have for dinner, wondering whether partner has revoked, looking at sexy opponent, ... They are all breaches of L73D, and we adjust for damage routinely. >>Would it make any difference to you if S (the fumbler) said as they played >>a card - "sorry the cards are stuck together" Absolutely. Now we can eliminate L73D2 because the fumble was not deliberate, L73D1 [second sentence] because he is now taking reasonable care. If the declarer chooses to assume the fumble has told him that a player has a particular card *rather than* the cards are sticky when the player has said that is the reason then he does so "at his own risk" !! >It might very well to me, but it wouldn't to many others. The Laws require it to make a difference. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 04:34:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:34:39 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA13590 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:34:26 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zsVhH-0004It-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:34:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 16:25:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI ruling References: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B1F@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> In-Reply-To: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B1F@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) wrote: >As with all these cases, once the hesitation has occurred, partner of the >hesitator is in a no win situation. Without the hesitation any one of pass, >double or bid could be right (or wrong). The decision is made merely on the >authorised information i.e. the preceding bids. > >Now there has been hesitation, it is nearly always the case that whichever >choice is taken, there is a logical alternative. Thus in one of the >previous postings, (bid 5S or not after partners slow pass on 5C) even if >the player choses to pass this could be penalised as logical alternatives >are 5S (if 5C actually goes down) or double (if it makes and the rest of the >field also double). Similarly, if a double is chosen, logical alternatives >are 5S or pass. Why is the partner of the hesitator in a no-win situation? The hesitation suggests doubt, doubt in the case of an apparent penalty double suggests taking out, so he passes. If this is successful there is no problem. It is not true that the partner of a hesitator is ever in a no-win situation, though poor decisions can make certain types of situation tricky - but not this one. >In the particular case you quote, if the double occurred without the >hesitation South would no doubt decide that EW have been pushed to a >non-making game and leave the double in, especially with partner expecting >at least 3 tricks and holding CK himself. So a hesitated double gives some >doubt and therefore 5D seems a better bet. As TD I would adjust the score >to 4H doubled made. I assume that the appeals committee would uphold my >decision. Exactly - WTP? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 04:34:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:34:38 +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 EAA13588 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:34:26 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zsVhH-0004Iu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:34:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 16:30:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI ruling References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ian D Crorie wrote: >[DWS] >> Keep the deposit. >If they seem to be experienced with respect to the laws, agree. >David Grabiner specifies "good but non-expert players"; it is >surprising how many players I'd describe that way have no >conception of what the laws actually say. In my experience >on ACs they believe that 'but I was always going to bid XX with >this hand, even without the hesitation' is a sufficient defence. >I prefer to explain what the laws require of TDs and players >in UI situations and leave it at that. > >If only we had the resources for pre-screening of appeals, though >(puts on pessimist hat) I suspect they'd bring their own problems. The EBU has Appeals Advisors who do this, and the system is working well. The WBU and other English and Welsh organisations sometimes use them, subject to the TDic's views. However, I do agree, what is said at the appeal might easily be sufficient to get the AC to return the deposit. *But* the hand requires something: it is basically too clear-cut to waste an AC's time, and I would expect an Appeals Advisor [known as a "Cuddly"] to tell the players so. > Question: > If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman to hear him... > is he still wrong? I asked my wife, and she and Quango said in unison "Men are born wrong!" -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 04:34:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:34:41 +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 EAA13608 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:34:31 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zsVhN-0004JZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:34:24 +0000 Message-ID: <8Fu2wBAzG7f2Ewua@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 14:50:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: When does dummy become dummy? References: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B23@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> In-Reply-To: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B23@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) wrote: >First an apology. I stated in my last posting on this: > >> By the way, the auction doesn't end when the opening lead is >> faced. It ends >> after 3 passes (or 4 if no player has bid) - see L22. > >Looking again I realised thatI was wrong. L17E defines the end of action: > >"The auction period ends when all four players pass or when after three >passes in rotation have followed any call the opening lead is faced " > >So thinking a bit more I realised that it is still not entirely clear if >there is a dummy ("He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced."). The >question really is "when is a faced card led to the first trick an opening >lead?" Presumably when it is led by the player (A1) to the left of the >player (B1) who made the first bid in the Denomination that was last bid and >followed by 3 passes. Any other card cannot really be considered an opening >lead. So the partner of B1 (B2) is not yet dummy and B1 is not yet declarer. >Since B1 is only presumed declarer the intention is that he is the one who >makes the decisions but B2 (who is only "presumed" (?) dummy) can call >attention to the irregularity. > >So my conclusion is that the laws on this topic as not watertight. Although >in practice there is unlikely to be any problem if dummy does call attention >to the error, it would be better if the laws made it clear what the position >is if this fairly common irregularity does occur. Perhaps the declarer and >dummy should get their roles when the 3rd pass has been made. The roles >only change if there is a OLOOT and it is handled as in L54A or the last >pass is withdrawn due to L21B1. Another one for the wish list! If you are going to add to the wishlist everything that is not 100% clear to everyone on a first reading then it is going to be completely unmanageable. Furthermore, when questions are asked ***and answered*** here that does not mean that we should then immediately assume there is no answer to the question so lets change the laws immediately. This particular situation is easily and clearly covered by the Laws so there is no need for change. Yes, it is complicated by the original poster asking the wrong question. When does dummy become dummy? You tell me when it makes a difference and I'll tell you the answer. It is not relevant in this case. Law 54 covers the original question completely as I have already answered once. The presumed or actual or future or whatever dummy has no say in the matter. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 04:43:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:43:37 +1100 Received: from uno.minfod.com (www.northsidebridge.com [207.227.70.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA13660 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 04:43:31 +1100 Received: from mmsinet1.mms-inc.com ([207.227.69.130] helo=pcmjn) by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zsVqF-0005Pg-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:43:31 -0500 X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:43:24 +0000 To: From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: RE: UI ruling In-Reply-To: <01BE2D90.19D23660@har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_9669343==_.ALT" Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_9669343==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:20 PM 12/21/98 , Craig Senior wrote: > > >---------- >From: Ian D Crorie[SMTP:idc@cee.hw.ac.uk] > Question: > If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman to hear him... > is he still wrong? > > >My wife tells me the answer is yes. > Mine says it is clearly a rhetorical question and she refuses to dignify it with an answer! John S. Nichols --=====================_9669343==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 09:20 PM 12/21/98 , Craig Senior wrote:
>
>
>----------
>From:  Ian D Crorie[SMTP:idc@cee.hw.ac.uk]
>  Question:
>  If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman to hear him...
>  is he still wrong?
>
>
>My wife tells me the answer is yes.
>

Mine says it is clearly a rhetorical question and she refuses to dignify it with an answer!
John S. Nichols
--=====================_9669343==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 06:06:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 06:06:23 +1100 Received: from clmout1-int.prodigy.com (clmout1-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA13903 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 06:06:17 +1100 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by clmout1-int.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA13942 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 14:06:11 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id OAA08102 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 14:00:38 -0500 Message-Id: <199812221900.OAA08102@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 14:00:38, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Rubber Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French Since the ACBL has for six years ignored the rubber bridge laws of 1993, which it publishes, it's good to see someone else putting them on the internet. We ACBLers should be ashamed that a Dane has to do it for us. Watch out, Niels, the copyright notice in the front of the Laws forbids copying them in any way, so I hope you have received permission to do so. :) Anyway, many thanks! ================================= Gee Marvin, I guess the fact that the ACBL not only gave Niels permission, aided him in getting a rubber bridge law book, scanned the pages in and will host a copy of the laws after we return from vacation doesn't count? -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 06:30:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 06:30:55 +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 GAA13955 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 06:30:49 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zsXVp-0005H6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 19:30:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:59:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rubber bridge laws. References: <199812221711.JAA16176@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199812221711.JAA16176@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Since the ACBL has for six years ignored the rubber bridge laws of >1993, which it publishes, it's good to see someone else putting >them on the internet. We ACBLers should be ashamed that a Dane has >to do it for us. Watch out, Niels, the copyright notice in the >front of the Laws forbids copying them in any way, so I hope you >have received permission to do so. :) I can assure you that Niels is very careful about copyright. The ACBL has given him permission for the American versions of the Duplicate and Rubber Laws, the Portland club have given Niels and myself permission for the English version of the Duplicate and Rubber Laws, and I am currently seeking EBL permission for the Rubber Laws. Despite all this, I understand that the international agreements on copyright on the Internet are far from clear and probably legally unenforceable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 07:34:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 07:34:10 +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 HAA14050 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 07:34:03 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h29.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id XAA12981; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 23:33:33 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <3680AB66.6C68@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:35:50 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <367A3F7F.2C7C@elnet.msk.ru> <367A46A4.EEED3135@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all and Merry Christmas:) Thank you, Herman - and both Davids: I lost the discussion and now I agree that MPs/IMPs should be averaged. But nevertheless there remain several problems more and on behalf of our ACs I ask for exchange thoughts, ideas etc. on: - what is the full set of possible/probable contracts which are took under consideration when AC takes its decision (for NOS and OS) under L12C3? - how do ACs make their decision about percentage distribution between this set of considered contracts? Any ideas, customs or regulations will be helpful. Thanks in advance Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 08:28:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 08:28:13 +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 IAA14210 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 08:28:06 +1100 Received: from pe1s05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.226] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zsZLU-00085g-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 21:28:00 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: Subject: Re: Fw: Bridge Night Before Xmas (fwd) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 21:32:15 -0000 Message-ID: <01be2df2$8b6a7d20$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: Tim West-meads To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Monday, December 21, 1998 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Bridge Night Before Xmas (fwd) >In-Reply-To: <003701be2c5a$75c9f0c0$a261040c@nancy> >> >> In anguish my wife cried "Your mind's growing old >> You should see that six NoTrump for us is ice-cold!!" > >I doubled, my dear, since I trusted your lead >A diamond you should have produced with great speed >Two thousand points you'd find then was our score >(Not to mention the honours to make even more) > >Merry Christmas > >Tim West-Meads Your scoring, my darling, would have cost us a bomb Two thousand points would have surely been wrong What trick did they win that gives them that score By ditching the diamonds we get three hundred more Merry Christmas Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 09:38:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 09:38:01 +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 JAA14349 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 09:37:55 +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 RAA28389 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:37:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:37:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812222237.RAA14249@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <367DE4BE.50A2@mindspring.com> (jrmayne@mindspring.com) Subject: Re: UI ruling (result and comments) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Grabiner wrote: >> Flight A Sectional Swiss, good but non-expert players >> North dealer, neither vul >> >> A9xx >> Axx >> AKxxx >> J >> KQxxx - >> Qxx KJT9x >> xx Q >> Qxx AT9xxxx >> JTxx >> xx >> JT9xx >> Kx >> N E S W >> 1D 2NT 3D 3H >> 4D 4H P P >> X* P 5D X *-30 second hesitation, agreed >> P P P >> Result: down 1, -100 to N-S. What actually happened was that the TD ruled the bid was allowed because South had less defense and more offense than expected, and said that even if he did adjust it, 4H might have gone down so he could give E-W no better than average-plus. He then said that there was no point in such an adjustment, since the other table was in 5Hx, +100, and that was more than the +3 we would get from average-plus. I believe the director made several clear errors in his ruling. 4H doesn't seem to be beatable on proper declarer play, and even if it is beatable, as long as it would make one time in three, the adjustment should be +590 and not average-plus. (I also believe he should have disallowed the bid; see below.) Given that I would have to do more than just convince the AC that the bid should not be allowed, I decided I would have a hard time getting a favorable AC ruling, particularly in a small sectional tournament with only one director. In addition, we won the match by a fairly large margin; the potential gain of two VP's wasn't worth the cost of staying an extra hour for the appeal to be heard. (The table situation was friendly; South wasn't surprised when I called the director immediately after her 5D bid, and she was aware of the hesitation.) John R. Mayne writes: > Looks like a classic whipsaw by south; he decided to defend until partner > said he wanted to defend, then he decided to offend. This was the point that I think needed to be made, and he was the only one who made it. It's not just that South decided to pull the penalty double; she decided to sit for 4H, figuring either than a sacrifice would be too expensive or that 4H was going down. Then, when partner doubled, making it more likely that 4H would go down, South pulled. This is a point that TD's and AC's need to be aware of. It's the same type of situation as hesitation Blackwood; when you have given the right to make a decision to your partner, and partner makes it while passing UI that suggests uncertainy, you may not change your mind. Would it have been proper for me to try to raise this issue with the AC? It would certainly give the impression of bridge-lawyering, particularly in combination with the argument I would have to make on adjusted scores. Had the ruling gone the other way, I don't think the appeal should have been ruled frivolous for this particular South. In an at-the-table post-mortem (in which none of us were able to find a defense that would beat 4H), she said that she didn't bid 5D the first time because she was afraid of encouraging partner with a constructive bid. While that isn't a good argument (partner isn't going to bid 6D to make after bidding 4D, and if partner doubles 5H, it should go down), it was what she believed to be correct. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 11:26:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 11:26:09 +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 LAA14485 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 11:26:01 +1100 Received: from modem24.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.152] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zsbBO-000886-00; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 23:25:43 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Wish List Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 23:22:22 -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 shepherds all were quaffing beer With no thought for star of gold, So angel choirs with songs of mirth Met stares distinctly cold; Three cameleers were summoned then Bright paper crowns to bring, And this is why on Christmas Day Card printers dance and sing.] (additional verse: Endicott) ===================================== --------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Wish List > Date: 22 December 1998 16:19 > > Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) wrote: > >I have been an interested spectator to the BLML over the past few months. > >Sometimes the topics deviate quite a bit from the topic of bridge laws but > >there is still a lot of food for thought. > ---------------------------------------------\x/------------------------------ --------------- > > >Is there anyone out there in BLML land who is collecting up such wishes into > >a complete "Wish List"? > --------------------------------------------\x/------------------------------- -------------- > If there is a new Law book every three years you will find that the > quality of rulings goes down, the number of complaints goes up. ++++ Well, my "memory board" is coming along quite nicely. I agree that too much chopping and changing of the laws is undesirable, but I do think there is a need to overhaul them soon. They are in a pretty shabby state, and we do not need to argue the whys and wherefores of it. Mind you, there is a considerable peril that each zone will end up with a different code of laws if the example of some is to be followed. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 23 12:22:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 12:22:34 +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 MAA14625 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 12:22:28 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zsd0I-0004Pp-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 01:22:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 01:16:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Wish List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > If there is a new Law book every three years you will find that the >quality of rulings goes down, the number of complaints goes up. > Completely agree with all this, I don't expect to have got the hang of the new laws before - oh shall we say 2007 :)) Keep banging on David I'm pretty much behind you all the way. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 24 00:37:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 00:37:45 +1100 Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA17941 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 00:37:39 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA05915 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 13:36:43 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 23 Dec 98 13:36 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Fw: Bridge Night Before Xmas (fwd) 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: <01be2df2$8b6a7d20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Anne Jones wrote: > >Two thousand points you'd find then was our score > > > > Your scoring, my darling, would have cost us a bomb > Two thousand points would have surely been wrong > What trick did they win that gives them that score > By ditching the diamonds we get three hundred more > Aaargh - missed the vulnerability!!! Please substitute "twenty three hundred". Thanks Anne. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 24 00:37:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 00:37:42 +1100 Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA17939 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 00:37:36 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA05888 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 13:36:40 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 23 Dec 98 13:36 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Wish List To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: David Stevenson wrote: > Remember also that there are a lot of other regulations that > sponsoring organisations make. Do you want them in the Law book? > Smoking regulations? In Italy, last I heard, you could smoke at the > table, I'd love to see the Italian regs included in the law book but I won't be holding my breath (obviously can't for very long). Seriously I could see some benefits in a global standard definition of LA, wild and gambling, etc but not in alerting. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 24 00:37:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 00:37:22 +1100 Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA17933 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 00:37:16 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA05727 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 13:36:19 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 23 Dec 98 13:36 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UI ruling (result and comments) 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: <199812222237.RAA14249@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu> > > > David Grabiner wrote: > > >> Flight A Sectional Swiss, good but non-expert players > > >> North dealer, neither vul > >> > >> A9xx > >> Axx > >> AKxxx > >> J > >> KQxxx - > >> Qxx KJT9x > >> xx Q > >> Qxx AT9xxxx > >> JTxx > >> xx > >> JT9xx > >> Kx > > >> N E S W > >> 1D 2NT 3D 3H > >> 4D 4H P P > >> X* P 5D X *-30 second hesitation, agreed > >> P P P > > >> Result: down 1, -100 to N-S. > > What actually happened was that the TD ruled the bid was allowed because > South had less defense and more offense than expected, Like everyone else I feel this is wrong - South seems to have *more* defence than shown so far. > and said that > even if he did adjust it, 4H might have gone down so he could give E-W > no better than average-plus. He then said that there was no point in > such an adjustment, since the other table was in 5Hx, +100, and that was > more than the +3 we would get from average-plus. He should not even contemplate average+ of course, but he is hardly alone in so doing. > > I believe the director made several clear errors in his ruling. 4H > doesn't seem to be beatable on proper declarer play, and even if it is > beatable, as long as it would make one time in three, the adjustment > should be +590 and not average-plus. (I also believe he should have > disallowed the bid; see below.) 4H will go down if declarer plays North to hold eg A9x,Ax,AKxxx,KJx. If the TD thinks the chances of this to be > 5/6 he was right to rule no damage. Personally I regard this as a pessimistic assessment of the EW chances but I suppose I could be talked into -590/-100. I now believe the play choice is sufficiently complex that I would *not* retain the deposit as an AC. When I first saw this problem pass seemed such an obvious LA to 5D that I checked only to see if EW *could* make 4H (easy with sight of all 4 hands) without considering what was actually likely - was I alone in this oversight? Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 24 01:35:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 01:35:09 +1100 Received: from gw-nl3.philips.com (gw-nl3.philips.com [192.68.44.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA18064 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 01:35:02 +1100 Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl3.philips.com with ESMTP id PAA26963 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 15:34:51 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com) Received: from smtprelay-eur1.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl3.philips.com via mwrap (4.0a) id xma026961; Wed, 23 Dec 98 15:34:51 +0100 Received: from nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.106]) by smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (8.8.5/8.6.10-1.2.2m-970826) with ESMTP id PAA16576 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 15:34:51 +0100 (MET) Received: from brisbane.ehv.sc.philips.com (brisbane [130.144.63.240]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id PAA02232 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 15:34:50 +0100 (MET) From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by brisbane.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/) id PAA09343 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 15:34:49 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199812231434.PAA09343@brisbane.ehv.sc.philips.com> Subject: Re: Four Hearts (was: UI ruling) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 15:34:49 MET X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > A9xx > Axx > AKxxx > J > KQxxx - > Qxx KJT9x > xx Q > Qxx AT9xxxx > JTxx > xx > JT9xx > Kx David Grabiner wrote: > 4H doesn't seem to be beatable on proper declarer play, I don't understand. I could not find this 'proper declarer play'. Can David explain? The best I could find was diamond, diamond ruffed, ace of clubs, club to the king, spade jack-king-ace-ruff, jack of hearts. If declarer now contunues hearts, north takes the ace and plays another diamond. This a defense that should be found at the table. Shortening dummy (E) to prevent declarer from taking six club tricks seems obvious. -- Con Holzscherer Philips Semiconductors B.V. Systems Laboratory Eindhoven Phone: +31-40-27 22150 fax : +31-40-27 22764 E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 24 02:57:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 02:57:58 +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 CAA18376 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 02:57:52 +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 KAA03452 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 10:57:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA17995; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 10:57:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 10:57:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812231557.KAA17995@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Busted Claim Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brd 27 NSV Dlr: S S A76542 S W N E Matchpoints H 985 P 1C P 1D D 754 P 1NT P 3NT C T P P P S T8 S KQ3 * auction may not be H A3 H KT62 exactly as shown :-) D QJ9 D AKT82 C AQ9754 C 3 Opening lead: S5 S J9 The Play: H QJ74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D 63 S5 T H5 A*S2 4 C KJ862 K*C3 H2 3 Q*D2 9 6 8*SJ H7 6 8 Q*C4 T C5 J* At trick seven, declarer claims, holding: S --- S --- The problem: declarer claims, and says that he H A3 H KT6 will lose a heart at the end. After more than D Q9 D KT82 five seconds, but less than ten, he corrects C A97 C --- himself, and says that the H goes away on the CA. The director is called, you arrive, and NS want their H trick. Your ruling is...? If it's important, all players concerned are intermediate flight A, or, using the new ACBL ranking system, Expert LM. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 24 04:19:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:19:36 +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 EAA18667 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:19:28 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 0zsrwM-00034j-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:19:18 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981223181328.00a0de30@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:13:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Busted Claim In-Reply-To: <199812231557.KAA17995@freenet5.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:57 23-12-98 -0500, you wrote: >Brd 27 >NSV >Dlr: S S A76542 S W N E >Matchpoints H 985 P 1C P 1D > D 754 P 1NT P 3NT > C T P P P > S T8 S KQ3 * auction may not be > H A3 H KT62 exactly as shown :-) > D QJ9 D AKT82 > C AQ9754 C 3 Opening lead: S5 > S J9 The Play: > H QJ74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > D 63 S5 T H5 A*S2 4 > C KJ862 K*C3 H2 3 Q*D2 > 9 6 8*SJ H7 6 > 8 Q*C4 T C5 J* > > At trick seven, declarer claims, holding: > S --- S --- The problem: declarer claims, and says that he > H A3 H KT6 will lose a heart at the end. After more than > D Q9 D KT82 five seconds, but less than ten, he corrects > C A97 C --- himself, and says that the H goes away on the CA. > The director is called, you arrive, and NS > want their H trick. Your ruling is...? > If it's important, all players concerned are > intermediate flight A, or, using the new ACBL > ranking system, Expert LM. > Tony (aka ac342) > At first sight it looks a standard problem. In the first place we look at 70D and have to decide what the original idea of play was when W claimed the loss of the H trick. The only line of play in which a H can be lost is hA, DQ, Dx to dummy (leaving cA unreachable). We have to look at the footnote to decide if this line is irrational or not. I think it is (in my vision he just miscounted the tricks when claiming), but i will accept if an AC decides otherwise. regards, anton witzen Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 24 04:20:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:20:26 +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 EAA18680 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:20:19 +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 RAA02678; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 17:20:06 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 RAA05751; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 17:20:04 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA13249; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 17:20:03 GMT Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 17:20:03 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199812231720.RAA13249@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Re: Busted Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > At trick seven, declarer claims, holding: > S --- S --- The problem: declarer claims, and says that he > H A3 H KT6 will lose a heart at the end. After more than > D Q9 D AKT8 five seconds, but less than ten, he corrects > C A97 C --- himself, and says that the H goes away on the CA. > The director is called, you arrive, and NS > want their H trick. Your ruling is...? > If it's important, all players concerned are > intermediate flight A, or, using the new ACBL > ranking system, Expert LM. > Tony (aka ac342) > I have corrected the diamond suit at the point of the claim: declarer (West) has just played a small diamond from dummy winning with the jack in hand. I think failing to cash CA or cashing CA and throwing a diamond is irrational not careless. I expect declarer knew which cards would cash but did not count all his winners. Declarer makes the rest (L70D: further statement accepted because all normal lines are as successful, or L71C: cancel concession of the heart trick). Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 24 05:35:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 05:35:58 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f257.hotmail.com [207.82.251.148]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA18859 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 05:35:52 +1100 Received: (qmail 19125 invoked by uid 0); 23 Dec 1998 18:35:18 -0000 Message-ID: <19981223183518.19124.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 164.166.20.58 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 10:35:17 PST X-Originating-IP: [164.166.20.58] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 10:35:17 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Steve Willner >> From: Barry Wolk >> Is the AC going to rule that, after W hesitates, >> E is not allowed to trust the NS bidding? > >Once he has the UI telling him to do so, E can "trust the NS bidding" >only if there is no logical alternative. That's the whole point of >L16A. > Careful, please. E can "trust the NS bidding" only if there is no logical alternative "demonstrably suggested over another" by the UI. I think the change in the wording (from reasonably to demonstrably) was designed to force the burden of proof away from the partner of the UI giver. No-one has said differently to my knowledge yet... Yes, once W hesitates, E has to determine what the hesitation demonstrates, and remove them from consideration. Then E can choose any alternatives left. But I think we must think this way - determining what the hesitation demonstrates, rather than determining what the logical alternatives are. On the case being discussed I have no opinion worth mentioning (all my points have been covered at least once - and the discussion has changed my mind). But I really don't want to get back to "if it hesitates, shoot it". Michael. (internet access spotty until 1999) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 24 06:02:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 06:02:48 +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 GAA18917 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 06:02:43 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.0 201-221-107) with ESMTP id <19981223190236.HYKP19335.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 11:02:36 -0800 Message-ID: <36813F0D.B16ECA81@home.com> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 11:05:49 -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: UI ruling (result and comments) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > When I first saw this problem pass seemed such an obvious LA to 5D > that I > checked only to see if EW *could* make 4H (easy with sight of all 4 > hands) > without considering what was actually likely - was I alone in this > oversight? No! :-( From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 24 08:15:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 08:15:02 +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 IAA19066 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 08:14:56 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.0 201-221-107) with ESMTP id <19981223211450.IWTR19335.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 13:14:50 -0800 Message-ID: <36815E0B.CFB9CCEB@home.com> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 13:18:03 -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: Hesitation References: <3.0.5.32.19981215113558.007ffd60@maine.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19981222093515.006f1068@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Belatedly, I have also changed to the "Pass is LA" camp, and might indeed be the best bid. My initial opinion was more emotional than rational, putting more faith in the opponents' judgement than it likely deserves!! :-) With Pass an LA, adjusting back is obvious. Eric Landau wrote: > > At 12:32 PM 12/16/98 +0100, Herman wrote: > > >Which is precisely why this is not the question which needs to be asked. > > > >And is the reason why the wording has changed. > > > >The correct question is : > > > >"Which of the two actions (bidding or passing) was _demonstrably_ > >suggested by the hesitation". > > > >Now please demonstrate which of the actions was suggested. > > > >Then rule. > > With typical agreements, 4S was ambiguous: perhaps a pure preempt, perhaps > a hand with lots of offense but not much defense that expected to have a > good shot at making 4S. Therefore passing 5C suggests "I have a weak hand > and was forcing the opponents to make the last guess (which turned out to > be 5C); I'm content to let them live with it", so that E will normally be > expected to let 5C play, while doubling 5C suggests "I have a hand that > might have made 4S, so we shouldn't let the opponents get out cheaply in > 5C", forcing E to choose between 5CX and 5S. > > In other words, the messages W can send (without adding any extraneous > information) are "I think we should let them play 5C" or "I think we > shouldn't let them play 5C". Hesitating then passing demonstrably suggests > the latter over the former, thus suggests bidding (or doubling, which > reduces to bidding with that hand) over passing. I would adjust. > > Obviously, I am in the camp that considers pass an LA (by anyone's > standards) -- indeed, that's rather an understatement. When my partner > bids 4S, then passes, and I hold that hand, I pass 5C like a shot, figuring > that the most likely outcomes of my alternative actions are pass -420/440, > double -650/750, 5S -920/940. > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 24 09:55:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 09:55:56 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA19424 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 09:55:49 +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 RAA07683 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 1998 17:55:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981223175803.006f8538@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 17:58:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fumble and appeal In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19981221175622.0069a710@pop.cais.com> <4.1.19981215172245.0098a5e0@sercit> <3.0.1.32.19981221175622.0069a710@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:17 PM 12/22/98 +0000, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > [s] > >>But, >>if you weren't quite calling the fumbler a cheat, you were still calling >>the fumble deceptive, which means "intended to deceive", not quite libel, >>but, perhaps, at least in the U.S.A. in the litigious 90s, defamatory. > > It certainly does not mean "intended to deceive" in my dictionary nor >in my understanding of the language. If you are driving along a road, >and a tree is obscuring part of a sign, like the word "No" in "No left >turn", so you make the obvious mistake, would you not say that sign was >deceptive? What do you think, the tree intended to deceive you? > > [s] > >>But meanwhile, back at L73D1, those famous last words, "and at his own >>risk", remain. I take it for granted that failing to expunge them was not >>an oversight on the part of the lawmakers. We still need a line. > > The interpretation of "at his own risk" is that if you choose a >meaning amongst legitimate bridge reasons, and choose the wrong one, >that is tough. For example, the bidding goes 1H P 4H ..P P P [ie, the >pass over 4H was slow]. The slow passer turns up with two aces and you >have to decide how to play the trumps. If you now assume that he was >going to double so you play him for the long trumps, and go off because >he is void you might wonder whether he thought to intentionally deceive >you. However, when you discover that his hand was > > -- > x > AQxxxx > Axxxxx > >he clearly has a legitimate bridge reason for his think and you would >expect no redress. You have been deceived only by your own >misapprehension. > > [s] > >>The $64 question is: To what extent, if any, must we (TDs and ACs) believe >>that a player has or may have violated L73D2 before we give redress to his >>opponents under L73F2? > > Not at all! If he has violated L73D1 then redress may be given: it >does not need to be L73F2. let us read L73D1: > > It is desirable, though not always required, for players to > maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players > should be particularly careful in positions in which variations > may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently > to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does > not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but > inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only > by an opponent, and at his own risk. > > Very few people who read this Law seem to consider the use of the word >"Otherwise" but it is a crucial part of the law. If a player fails to >"be particularly careful" to maintain a "steady tempo and unvarying >manner" in "positions in which variations may work to the benefit of >their side" then he is in breach of the second sentence, and the third >sentence **does not apply**. > > So long as he *is* careful then the test comes back to the "at his own >risk" test, and we are back to legitimate bridge reasons. > >> Or, from the other side, when an innocent player is >>misled by an opponents action, such as a fumble, what is the criterion for >>refusing redress on the grounds that the inference was "as his own risk" >>under L73D1? > > So we only do not apply L73F2 and adjust [assuming there was damage] >if: > >[a] It was not an intentional hesitation [or whatever] >[b] The hesitating player took adequate care not to hesitate [or > whatever] in positions that might have gained >[c] The damaged player misunderstood the bridge reason for the action > >>>What do you rule? > > This is an easy ruling - you adjust. the player did not take adequate >care. Cards stuck together, light was bad, wondering whether to peter >or not, not attending, trying to remember what was trumps, thinking >about the rest of the hand, wondering what to have for dinner, wondering >whether partner has revoked, looking at sexy opponent, ... They are all >breaches of L73D, and we adjust for damage routinely. > >>>Would it make any difference to you if S (the fumbler) said as they played >>>a card - "sorry the cards are stuck together" > > Absolutely. Now we can eliminate L73D2 because the fumble was not >deliberate, L73D1 [second sentence] because he is now taking reasonable >care. If the declarer chooses to assume the fumble has told him that a >player has a particular card *rather than* the cards are sticky when the >player has said that is the reason then he does so "at his own risk" !! > >>It might very well to me, but it wouldn't to many others. > > The Laws require it to make a difference. Excellent explanation from David S. (my only quibble is about "deceptive", which I suspect is a US-UK difference; I certainly wouldn't call David's obscured "No left turn" sign "deceptive"); I shall use it to guide my interpretation of L73F2 henceforward. One point may require further clarification. Assume the fumbler had no deceptive intent, but no "bridge reason" for the fumble. For the fumble to have caused damage, his opponent must, however, have inferred some bridge reason for it. So how valid must this inference be? Players seeking redress after a fumble can be extraordinarily creative in coming up with explanations as to why it was the fumble that caused them to go wrong. The guidelines seem to suggest that the NOs are entitled to protection automatically when the above conditions are met. Under what circumstances, if any, should the TD/AC deny redress on the grounds that the NO's interpretation of the fumble, which led him to take the action which resulted in the damage, was too far-fetched? Here's the sort of situation I have in mind: I bid 6S, and LHO (who had nothing to think about but was distracted by an attractive young caddy walking by) takes a significant amount of time before passing. Two more passes follow, and I find myself with 12 top tricks and a two-way guess of a queen to make the overtrick. I misguess, call the cops, and explain that since the only possible bridge reason I could imagine for LHO's hesitation is that he was thinking of doubling, I assumed he held all of the three queens and two jacks I was missing, finessed him for the relevant queen, and lost the trick. Do I get my overtrick? Does it matter if the auction was contested vigorously, so that I might just as easily have inferred that he was thinking of saving? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 24 15:23:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA20085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 15:23:56 +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 PAA20079 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 15:23:49 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zt2JK-0006ZW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:23:43 +0000 Message-ID: <3FY0QIDV$bg2Ew2t@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:15:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Christmas Greetings References: <199812202142.IAA04185@octavia.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <199812202142.IAA04185@octavia.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk + / /\ //\\ MERRY XMAS *//O\\\* ////\\\\ and a */////\\\O\ ////O/\\\\\\* HAPPY NEW YEAR *///////\\\O\\\ O////O///\\\\\\\\* from /////////\\\\O\\\\ *///////O//\\\\\\\O\\* DAVID ___ ___ || |___|___| || QUANGO | | | || --- --- NANKI POO -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 24 19:06:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA20667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 19:06:42 +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 TAA20662 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 19:06:34 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-233.uunet.be [194.7.13.233]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA16489 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 09:06:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <367FCC9A.8472ED0@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:45:14 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: When does dummy become dummy? References: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B23@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" wrote: Hello Geoff, Welcome Your name does not suggest dutch to me, maar toch ook Welkom. > So my conclusion is that the laws on this topic as not watertight. Although > in practice there is unlikely to be any problem if dummy does call attention > to the error, it would be better if the laws made it clear what the position > is if this fairly common irregularity does occur. Perhaps the declarer and > dummy should get their roles when the 3rd pass has been made. The roles > only change if there is a OLOOT and it is handled as in L54A or the last > pass is withdrawn due to L21B1. Another one for the wish list! > Fairly common ? Let me see if I got the problem right : incorrect leader led, and then presumed dummy faced ? So that means he faces when there is a lead to his LEFT ? Fairly _un_common I would say. I would rule as harshly as possible. I would suspect it is someone trying to get a message accross to partner. I would therefor rule that the lead is accepted without any penalties. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 24 21:17:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 21:17:56 +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 VAA21060 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 21:17:50 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-131.uunet.be [194.7.14.131]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00319; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 11:17:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3681FFBB.A12F3647@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 09:47:55 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru, Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <367A3F7F.2C7C@elnet.msk.ru> <367A46A4.EEED3135@village.uunet.be> <3680AB66.6C68@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello All, Hello Vitold, vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > Hi all and Merry Christmas:) > > Thank you, Herman - and both Davids: I lost the discussion and now I > agree that MPs/IMPs should be averaged. > That's settled then. > But nevertheless there remain several problems more and on behalf of > our ACs I ask for exchange thoughts, ideas etc. on: > - what is the full set of possible/probable contracts which are took > under consideration when AC takes its decision (for NOS and OS) under > L12C3? I would imagine just two contracts and/or results (occasionally three), which are likely outcomes from the point at which the bidding derailed. > - how do ACs make their decision about percentage distribution between > this set of considered contracts? > That is an interesting one ! It would be logical to check the scoresheets, take all the "normal" results, and determine the frequency of each result, then take those percentages. That won't work, as I'll now explain. Suppose the AC decides to give NOs some percentage of 6Sp=, some percentage of 4Sp+2. They check the results and, after adding 6Sp-1 to 6Sp - 4Sp+1 to 4Sp+2, find that 20% of the field have bid the slam. They decide to give 20% of slam, 80% of game. What would that give as a result ? Well, if there are many other scores, we cannot truely say (and that is what makes this sort of ruling a good thing - it depends in part still on what happens at the other tables), but we can calculate this if those were the only two scores : If 20% are in slam, this scores 90% of the Matchpoints. Let's write that as 90MP. The 80% who stay in game will score 40MP. 20%x90MP + 80%x40MP = 50MP. Now if you were thinking old ways, and awarding Av+, they would get 60MP, so this ruling cannot be equitable. Awarding 30% of slam, as some compensation, won't do either, it's actually an extra 20 which needs to be given, in order to come up to Av+ standards : 40%x90MP + 60%x40MP = 60MP Why then not simply award Av+ in stead ? Because these non-offenders need not fail to make 12 tricks, as perhaps some others did. If 10% of all other pairs only made 11 tricks, then the frequencey table was : 6Sp-1 2% 1MP 4Sp+1 8% 6MP 4Sp+2 72% 46MP 6Sp= 18% 91MP and the AS becomes : 40%x91MP + 60%x46MP = 64MP I think that is both normal and equitable. > Any ideas, customs or regulations will be helpful. > This is an idea, certainly not yet a custom, and far from a regulation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 25 00:56:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 00:56:21 +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 AAA23679 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 00:56:16 +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 IAA18237 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 08:55:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981224085841.006f2f80@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 08:58:41 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: UI ruling (result and comments) In-Reply-To: <199812222237.RAA14249@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <367DE4BE.50A2@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:37 PM 12/22/98 -0500, David wrote: >> David Grabiner wrote: > >>> North dealer, neither vul >>> >>> A9xx >>> Axx >>> AKxxx >>> J >>> KQxxx - >>> Qxx KJT9x >>> xx Q >>> Qxx AT9xxxx >>> JTxx >>> xx >>> JT9xx >>> Kx > >>> N E S W >>> 1D 2NT 3D 3H >>> 4D 4H P P >>> X* P 5D X *-30 second hesitation, agreed >>> P P P > >>> Result: down 1, -100 to N-S. > >4H >doesn't seem to be beatable on proper declarer play, I'm not the world's best analyst, but beating 4H doesn't look too tough: DA, DK. If declarer plays on trumps, win the second round (routine, to get the count) and play SA for the second tap. If declarer plays on clubs before the second round of trumps, SA, win second round of trumps, D. I'd expect an expert pair to get this right almost every time, and would call 4H going down "at all probable" (L12C2), if not "likely". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 25 00:56:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 00:56:02 +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 AAA23672 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 00:55:54 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.227]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id PAA06019; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 15:55:19 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <368247D2.400C879C@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 15:55:30 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Wish List References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > [The shepherds all were quaffing beer > With no thought for star of gold, > So angel choirs with songs of mirth > Met stares distinctly cold; > Three cameleers were summoned then > Bright paper crowns to bring, > And this is why on Christmas Day > Card printers dance and sing.] > (additional verse: Endicott) > ===================================== Dear Newlord Byron ..!!)))))):::::: I agree with your and David's opinion that there will be no "daily" changes of the laws . But I believe that during the next few years , will be some intensive developments in the technology of the bridge game - both the table game and the internet game. IMHO , both games need a worldwide "constitution"; and I am not sure that I agree with David for this item...... But I think that the WBFLC would fulfill its tasks in the best way if they will start to gather and classify and discuss and.... etc. the remarks of all people interested to have the best possible laws in order to enjoy the game and satisfy the necessities for serious and pleasant contests. I feel that the WBFLC started to walk on this way during the last months, in spite of the knowledge that there can be many mines and other troubles...... I believe that the next change of laws has to be done after a total reconsideration of the present code , an intensive coordinated discussion with all the national committees and some people interested to promote these ideas. I don't think that BLML is the only formal place to manage these discussions but I don't know another "instrument" which can help better and I also don't know about the existence of another forum discussing the laws (better or worse......!). Dany > --------- > > From: David Stevenson > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: Wish List > > Date: 22 December 1998 16:19 > > > > Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) wrote: > > >I have been an interested spectator to the BLML over the past few months. > > >Sometimes the topics deviate quite a bit from the topic of bridge laws but > > >there is still a lot of food for thought. > > > ---------------------------------------------\x/------------------------------ > --------------- > > > > >Is there anyone out there in BLML land who is collecting up such wishes > into > > >a complete "Wish List"? > > > --------------------------------------------\x/------------------------------- > -------------- > > If there is a new Law book every three years you will find that the > > quality of rulings goes down, the number of complaints goes up. > > ++++ Well, my "memory board" is coming along quite nicely. > I agree that too much chopping and changing of the laws is > undesirable, but I do think there is a need to overhaul them soon. > They are in a pretty shabby state, and we do not need to argue the > whys and wherefores of it. > Mind you, there is a considerable peril that each zone will > end up with a different code of laws if the example of some is to > be followed. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 25 01:31:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 01:31:44 +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 BAA23769 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 01:31:36 +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 JAA18925 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 09:31:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981224093403.006f41c8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 09:34:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Busted Claim In-Reply-To: <199812231557.KAA17995@freenet5.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:57 AM 12/23/98 -0500, ac342 wrote: >Brd 27 >NSV >Dlr: S S A76542 S W N E >Matchpoints H 985 P 1C P 1D > D 754 P 1NT P 3NT > C T P P P > S T8 S KQ3 * auction may not be > H A3 H KT62 exactly as shown :-) > D QJ9 D AKT82 > C AQ9754 C 3 Opening lead: S5 > S J9 The Play: > H QJ74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > D 63 S5 T H5 A*S2 4 > C KJ862 K*C3 H2 3 Q*D2 > 9 6 8*SJ H7 6 > 8 Q*C4 T C5 J* > > At trick seven, declarer claims, holding: > S --- S --- The problem: declarer claims, and says that he > H A3 H KT6 will lose a heart at the end. After more than > D Q9 D KT82 five seconds, but less than ten, he corrects > C A97 C --- himself, and says that the H goes away on the CA. > The director is called, you arrive, and NS > want their H trick. Your ruling is...? > If it's important, all players concerned are > intermediate flight A, or, using the new ACBL > ranking system, Expert LM. E-W have the rest in tops, and would have to screw up seriously to lose a trick (notwithstanding that they might be required do so had declarer not corrected his claim). This is hopeless bridge-lawyering by N-S. I find nothing in L68-L70 that says that a claimer can't change his mind during his statement of clarification, or that he must complete his statement in under 5 seconds or without pause for thought. L70D applies after the TD is called. I will consider the correction be part of his original statement. E-W take the remaining tricks, and if N-S appeal I vote to keep the deposit. Indeed, had it been necessary, I might well have allowed E-W to take the rest under L70D even without the correction (finding that it would not be "normal" to fail to cash all of their top tricks), but that's a lot tougher call. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 25 02:00:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 02:00:30 +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 CAA23915 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 02:00:22 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0ztCFH-0002db-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 15:00:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 14:59:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Bah Humbug! In-Reply-To: <3FY0QIDV$bg2Ew2t@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk + / /\ //\\ MERRY XMAS *//O\\\* ////\\\\ and a */////\\\O\ ////O/\\\\\\* HAPPY NEW YEAR *///////\\\O\\\ O////O///\\\\\\\\* from /////////\\\\O\\\\ *///////O//\\\\\\\O\\* John || Stolen || Gnipper Presents || Figaro /|_ Warning: Quango! There are / @\__. Christmas tree /\ __) thieves at work /\:\ -\ ssnnaarrll in your area. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 25 02:00:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 02:00:31 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23913 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 02:00:21 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0ztCFH-0005Oe-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 15:00:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 14:49:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) In-Reply-To: <3681FFBB.A12F3647@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3681FFBB.A12F3647@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Hello All, Hello Vitold, > >vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: >> >> Hi all and Merry Christmas:) >> >> Thank you, Herman - and both Davids: I lost the discussion and now I >> agree that MPs/IMPs should be averaged. >> > >That's settled then. > >> But nevertheless there remain several problems more and on behalf of >> our ACs I ask for exchange thoughts, ideas etc. on: >> - what is the full set of possible/probable contracts which are took >> under consideration when AC takes its decision (for NOS and OS) under >> L12C3? > >I would imagine just two contracts and/or results >(occasionally three), which are likely outcomes from the >point at which the bidding derailed. > >> - how do ACs make their decision about percentage distribution between >> this set of considered contracts? >> > >That is an interesting one ! > >It would be logical to check the scoresheets, take all the >"normal" results, and determine the frequency of each >result, then take those percentages. > No No No. The AC should *not* look at the score sheets. They *must* decide on the case on it's merits as a bridge hand. The result is passed down as 20% of this plus 30% of that. It is entirely wrong to look at the score sheets as one then fiddles the numbers to get an average plus, and that in effect is illegal. If the final analysis yields a 40% score for NO's well they get 40%. 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 Dec 25 05:27:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 05:27:10 +1100 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA24473 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 05:26:59 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.148]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA12168; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 20:26:44 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36828770.797A3ED@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 20:26:56 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Busted Claim References: <199812231557.KAA17995@freenet5.carleton.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk hmmmmmmmmm There are many irrational kinds of life !!>>>>:::: In a high level tournament I decide to let NS to win the last trick .. because there is a normal (as defined by the footnote and L70D&E) line to loose it ; the proof for the court is the declarer's claim ! In a club play , I should think to let declarer win all tricks , if the play is more important than the rigorously . Dany A. L. Edwards wrote: > > Brd 27 > NSV > Dlr: S S A76542 S W N E > Matchpoints H 985 P 1C P 1D > D 754 P 1NT P 3NT > C T P P P > S T8 S KQ3 * auction may not be > H A3 H KT62 exactly as shown :-) > D QJ9 D AKT82 > C AQ9754 C 3 Opening lead: S5 > S J9 The Play: > H QJ74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > D 63 S5 T H5 A*S2 4 > C KJ862 K*C3 H2 3 Q*D2 > 9 6 8*SJ H7 6 > 8 Q*C4 T C5 J* > > At trick seven, declarer claims, holding: > S --- S --- The problem: declarer claims, and says that he > H A3 H KT6 will lose a heart at the end. After more than > D Q9 D KT82 five seconds, but less than ten, he corrects > C A97 C --- himself, and says that the H goes away on the CA. > The director is called, you arrive, and NS > want their H trick. Your ruling is...? > If it's important, all players concerned are > intermediate flight A, or, using the new ACBL > ranking system, Expert LM. > Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 25 07:16:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 07:16:32 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA24610 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 07:16:24 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0ztHB7-0000hE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 20:16:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 19:55:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <367A3F7F.2C7C@elnet.msk.ru> <367A46A4.EEED3135@village.uunet.be> <3680AB66.6C68@elnet.msk.ru> <3681FFBB.A12F3647@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3681FFBB.A12F3647@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: >> But nevertheless there remain several problems more and on behalf of >> our ACs I ask for exchange thoughts, ideas etc. on: >> - what is the full set of possible/probable contracts which are took >> under consideration when AC takes its decision (for NOS and OS) under >> L12C3? > >I would imagine just two contracts and/or results >(occasionally three), which are likely outcomes from the >point at which the bidding derailed. There is no reason to limit it this way. In fact, one of the best uses of L12C3 is when the contracts reached are fairly clear, but the number of tricks obtained is not. If 4S might easily make nine, ten or eleven tricks, but it is not obvious whether it would be reached, a simple solution for an AC is to give about 15% of each of 450, 420, 200, 170, 140 and -50. Neither the EBU nor the WBF does limit it to two or three scores. >> - how do ACs make their decision about percentage distribution between >> this set of considered contracts? >That is an interesting one ! > >It would be logical to check the scoresheets, take all the >"normal" results, and determine the frequency of each >result, then take those percentages. That is an awful way of doing it, and should be barred. You have no knowledge how players reached the results they do. Suppose the bidding goes 1NT ..P P 2H AP The AC rules it back to 1NT, and now how many tricks do they give? A glance at the hand shows that a diamond lead is routine [but disastrous] and it will make 7 tricks on a diamond lead, 6 on any other. A good AC might give 70% +90, 30% -50. A bad AC would look at the score-sheets and discover that 1NT made less than 30% of the time, and they might give 20% +90, 80% -50. What is the difference? Well, the 1NT opening was a weak NT, and it was played where nearly everyone plays strong NT. If the AC had gone further and checked the auction at the other tables they would have found that the normal auction was 1D P 1H P 1NT AP and now most people were leading a club. 1NT usually made at any table where a weak NT was opened because of the diamond lead. Good ACs will just work out the percentages and give them to the TD/scorer to apply. [snip calculation] >Now if you were thinking old ways, and awarding Av+ It has never been legal to assign A+. >, they >would get 60MP, so this ruling cannot be equitable. >Awarding 30% of slam, as some compensation, won't do either, >it's actually an extra 20 which needs to be given, in order >to come up to Av+ standards : I have snipped the calculation because it is not relevant, but I thought I would leave this remark because I fail to understand it. Surely you do not mean that an assigned score should be more than a 60% one? Of course it does not need to be! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 25 07:16:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 07:16:34 +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 HAA24611 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 07:16:24 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0ztHB7-0000hD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 20:16:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 19:39:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <367A3F7F.2C7C@elnet.msk.ru> <367A46A4.EEED3135@village.uunet.be> <3680AB66.6C68@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <3680AB66.6C68@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold wrote: > But nevertheless there remain several problems more and on behalf of >our ACs I ask for exchange thoughts, ideas etc. on: > - what is the full set of possible/probable contracts which are took >under consideration when AC takes its decision (for NOS and OS) under >L12C3? There are two approaches to this, the WBF approach and the EBU approach. Perhaps the difference could be best seen by example. Suppose we have a bidding sequence as follows: 1H NB 4H [..X means a double after ..X NB 4S NB a hesitation] NB X AP 4S* makes for -590. 4H might make 8, 9 or 10 tricks, for -300, -100 and +590. You look at the hand, and your view is that about 50% of people would bid 4S over the double, about 50% would pass it. Slow doubles tend to suggest partner might take it out, so your decision as a TD is that Pass was an LA, 4S was suggested by the UI. So long as 4H will make often enough to be considered likely, perhaps one time in six [I consider the ACBL definition of likely to be flawed] the TD should adjust the score from NS -590 to NS +590. This is a typical case for L12C3: this is a harsh decision, the sort that leads to people being seriously unhappy. After all, East points out that he considers a trump lead routine against 4H*, and that beats it: perhaps a reasonable view. What should the AC do? In the EBU the AC may consider any action that might have occurred without the disallowed call, so an EBU AC might come up with 40% +590, 30% -100, 30% -300. In the WBF the AC may consider any call in their assessment of equity. Since they may view that the original double would might be left in 50% of the time, they could include a percentage of that, and may feel that equity would be served by 30% +590, 20% -100, 20% -300, 30% +590. To rule this way is called a Reveley ruling in the EBU after a long time friend of Grattan's and mine, who accidentally ruled this way once when acting as an EBU Referee - and has not been allowed to forget it! The EBU considers that the WBF method encourages players not to follow L73C, and that the EBU method is better for the game. The WBF approach comes closer to an abstract notion of equity. One other possibility: what happens if one of the possible contracts that is reached would score more for the NOs than the one actually reached: should it be included? Yes, there is no reason not to. If the likely scores on a board are 1430, 800, 680, 650, 500, 200 and you consider them all equally likely, and if the score reached via UI is 800 then an EBU AC might rule 15% 1430, 20% 680, 20% 650, 20% 500, 25% 200 and a WBF AC might rule 10% 1430, 10% 800, 15% 680, 20% 650, 20% 500, 25% 200. Of course, this calculation must not result in the NOs getting a worse score than they did at the table! > - how do ACs make their decision about percentage distribution between >this set of considered contracts? Hopefully by judgement, guesswork, and so on. The only absolute rules are that they should take no notice of other scores on the board [best if they do not know them] and that they should lean towards the NOs if in doubt. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 25 07:16:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 07:16:33 +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 HAA24609 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 07:16:24 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0ztHB7-0000hF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 20:16:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 20:15:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Hesitation ( + treatment of apparent pauses behind screens) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >There is significant opinion that behind screens the player should disregard >what he thinks he knows about a pause the other side of the screen (or >other information transmitted without authorisation across the screen) >and should make the call which he judges technically to be the right call >based on the meaning of the auction and his hand. It is suggested that, >behind screens, the requirements in Law 73C should be varied to give >effect to this, leaving the question whether unauthorized information >does exist and whether it has affected the auction to the Director, and >to the appeal committee if one is required. The problem with screens primarily comes from uncontested auctions. There is a likelihood that after the auction Pd 1H P 2C P 2H P 2S P 3C if the tray reappears after a very long time is highly probable that the 3C was slow rather than the opponent's pass. It seems a sensible suggestion in some ways because screens are meant to get rid of UI problems, but what happens in an auction like that above? I would be happy with the idea that ordinary pauses are accepted as not giving UI because they could easily come from the opponent, and that it should be made clear that in more extreme cases such as the above the TD *must* be summoned to reserve rights or else it will be presumed by the TD/AC that there was no UI from partner. >It is not altogether clear whether this can or needs be achieved simply by >regulation under Law 80E; the more direct application, perhaps, would >be a ruling that the player is entitled to act on the basis that he has no >UI, given the uncertainties of events on the other side of the screen, until >the Director rules otherwise. The matter is under review. It is likely that >any rule allowing players to adjust the speed of transfer of the tray would >be dropped (something I would applaud since I do not believe it is >appropriate for a player to be set to guard the ethics of an opponent at >the table.) I am interested to measure opinion. I dislike the idea of an opponent delaying the game for tempo purposes. I was on the AC at Lille where an American [possibly with the best of motives] delayed the transfer of the tray sufficiently to create the impression of UI. I believe it to be an unfortunate habit which should be removed from the game. >Question 1: How strong is the support for such a change of procedure >when screens are in use? I would be happy with it but do not have strong feelings for it. >Question 2: Would support extend to a change in the law applying when >there are no screens, the principle being applied here too? No, there is no reason to do so. We do not want to encourage bad ethics and this would do so. Back to the ****** defence to a weak NT [pass quickly = 0-5, pass slowly = 6-10, ask the range and pass = 11-13]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 25 09:08:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 09:08:23 +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 JAA24888 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 09:08:17 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0ztIvS-0007eK-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 22:08:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 18:47:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Busted Claim In-Reply-To: <36828770.797A3ED@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <36828770.797A3ED@internet-zahav.net>, Dany Haimovici writes >hmmmmmmmmm > >There are many irrational kinds of life !!>>>>:::: > >In a high level tournament I decide to let NS to win the last trick .. >because there is a normal (as defined by the footnote and L70D&E) >line to loose it ; the proof for the court is the declarer's claim ! > >In a club play , I should think to let declarer win all tricks , if the >play is more important than the rigorously . > >Dany snip >> >> At trick seven, declarer claims, holding: >> S --- S --- The problem: declarer claims, and says that he >> H A3 H KT6 will lose a heart at the end. After more than >> D Q9 D KT82 five seconds, but less than ten, he corrects >> C A97 C --- himself, and says that the H goes away on the CA. >> The director is called, you arrive, and NS >> want their H trick. Your ruling is...? >> If it's important, all players concerned are >> intermediate flight A, or, using the new ACBL >> ranking system, Expert LM. >> Tony (aka ac342) award all tricks and give declarer a warning about bum claims. Any form of the game. It's irrational not to after the delayed statement. Cheers John PS for those who notice these things my dog hi-jacked Quango's Xmas tree and presents which seem to have made their way into his (the dog's) sig. Merry Xmas all. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Thief!______ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. | To Q. | |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | Luv D | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ ------- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 25 10:30:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 10:30:37 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA25045 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 10:30:31 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0ztKD3-0001jO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 23:30:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 23:28:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <367A3F7F.2C7C@elnet.msk.ru> <367A46A4.EEED3135@village.uunet.be> <3680AB66.6C68@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > In the WBF the AC may consider any call in their assessment of equity. >Since they may view that the original double would might be left in 50% >of the time, they could include a percentage of that, and may feel that >equity would be served by 30% +590, 20% -100, 20% -300, 30% +590. I must learn to proofread my articles. I must learn to proofread my articles. I must learn to proofread my articles. I must learn to proofread my articles. I must learn to proofread my articles. I must learn to proofread my articles. I must learn to proofread my articles. I must learn to proofread my articles. I must learn to proofread my articles. Of course, I meant "and may feel that equity would be served by 30% +590, 20% -100, 20% -300, 30% -590." -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 25 10:54:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 10:54:14 +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 KAA25126 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 10:54:07 +1100 Received: from lithium.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@lithium.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.22]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA27348 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 1998 18:54:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 18:53:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812242353.SAA24467@lithium.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19981224085841.006f2f80@pop.cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Thu, 24 Dec 1998 08:58:41 -0500) Subject: Re: UI ruling (result and comments) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: > At 05:37 PM 12/22/98 -0500, David wrote: >>> David Grabiner wrote: >> >>>> North dealer, neither vul >>>> >>>> A9xx >>>> Axx >>>> AKxxx >>>> J >>>> KQxxx - >>>> Qxx KJT9x >>>> xx Q >>>> Qxx AT9xxxx >>>> JTxx >>>> xx >>>> JT9xx >>>> Kx >> >>>> N E S W >>>> 1D 2NT 3D 3H >>>> 4D 4H P P >>>> X* P 5D X *-30 second hesitation, agreed >>>> P P P >>>> Result: down 1, -100 to N-S. >> 4H >> doesn't seem to be beatable on proper declarer play, > I'm not the world's best analyst, but beating 4H doesn't look too tough: > DA, DK. If declarer plays on trumps, win the second round (routine, to get > the count) and play SA for the second tap. If declarer plays on clubs > before the second round of trumps, SA, win second round of trumps, D. I'd > expect an expert pair to get this right almost every time, and would call > 4H going down "at all probable" (L12C2), if not "likely". This defemse would work, provided that the second tap is donw with a spade (and not a diamond which declarer can ruff in his hand). Thus my previous comment was incorrect; we didn't work this out at the table. However, your standard here is wrong. The score should be adjusted to 4H making if it is "at all probable" or "likely" that 4H would make. The given defense will beat 4H, but the lead of the HA or CJ will not. (In the post-mortem, North said that he would have led the CJ, although that would not be binding on an AC.) The tD was still incorrect in saying that average-plus would have been awarded had there been an adjustment. L12C4 3 does not apply in the ACBL, and therefore I cannot justify any score other than -420/+420, or -100/+420 if you believe it was not likely that these opponents would have missed the best play. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 25 12:12:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 12:12:15 +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 MAA25238 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 12:12:07 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.185]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id DAA09746 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 03:11:58 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3682E66A.32F81AAB@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 03:12:10 +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 - Mary Christmas for the clever friends - Decv. 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....) and D-BLML members December is a Holly Days month this year : Happy Hanuka , Easy Ramadan and .... Mary Christmas Here is the 3rd release of the new famous club !!!! The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST (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) Anne Jones - Penny (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 Fri Dec 25 12:34:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 12:34:29 +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 MAA25264 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 12:34:23 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0ztM8u-0004rf-00; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 01:34:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 22:52:45 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Hesitation ( + treatment of apparent pauses behind screens) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > No, there is no reason to do so. We do not want to encourage bad >ethics and this would do so. Back to the ****** defence to a weak NT >[pass quickly = 0-5, pass slowly = 6-10, ask the range and pass = >11-13]. > plus Ask, double slowly, 14-15 penalties Ask, double quickly, 16-17 penalties Double slowly, Brozel Double Quickly, 18+ penalties We play ask and pass as 8-10, and fast pass as 11-13 against the ****** at the YC where its known as the "inverted ****** defence". AI to all concerned:)) [This is a joke] Happy Christmas to all particularly those l'autre cote de la Manche. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Thief!______ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. | To Q. | |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | Luv D | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ ------- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 25 23:57:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 23:57:14 +1100 Received: from agomboc (dpl.drotposta.hu [193.68.40.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA26126 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 23:57:04 +1100 From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by agomboc with smtp (Exim 1.92 #2) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id 0ztWgF-0005RV-00; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 13:49:24 +0100 Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 13:55:16 +0100 (MET DST) To: Subject: Claim Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First of all Merry Xmas to everybody. I would appreciate your opinion about the following case. Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: I play all the trumps. TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. Thanks for the comments. András Boóc, Budapest Hungary martaandras@uze.net From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 00:19:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 00:19:35 +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 AAA28399 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 00:19:29 +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 IAA05556 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 08:19:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id IAA14134; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 08:19:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 08:19:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812251319.IAA14134@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > >Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx >Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x > >Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > I play all the trumps. > >TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. > If the defence can ruff either a club or a diamond before spade(s) are discarded, then award an extra spade trick to the defence, otherwise give just the one trump trick. I think it would be irrational for the declarer to play 4 rounds of trump (subject to the footnote of L69, 70,71, of course). Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 01:09:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 01:09:37 +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 BAA28488 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 01:09:27 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-129.uunet.be [194.7.13.129]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05253 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 15:09:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36836622.10091B5@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 11:17:06 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > No No No. The AC should *not* look at the score sheets. They *must* > decide on the case on it's merits as a bridge hand. The result is > passed down as 20% of this plus 30% of that. It is entirely wrong to > look at the score sheets as one then fiddles the numbers to get an > average plus, and that in effect is illegal. > Why ? When what we are proposing is in fact an enhancement over the practice of giving Average+ in the first place ? Surely that was not illegal ? Or if it was, it was quite common anyway. I am not saying that the score sheets should be the only basis of adjudication for the AC. They may well decide that this pair is far more likely to go to slam than this particular field was. Or far less likely. But how can they put numbers on something without ANY comparison ? > If the final analysis yields a 40% score for NO's well they get 40%. > I agree with that ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 01:09:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 01:09:37 +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 BAA28489 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 01:09:30 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-129.uunet.be [194.7.13.129]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05265 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 15:09:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36836B4F.32827713@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 11:39:11 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <367A3F7F.2C7C@elnet.msk.ru> <367A46A4.EEED3135@village.uunet.be> <3680AB66.6C68@elnet.msk.ru> <3681FFBB.A12F3647@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: > >I would imagine just two contracts and/or results > >(occasionally three), which are likely outcomes from the > >point at which the bidding derailed. > > There is no reason to limit it this way. In fact, one of the best > uses of L12C3 is when the contracts reached are fairly clear, but the > number of tricks obtained is not. If 4S might easily make nine, ten or > eleven tricks, but it is not obvious whether it would be reached, a > simple solution for an AC is to give about 15% of each of 450, 420, 200, > 170, 140 and -50. > > Neither the EBU nor the WBF does limit it to two or three scores. > I agree that sometimes two contracts and three different number of tricks might be used in combination, but the result is the same : limit to some small number of possible outcomes. That board may well yield some 25 other results as well, many of them after completely different starts to the auction, which can not be under consideration. My part "after the bidding derailed" is what I considered the main point of my answer to Vitold. That does mean usually limiting to 2 or 3 possibilities, sometimes in combination giving 5 or 6 results. > >> - how do ACs make their decision about percentage distribution between > >> this set of considered contracts? > > >That is an interesting one ! > > > >It would be logical to check the scoresheets, take all the > >"normal" results, and determine the frequency of each > >result, then take those percentages. > > That is an awful way of doing it, and should be barred. You have no > knowledge how players reached the results they do. I have never suggested that the frequency tables should be the only source of information for the AC. All your remarks are duly noted and agreed upon. But in the final analysis some number should be awarded. That number should reflect the "chance" of this pair going to contract X. What better way of determining this figure than by checking what percentage of peers DID in fact go to contract X? Of course after elimination of the non-relevant others. [good examples snipped] My main point was that if you are going to use this percentage, you are in fact awarding a 50% result. I was suggesting that this was not "giving the benefit of the doubt to non-offenders" and I was countering the likely upcoming suggestion of awarding 10% more of the good score, by calculating that one should award 20% more of the good score in order to reach the 60% which is usually given in similar cases. My main point was not that one SHOULD use the true frequency, but that if one does, it would be natural to award something more than the true frequency, and that this something should then be 20%, not 10% as one would think. Have I made myself clear ? Otherwise, I fully agree with DS and JP that the AC should make up its own mind about things, but I don't agree with them that they should be forbidden to know the frequencies. > > >Now if you were thinking old ways, and awarding Av+ > > It has never been legal to assign A+. > But it has been done quite often enough. And recently even, and at the highest level, and by the highest possible source. And all I was saying was that a 60% score is the one usually associated with "we don't really know how much, so we'll give 60% in order to compensate the non-offenders". 60%, not 55%, not 63.57321%. > >, they > >would get 60MP, so this ruling cannot be equitable. > >Awarding 30% of slam, as some compensation, won't do either, > >it's actually an extra 20 which needs to be given, in order > >to come up to Av+ standards : > > I have snipped the calculation because it is not relevant, but I > thought I would leave this remark because I fail to understand it. > Surely you do not mean that an assigned score should be more than a 60% > one? Of course it does not need to be! > The calculation is relevant as a calculation. I do not mean that 60% should be the minimum score for an AS. I mean that in a case as simple as the one I presented, anything less than 60% would seem unfair, and the AC should be ready to defend a lesser score by saying, "we do not think that this pair, after this intervention, will go on to slam". If they have no such argument, and simply want to award a percentage of slam that compensates to their feeling correctly NO, then the percentage they should be giving is 20% higher than the real frequency of slam. Have I made myself clear now ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 03:28:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 03:28:49 +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 DAA28850 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 03:28:38 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zta6I-00036o-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 16:28:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 16:19:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <367A3F7F.2C7C@elnet.msk.ru> <367A46A4.EEED3135@village.uunet.be> <3680AB66.6C68@elnet.msk.ru> <3681FFBB.A12F3647@village.uunet.be> <36836B4F.32827713@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36836B4F.32827713@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >My main point was that if you are going to use this >percentage, you are in fact awarding a 50% result. I was >suggesting that this was not "giving the benefit of the >doubt to non-offenders" and I was countering the likely >upcoming suggestion of awarding 10% more of the good score, >by calculating that one should award 20% more of the good >score in order to reach the 60% which is usually given in >similar cases. Not by good TDs or ACs. There is no such rule, and it shows very poor training. It is perfectly normal to give a score that is less than 60%, and to treat it as an effective minimum shows a lack of respect for the Laws of bridge. >I mean that in a case as simple as the one I presented, >anything less than 60% would seem unfair, and the AC should >be ready to defend a lesser score by saying, "we do not >think that this pair, after this intervention, will go on to >slam". If they have no such argument, and simply want to >award a percentage of slam that compensates to their feeling >correctly NO, then the percentage they should be giving is >20% higher than the real frequency of slam. > >Have I made myself clear now ? Yes, but you are completely wrong. It would be quite normal to get less than 60%, and your method is biased, illegal, and unnecessary. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 03:28:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 03:28:49 +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 DAA28851 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 03:28:38 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zta6I-00036p-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 16:28:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 16:24:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <199812251319.IAA14134@freenet5.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199812251319.IAA14134@freenet5.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >>Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. >> >>Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx >>Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x >> >>Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: >> I play all the trumps. >> >>TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. >If the defence can ruff either a club or a diamond before >spade(s) are discarded, then award an extra spade trick to the >defence, otherwise give just the one trump trick. I think >it would be irrational for the declarer to play 4 rounds >of trump (subject to the footnote of L69, 70,71, of course). Assuming you decide it is irrational to play the fourth round of trumps then surely it is irrational to play the diamonds before cashing the clubs. If the first round of clubs is ruffed then the contract certainly goes off. If not, then either you allow the slam because it is irrational to play a fourth round of trumps or you do not by forcing declarer to play a fourth round. I agree with the former. Give him the slam if the first round of clubs stands up. I must confess that if I was defending it would not occur to me to challenge the claim. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 03:28:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 03:28:49 +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 DAA28849 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 03:28:38 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zta6I-00036n-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 16:28:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 16:15:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <36836622.10091B5@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36836622.10091B5@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> No No No. The AC should *not* look at the score sheets. They *must* >> decide on the case on it's merits as a bridge hand. The result is >> passed down as 20% of this plus 30% of that. It is entirely wrong to >> look at the score sheets as one then fiddles the numbers to get an >> average plus, and that in effect is illegal. >Why ? When what we are proposing is in fact an enhancement >over the practice of giving Average+ in the first place ? >Surely that was not illegal ? It was illegal. It was unfair. It was biased. > Or if it was, it was quite >common anyway. Who cares? Stealing is quite common too. Suppose the auction goes 1S P 4C [splinter] P 4NT [RKCB] P 5D P 5NT [kings?] P 6D P ..6S [slow] P 7S P P P Suppose we disallow the 7S. A competent TD/AC gives EW 6S+1. An incompetent TD/AC gives EW Ave+. Suppose EW get a 90% score by making 6S+1 because everyone else is missing the slam completely. What are you going to do? >I am not saying that the score sheets should be the only >basis of adjudication for the AC. They may well decide that >this pair is far more likely to go to slam than this >particular field was. Or far less likely. But how can they >put numbers on something without ANY comparison ? Any competent TD or AC can and does. Looking at score-sheets is a crutch for the incompetent. I am not suggesting that every TD or AC that does is incompetent, just badly trained. You should not look at a score-sheet before assigning scores. I do not see that poor training and bad procedures that have existed around the world should be continued. "It has always been done this way" is always the worst reason for incompetence. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 08:36:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 08:36:11 +1100 Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA29353 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 08:36:03 +1100 Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA20841 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 12:15:19 -0900 Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 12:15:19 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 25 Dec 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > A. L. Edwards wrote: > >>Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > >> > >>Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx > >>Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x > >> > >>Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > >> I play all the trumps. > >> > >>TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. > > > If the first round of clubs is ruffed then the contract certainly goes > off. If not, then either you allow the slam because it is irrational to > play a fourth round of trumps or you do not by forcing declarer to play > a fourth round. > > I agree with the former. Give him the slam if the first round of > clubs stands up. I must confess that if I was defending it would not > occur to me to challenge the claim. David, it seems to me you really ought to challenge it -- it was, after all, a claim of all 13 tricks, and we are debating whether to award the bad claimer 11 or 12. I really wish that all the club TDs of ACBLand were watching this little thread. Frankly, I have never played in a club where anything other than "declarer, you are an idiot for claiming, you lose trick 5 to the HJ and trick 6 to the SK" would even be considered. There seems to be a strong tendency to punish bad claims to the full extent of the law (which is not necessarily a bad thing - a bad board is better inspiration to be good in the future than a lecture from the TD is) and even beyond the law here. Reading L70D and L71C, I now believe that we award 12 tricks if there is no club ruff. I pity the poor defenders if this had happened at my club -- there is nothing in the world that would convice E-W that they don't have a god-given right to win the HJ and SK. Such is life in my neck of the woods. Next question. If South has AKQ98 and East has all four outstanding trumps, is it now correct to award all 13 tricks to declarer? It isn't all that hard to use the CA and DQ as entries to finesse twice if need be. It seems the same logic we used to avoid the spade loser would let us say it is 'irrational' not to change one's attack on trumps once West shows out on the HA. Does the answer matter if he is in 7H instead of 6H? It is, after all, a 70+% grand of some of his opponents will be there. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 10:03:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 10:03:45 +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 KAA29443 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 10:03:35 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0ztgGW-0003zv-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 23:03:28 +0000 Message-ID: <0cEMbFAmlBh2Ewf$@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 23:01:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Martaandras@uze.net writes >First of all Merry Xmas to everybody. >I would appreciate your opinion about the following case. > >Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > >Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx >Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x > >Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > I play all the trumps. > >TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. > >Thanks for the comments. > >Andrs Boc, Budapest Hungary >martaandras@uze.net IMO it would be careless, but not irrational to cash 4 trumps (particularly if an intelligent defender pitches a diamond smoothly on the first heart - which I always do). In this circumstance I would award down 1. This was a careless claim and declarer could be careless here. I think they'll have to get the AC to award them 90% of just made and 10% of down 1. I think the AC can do this under Law 12 but would take advice. Funnily enough I did almost exactly this at last Year End Congress, and who should come to the table but DWS. He nailed me [quite rightly]. I was i) pretty drunk ii) very careless with the claim and iii) saw no cause for complaint. I nearly bought him a drink. I could be in a minority on this one. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Thief!______ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. | To Q. | |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | Luv D | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ ------- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 11:38:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 11:38:18 +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 LAA29574 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 11:38:11 +1100 Received: from p0cs05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.13] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zthk4-0007zk-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 00:38:05 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 00:38:51 -0000 Message-ID: <01be3068$1bbdace0$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: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, December 25, 1998 11:30 PM Subject: Re: Claim >In article , >Martaandras@uze.net writes >>First of all Merry Xmas to everybody. >>I would appreciate your opinion about the following case. >> >>Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. >> >>Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx >>Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x >> >>Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: >> I play all the trumps. >> >>TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. >> >>Thanks for the comments. >> >>Andrs Boc, Budapest Hungary >>martaandras@uze.net > >IMO it would be careless, but not irrational to cash 4 trumps >(particularly if an intelligent defender pitches a diamond smoothly on >the first heart - which I always do). If this is something you always do, your partner will be well aware of it. How do you describe this method of discarding on your EBU20A? Does your partner use the same method? Anne Wishing all BLML subscribers a good 1999! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 11:46:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 11:46:02 +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 LAA29596 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 11:45:56 +1100 Received: from ip76.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.76]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981226004548.LWSO6075.fep4@ip76.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 01:45:48 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 01:45:48 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36853191.2271506@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 25 Dec 1998 13:55:16 +0100 (MET DST), Martaandras@uze.net wrote: >Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > >Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx >Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x > >Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > I play all the trumps. > >TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. Why did he claim all the tricks before testing the trumps? That does not make sense unless he has misunderstood something about the hand. One possible - and quite probable - reason is that he thought he had 10 trumps instead of only 9, so he believed there were only 3 outstanding trumps. If that is the reason, there is nothing irrational about trying to take the 13 tricks in the order SA, 5 trumps, 5 diamonds, 2 clubs. Since any doubtful point is to be resolved against the claimer, I would rule one down. It has happened more than once that I have made a silly claim based on a miscount of the trumps where the opponents have then accepted the claim, assuming as matter of course that I knew there was a trump out. I am afraid that such claims are quite often accepted and quietly scored as if they were valid, because it does take a conscious effort for the claimer to then (a) realize that he actually did miscount and (b) realize that the honest action now is to tell the opponents that and call the TD and be ruled against. I believe that when ruling claims that seem to be based on a miscount or some other silly misapprehension, we should remember to consider "irrational" and "careless" in the context of the misapprehension that the claim itself seems to indicate, even though such a misapprehension would normally (without the strange claim) be considered irrational. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 13:21:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 13:21:29 +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 NAA00119 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 13:21:21 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0ztjLs-00014f-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 02:21:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 02:20:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: >On Fri, 25 Dec 1998, David Stevenson wrote: >> I agree with the former. Give him the slam if the first round of >> clubs stands up. I must confess that if I was defending it would not >> occur to me to challenge the claim. >David, it seems to me you really ought to challenge it -- it was, after >all, a claim of all 13 tricks, and we are debating whether to award the >bad claimer 11 or 12. Obviously, my posting was wrong: I claim that my posting was careless, but not irrational. :) What I really meant was that at the table I would say "I get a trump" showing declarer my four solid trumps, rather than call the TD and try for 11 tricks. >I really wish that all the club TDs of ACBLand were watching this little >thread. Frankly, I have never played in a club where anything other than >"declarer, you are an idiot for claiming, you lose trick 5 to the HJ and >trick 6 to the SK" would even be considered. There seems to be a strong >tendency to punish bad claims to the full extent of the law (which is not >necessarily a bad thing - a bad board is better inspiration to be good in >the future than a lecture from the TD is) and even beyond the law here. The trouble is that the inspiration normally leads to fewer claims rather than more careful ones! >Reading L70D and L71C, I now believe that we award 12 tricks if there is >no club ruff. I pity the poor defenders if this had happened at my club -- >there is nothing in the world that would convice E-W that they don't have >a god-given right to win the HJ and SK. Such is life in my neck of the >woods. It is sad that there are so many budding Bridge Lawyers around [using the term with its normal meaning, not the Burn/Endicott meaning]. I really think a stand needs to be made against this approach, namely the TD should start reading out and explaining L70A. However ... ----------- Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Why did he claim all the tricks before testing the trumps? That >does not make sense unless he has misunderstood something about >the hand. > >One possible - and quite probable - reason is that he thought he >had 10 trumps instead of only 9, so he believed there were only 3 >outstanding trumps. If that is the reason, there is nothing >irrational about trying to take the 13 tricks in the order SA, 5 >trumps, 5 diamonds, 2 clubs. > >Since any doubtful point is to be resolved against the claimer, I >would rule one down. This is very sensible, and I must re-consider. To be honest, I usually believe as a player I know what declarer is up to at such a time, and if I felt there is a chance of a miscount then it is not a BL approach to seek a ruling, and perhaps it should be given. As a TD, I think you are right that unless declarer is convincing that he knew there were 9 trumps at the time of the claim you should give the defence a trick. I suppose this one comes down to the fact that when something is written one loses a lot of inferences, or one assumes things. I would be confident that if I were the TD I would know after a couple of questions what was going on, and the same if I were an opponent. ----------- Anne Jones wrote: >From: John (MadDog) Probst >>IMO it would be careless, but not irrational to cash 4 trumps >>(particularly if an intelligent defender pitches a diamond smoothly on >>the first heart - which I always do). >If this is something you always do, your partner will be well aware of it. >How do you describe this method of discarding on your EBU20A? Does your >partner use the same method? It is "General Bridge Knowledge" that you discard from void trumps in the same colour! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 13:41:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 13:41:46 +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 NAA00177 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 13:41:39 +1100 Received: from p55s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.86] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0ztjfZ-0004SC-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 02:41:34 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 02:42:17 -0000 Message-ID: <01be3079$5a2fa300$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, December 26, 1998 1:01 AM Subject: Re: Claim On Fri, 25 Dec 1998 13:55:16 +0100 (MET DST), Martaandras@uze.net wrote: >Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > >Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx >Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x > >Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > I play all the trumps. > >TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. Why did he claim all the tricks before testing the trumps? That does not make sense unless he has misunderstood something about the hand. One possible - and quite probable - reason is that he thought he had 10 trumps instead of only 9, so he believed there were only 3 outstanding trumps. If that is the reason, there is nothing irrational about trying to take the 13 tricks in the order SA, 5 trumps, 5 diamonds, 2 clubs. Since any doubtful point is to be resolved against the claimer, I would rule one down. It has happened more than once that I have made a silly claim based on a miscount of the trumps where the opponents have then accepted the claim, assuming as matter of course that I knew there was a trump out. I am afraid that such claims are quite often accepted and quietly scored as if they were valid, because it does take a conscious effort for the claimer to then (a) realize that he actually did miscount and (b) realize that the honest action now is to tell the opponents that and call the TD and be ruled against. I believe that when ruling claims that seem to be based on a miscount or some other silly misapprehension, we should remember to consider "irrational" and "careless" in the context of the misapprehension that the claim itself seems to indicate, even though such a misapprehension would normally (without the strange claim) be considered irrational. We should remember that as soon as the claim was made, Play ceased.Law 70. The TD may accept a new line of play from declarer as long as there is no normal line of play which would be less successful. The TD will not insist that declarer fails to notice the trump distribution as soon as the first trump is played. The TD will not insist that declarer revokes. In fact some of the the careless errors that declarer might make in playing the hand out, become irrational actions after the claim is made. Law 70 D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. E. Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop) The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. (see footnote re. "normal" and " irrational") I would rule that declarer makes 12 tricks, having been mindful of my Law 70 duty to rule as equitably as possible. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 16:46:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA00396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 16:46:09 +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 QAA00391 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 16:46:03 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 0ztmXx-0005Sz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 06:45:53 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981226063957.00a0d9e0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 06:39:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:55 25-12-98 +0100, you wrote: >First of all Merry Xmas to everybody.=20 >I would appreciate your opinion about the following case. > >Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > >Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx >Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x > >Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > I play all the trumps. > >TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. > >Thanks for the comments. > >Andr=E1s Bo=F3c, Budapest Hungary >martaandras@uze.net > simple. Opps get a trump (if it is higher then the highest x ) This is typically a foolish claim. regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 20:02:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:02:13 +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 UAA00583 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:02:05 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-23.uunet.be [194.7.13.23]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA23095 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 10:01:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3684A52D.D064046D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 09:58:21 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <36836622.10091B5@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, Hi all, This takes in my replies on David's two postings. David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > >> No No No. The AC should *not* look at the score sheets. They *must* > >> decide on the case on it's merits as a bridge hand. The result is > >> passed down as 20% of this plus 30% of that. It is entirely wrong to > >> look at the score sheets as one then fiddles the numbers to get an > >> average plus, and that in effect is illegal. > > >Why ? When what we are proposing is in fact an enhancement > >over the practice of giving Average+ in the first place ? > >Surely that was not illegal ? > > It was illegal. > It was unfair. > It was biased. > Agreed, and we are now trying to do better. First answer me this. Are we still going to give NOs some compensation for their not being able to get a real score ? Is that compensations still something along the lines of 10% over their actual expected result ? Or not ? > > Or if it was, it was quite > >common anyway. > > Who cares? Stealing is quite common too. > Good example coming up : > Suppose the auction goes > > 1S P 4C [splinter] P > 4NT [RKCB] P 5D P > 5NT [kings?] P 6D P > ..6S [slow] P 7S P > P P > > Suppose we disallow the 7S. A competent TD/AC gives EW 6S+1. An > incompetent TD/AC gives EW Ave+. > > Suppose EW get a 90% score by making 6S+1 because everyone else is > missing the slam completely. What are you going to do? > When a weighted score becomes necessary (and that can only be for the passers - NOs) this will obviously be a weighted score between 6Sp and 7Sp. The percentage between the two could be determined by checking the relative frequency between 6 and 7. If 12% of the room are in 6, and 8% are in 7, then the "frequency" of 7 is 40%. This percentage may be altered by the AC, judging this to be too high or low. But after that, I suggest to add on another 20%, just to award NOs. These NOs should thus get 60%+20% = 80% of 6Sp+1 > >I am not saying that the score sheets should be the only > >basis of adjudication for the AC. They may well decide that > >this pair is far more likely to go to slam than this > >particular field was. Or far less likely. But how can they > >put numbers on something without ANY comparison ? > > Any competent TD or AC can and does. Looking at score-sheets is a > crutch for the incompetent. > Well, a crutch can help a competent man too. > I am not suggesting that every TD or AC that does is incompetent, just > badly trained. You should not look at a score-sheet before assigning > scores. I do not see that poor training and bad procedures that have > existed around the world should be continued. > > "It has always been done this way" is always the worst reason for > incompetence. > That's true. But I repeat that my point is not HOW you arrive at the figure of 60%, only that after you arrive there, you should add 20% to cater for the "benefit of the doubt". Can you agree on that one ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 20:01:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:01:43 +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 UAA00576 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:01:36 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-23.uunet.be [194.7.13.23]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA23079 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 10:01:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3683D2BC.282C0876@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 19:00:28 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <367A3F7F.2C7C@elnet.msk.ru> <367A46A4.EEED3135@village.uunet.be> <3680AB66.6C68@elnet.msk.ru> <3681FFBB.A12F3647@village.uunet.be> <36836B4F.32827713@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, all, David Stevenson wrote: > > > Not by good TDs or ACs. There is no such rule, and it shows very poor > training. It is perfectly normal to give a score that is less than 60%, > and to treat it as an effective minimum shows a lack of respect for the > Laws of bridge. > Not at all what I am saying. > >I mean that in a case as simple as the one I presented, > >anything less than 60% would seem unfair, and the AC should > >be ready to defend a lesser score by saying, "we do not > >think that this pair, after this intervention, will go on to > >slam". If they have no such argument, and simply want to > >award a percentage of slam that compensates to their feeling > >correctly NO, then the percentage they should be giving is > >20% higher than the real frequency of slam. > > > >Have I made myself clear now ? > > Yes, but you are completely wrong. It would be quite normal to get > less than 60%, and your method is biased, illegal, and unnecessary. > I am completely convinced that scores higher or lower than 60% are quite possible, and in fact this method is precisely geared to it getting there. See my reply to your other post. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 22:47:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:47:51 +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 WAA00780 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:47:44 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-1.uunet.be [194.7.13.1]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA03542 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 12:47:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3684C7F8.6F4F96D3@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 12:26:48 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim References: <0cEMbFAmlBh2Ewf$@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Now John, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > >Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > > > >Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx > >Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x > > > >Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > > I play all the trumps. > > > >TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. > > > > IMO it would be careless, but not irrational to cash 4 trumps > (particularly if an intelligent defender pitches a diamond smoothly on > the first heart - which I always do). In this circumstance I would award > down 1. This was a careless claim and declarer could be careless here. > I think they'll have to get the AC to award them 90% of just made and > 10% of down 1. I think the AC can do this under Law 12 but would take > advice. > I don't believe we should be counting the not seeing of trumps falling as "not irrational". I know it sometimes happens. But I also feel that one of the objects of claiming is that one should no longer be subject, afterwards, to "irrational" play. When a player has seen the hands, and decided the play is over, he should not be asked to play out the hand, and be subject to the possibility of "bad mistakes". That is why I don't think we should ever rule that it is not irrational NOT to notice trumps not falling. Indeed, as one of you has suggested, if the 4-0 is the correct side, it is "irrational" not to believe that the player will see the correct line in taking all thirteen tricks, and give him the tricks he has asked. > Funnily enough I did almost exactly this at last Year End Congress, and > who should come to the table but DWS. He nailed me [quite rightly]. > I was i) pretty drunk ii) very careless with the claim and iii) saw no > cause for complaint. I nearly bought him a drink. > You did exactly what? Make such a claim? And DWS did not rescue you? Or what? You forgot to see that trumps fell 4-0? Then why did DWS come at the table? Please elaborate! > I could be in a minority on this one. Cheers John I believe you are. Best wishes to you John, and to all other readers ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 26 22:47:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:47:57 +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 WAA00787 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:47:51 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-1.uunet.be [194.7.13.1]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA03549 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 12:47:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3684CA3A.C8D8D2E@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 12:36:26 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim References: <36853191.2271506@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal made a quite valid point when he wrote: > > One possible - and quite probable - reason is that he thought he > had 10 trumps instead of only 9, so he believed there were only 3 > outstanding trumps. If that is the reason, there is nothing > irrational about trying to take the 13 tricks in the order SA, 5 > trumps, 5 diamonds, 2 clubs. > > Since any doubtful point is to be resolved against the claimer, I > would rule one down. > It may well be in order for the TD to ask declarer why he misclaimed. It may well be that declarer will admit that he did miscount trumps. But a much more natural explanation of this hasty claim is "It's obvious everything is high - Why are we not in seven ?" It may well be declarer never counted trumps, much less miscount them. We must accept that a player claims on the "obvious nature" of his hands, without even starting upon a careful search for the correct line of play. That does not mean that he will not find the "obvious" line of play, once he does start his actual play of the cards. You would not, for example, refuse the claim of 13 tricks on : AK QJT98 AK5432 - QJT98 AK 76 A432 because a beginner would have some difficulty of tracking the correct order. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 27 01:16:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 01:16:57 +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 BAA03338 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 01:16:49 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0ztuWC-0007Ip-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 14:16:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 13:56:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: The Month After Christmas MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Cindy And Dean wrote >Kinda off topic...but thought all us female posters would relate or get a >chuckle out of this cute poem sent to me: > >The Month After Christmas > >Twas the month after Christmas, and all through the house >Nothing would fit me, not even a blouse. >The cookies I'd nibbled, the eggnog I'd taste >At the holiday parties, had gone to my waist. [snip several excellent verses] I have added this to my Generalpage [not my Lawspage]. I am really quite excited: this is the **two-hundredth article** on my Web site! Do have a look! It is split as follows: Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk 6 articles Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm 38 articles Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm 32 articles Catpage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/cat_menu.htm 71 articles Generalpage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gen_menu.htm 39 articles Trainpage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/trn_menu.htm 14 articles Total on site 200 articles [plus one article hidden on my Generalpage] -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 27 02:10:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 02:10:57 +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 CAA03654 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 02:10:50 +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 KAA22957 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 10:10:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA03690; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 10:10:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 10:10:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812261510.KAA03690@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >A. L. Edwards wrote: >>>Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. >>> >>>Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx >>>Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x >>> >>>Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: >>> I play all the trumps. >>> >>>TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. > >>If the defence can ruff either a club or a diamond before >>spade(s) are discarded, then award an extra spade trick to the >>defence, otherwise give just the one trump trick. I think >>it would be irrational for the declarer to play 4 rounds >>of trump (subject to the footnote of L69, 70,71, of course). > > > Assuming you decide it is irrational to play the fourth round of >trumps then surely it is irrational to play the diamonds before cashing >the clubs. > I agree with the former. Give him the slam if the first round of >clubs stands up. I must confess that if I was defending it would not >occur to me to challenge the claim. This new problem is a more interesting one than the old. Suppose the claim came after three rounds of trump, with no stated line of play. Would not playing clubs first be careless, or irrational? I think careless or inferior (C&I, anyone?) ; DWS (it appears) thinks irrational. The reason I think it would be C&I is because players tend to look at their own hands first, the diamond suit is solid, and players are reluctant to give up control in a suit in the face of a bad trump break when they have an obvious alternative--let's face it, a declarer here may not be irrational, but he's no chessplayer, either.* :-) However, if another director or AC decided that it would be irrational to play D before C, I would ( I hope) merely shrug. Tony (aka ac342) * for non-chessplayers, a declarer who can't calculate a three-move (chess) problem. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 27 03:08:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 03:08:40 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA03786 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 03:08:32 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0ztwGN-0006H0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 16:08:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 14:49:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <36836622.10091B5@village.uunet.be> <3684A52D.D064046D@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3684A52D.D064046D@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: >First answer me this. Are we still going to give NOs some >compensation for their not being able to get a real score ? >Is that compensations still something along the lines of 10% >over their actual expected result ? Or not ? > >Good example coming up : >> Suppose the auction goes >> >> 1S P 4C [splinter] P >> 4NT [RKCB] P 5D P >> 5NT [kings?] P 6D P >> ..6S [slow] P 7S P >> P P >> >> Suppose we disallow the 7S. A competent TD/AC gives EW 6S+1. An >> incompetent TD/AC gives EW Ave+. >> >> Suppose EW get a 90% score by making 6S+1 because everyone else is >> missing the slam completely. What are you going to do? >When a weighted score becomes necessary (and that can only >be for the passers - NOs) The weighted score is normally given the same for both sides, NOs and Os. It would hardly "do equity" otherwise! > this will obviously be a weighted >score between 6Sp and 7Sp. The percentage between the two >could be determined by checking the relative frequency >between 6 and 7. > >If 12% of the room are in 6, and 8% are in 7, then the >"frequency" of 7 is 40%. This percentage may be altered by >the AC, judging this to be too high or low. But after that, >I suggest to add on another 20%, just to award NOs. >These NOs should thus get 60%+20% = 80% of 6Sp+1 But this is not the way the AC should decide the 60%/40%. They should decide from the hand - then adding 20% for luck is reasonable. Let us suppose that when they look at the hand they realise that the grand would be bid two times out of three [say 65%], despite the score-sheets [which they do not see fortunately]. I am happy with adding 20%, but this definitely *not* what you said in your earlier post [it may have been what you meant, of course!]. Let us look at the effect of the various methods. Matchpoints from traveller [only looked at *after* calculation]: Result Frequency Matchpoints 7S= 8% 96% 6S+1 12% 86% 4S+3 80% 40% For simplicity, I am ignoring the very slight change on the matchpoints by taking one score out. Score achieved at table using UI 7S* 96% Score assigned by competent TD 6S+1 86% Score awarded by incompetent TD Ave- 40% Weighted score assigned by bad AC 80% 6S+1 88% + 20% 7S= Weighted score assigned by good AC 45% 6S+1 90% + 55% 7S= >> >I am not saying that the score sheets should be the only >> >basis of adjudication for the AC. They may well decide that >> >this pair is far more likely to go to slam than this >> >particular field was. Or far less likely. But how can they >> >put numbers on something without ANY comparison ? >> >> Any competent TD or AC can and does. Looking at score-sheets is a >> crutch for the incompetent. >Well, a crutch can help a competent man too. Not in this case. That is the whole problem. Looking at the score- sheets *only* helps if you know the bidding at every other table, and in some cases the play too. If nearly everyone else missed the grand because of the accident of playing a strong NT opening, then it is incompetent of the committee to assume that *this* pair who do not play a strong NT are only going to reach the grand on a similar percentage of occasions. Score-sheets create a false picture, and are worse than a crutch: they are a broken crutch, about to bring an unexpected pitfall to the user. >But I repeat that my point is not HOW you arrive at the >figure of 60%, only that after you arrive there, you should >add 20% to cater for the "benefit of the doubt". > >Can you agree on that one ? Oh yes! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 27 06:21:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 06:21:42 +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 GAA04137 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 06:21:37 +1100 Received: from ip11.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.11]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981226192130.MRZW6075.fep4@ip11.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:21:30 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:21:30 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <369236c3.5711252@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, 26 Dec 1998 02:20:04 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > I suppose this one comes down to the fact that when something is >written one loses a lot of inferences, or one assumes things. I would >be confident that if I were the TD I would know after a couple of >questions what was going on, and the same if I were an opponent. I agree - it is a lot easier if you're there. Quite often declarer will immediately tell everybody at the table in a very convincing way what went on in his mind. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 27 06:21:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 06:21:36 +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 GAA04129 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 06:21:30 +1100 Received: from ip11.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.11]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981226192124.MRZR6075.fep4@ip11.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:21:24 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:21:24 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <368c3440.5068077@post12.tele.dk> References: <01be3079$5a2fa300$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01be3079$5a2fa300$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 02:42:17 -0000, "Anne Jones" wrote: >The TD will not insist >that declarer fails to notice the trump distribution as soon as the = first >trump is played. The TD will not insist that declarer revokes. In fact = some >of the the careless errors that declarer might make in playing the hand = out, >become irrational actions after the claim is made. Declarer has made a claim of 13 tricks and not mentioned any problem with trump distribution. By doing so, he has said that be believes that he can get 13 tricks regardless of trump distribution. Why should he worry when somebody shows out? When he made the claim, he must have believed that his stated line of play would work regardless of the trump distribution, so there is really no reason to change plan just because trumps are X-0 (where he quite possibly believes X to be 3, not 4). The point where he will wake up is quite probably not the first trump trick, but the fourth - and then it is too late. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 27 06:21:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 06:21:33 +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 GAA04123 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 06:21:25 +1100 Received: from ip11.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.11]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981226192117.MRZN6075.fep4@ip11.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:21:17 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:21:17 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <368b33fe.5002443@post12.tele.dk> References: <36853191.2271506@post12.tele.dk> <3684CA3A.C8D8D2E@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3684CA3A.C8D8D2E@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 12:36:26 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >It may well be declarer never counted trumps, much less >miscount them. > >We must accept that a player claims on the "obvious nature" >of his hands, without even starting upon a careful search >for the correct line of play. That does not mean that he >will not find the "obvious" line of play, once he does start >his actual play of the cards. I don't think we should accept that players claim 13 tricks unless they have analyzed the hand and come to the conclusion that there are 13 tricks independent of the distribution. He does not have to plan the correct line of play in details, but he does have to be sure that there _is_ such a correct line of play (and that it is obvious to the TD that he is capable of finding it), independent on the distribution of the opponents' card. He clearly did not do that here. There are two possibilities: (a) He had analyzed the hand and come to the (incorrect) conclusion that he always had 13 tricks. In that case, there is typically something quite wrong about his perception of the hand - such as miscounted trumps. (b) He had not taken the trouble to analyze the hand, but simply claimed because he had a good hand. I consider that very rude, and I have little sympathy with players who do it: they force their opponents to analyze the hand for them, and they probably quite often get away with invalid claims when the opponents believe them without analyzing carefully. In both cases, the claimer must IMO now lift a heavy burden of proof if he is to win his contract: In case (a), he will have to convince me that his misunderstanding of the hand was of a type that would cause him to wake up when somebody did not follow suit. In case (b), he will have to convince me that though he was too careless to analyze the hand before claiming, he will not be too careless to notice that a player does not follow suit or to analyze the hand when that happens. For a player who does not worry about 4-0 breaks before claiming, not worrying when somebody shows out is probably not irrational. In both cases, it may be possible to convince me if I'm there, but if I have to rule based on the written description, I'd definitely rule one down. >You would not, for example, refuse the claim of 13 tricks on >: >AK QJT98 AK5432 - > >QJT98 AK 76 A432 > >because a beginner would have some difficulty of tracking >the correct order. No, but that is a different situation: here there is no suggestion that declarer has not analyzed the hand and ensured that he could get 13 tricks regardless of the opponents' hands. He _knows_ that there are 13 tricks, even though he may not have worked out the specific order. It is a valid claim (unless, as you say, he is a beginner). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 27 06:50:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 06:50:09 +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 GAA04186 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 06:50:02 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.214]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA26030; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 21:49:37 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36853DDD.33BEEF2D@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 21:49:49 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martaandras@uze.net CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by Q.inter.net.il id VAA26030 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcome to the contributors' club !!!! I understand that the problem is "wording" , more than laws : If someone understand "I play all trumps" =3D playing ALL the trumps than I prefer to play cucuricusitansamo !!!!!!! not bridge. In this case I check if the 4 trumps defender is singleton club or singleton diamond ....if the answer yes , the result=20 is 1 down. If not , if there is one of the 4 trumps higher than=20 the 4th highest card of the declarer+dummy's trump - the result is 6 made , otherwise 7 . Dany P.S. Please tell us - DavidStevenson and me if you own anycats or dogs ...... Martaandras@uze.net wrote: >=20 > First of all Merry Xmas to everybody. > I would appreciate your opinion about the following case. >=20 > Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. >=20 > Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx > Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x >=20 > Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > I play all the trumps. >=20 > TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. >=20 > Thanks for the comments. >=20 > Andr=E1s Bo=F3c, Budapest Hungary > martaandras@uze.net From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 27 06:59:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 06:59:51 +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 GAA04203 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 06:59:44 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.214]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA27741; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 21:59:32 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36854031.BD544A7D@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 21:59:45 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: <0cEMbFAmlBh2Ewf$@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > Funnily enough I did almost exactly this at last Year End Congress, and > who should come to the table but DWS. He nailed me [quite rightly]. > I was i) pretty drunk ii) very careless with the claim and iii) saw no > cause for complaint. #### I nearly bought him a drink.##### Now I wouldn't penalize you because it #### would be the most irrational action .....L O L !!!!!!!!!!!! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Dany > > I could be in a minority on this one. Cheers John > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Thief!______ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. | To Q. | |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | /\ __) | Luv D | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ ------- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 27 08:04:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 08:04:45 +1100 Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA04274 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 08:04:38 +1100 Received: from hlyxzurz (dialup-0103.dublin.iol.ie [193.203.144.103]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA18696 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 1998 21:04:30 GMT Message-ID: <000201be3113$bd140ca0$6790cbc1@hlyxzurz> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 18:07:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Season's Grettings to one and all, This looked like an easy on to begin with - Declarer gets his 12 tricks because it would be irrational to draw trumps on learning about the 4-0 break. But Jesper has thrown in a very valid point - Declarer might think he has 10 trumps in which case he won't blink an eye on learning of the 3-0 break! As David says the written word leads us to assume things we would not otherwise assume at the table. If we suspect Declarer thinks he has 10 trumps we will rule 11 tricks. Regards Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 27 12:35:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA04688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 12:35:34 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA04683 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 12:35:28 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zu571-0004C1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 01:35:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 01:33:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <000201be3113$bd140ca0$6790cbc1@hlyxzurz> In-Reply-To: <000201be3113$bd140ca0$6790cbc1@hlyxzurz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >Season's Grettings to one and all, At last this list goes international properly! An Irishman! Good! Yes, Fearghal, I know you have been lurking, but nice to read you! [Any cats or dogs?] Did you come to an English TD course at which I was involved? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 27 13:25:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 13:25:10 +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 NAA04766 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 13:25:01 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zu5t0-0000HX-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 02:24:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 02:17:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981226063957.00a0d9e0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.5.32.19981226063957.00a0d9e0@cable.mail.a2000.nl>, Anton=20 Witzen writes >At 13:55 25-12-98 +0100, you wrote: >>First of all Merry Xmas to everybody.=20 >>I would appreciate your opinion about the following case. >> >>Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. >> >>Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx >>Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x >> >>Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: >> I play all the trumps. >> >>TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. >> >>Thanks for the comments. >> >>Andr=E1s Bo=F3c, Budapest Hungary >>martaandras@uze.net >> >simple. >Opps get a trump (if it is higher then the highest x ) *and the KS* for down 1. >This is typically a foolish claim. agreed >regards, >anton >Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) >Tel: 020 7763175 >ICQ 7835770 --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Thief!______ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. | To Q. | |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | Luv D | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ ------- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 27 13:25:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 13:25:10 +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 NAA04765 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 13:25:01 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zu5sz-0000Sl-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 02:24:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 02:14:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <3684C7F8.6F4F96D3@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3684C7F8.6F4F96D3@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Now John, >> >> IMO it would be careless, but not irrational to cash 4 trumps >> (particularly if an intelligent defender pitches a diamond smoothly on >> the first heart - which I always do). In this circumstance I would award >> down 1. This was a careless claim and declarer could be careless here. >> I think they'll have to get the AC to award them 90% of just made and >> 10% of down 1. I think the AC can do this under Law 12 but would take >> advice. >> >> Funnily enough I did almost exactly this at last Year End Congress, and >> who should come to the table but DWS. He nailed me [quite rightly]. >> I was i) pretty drunk ii) very careless with the claim and iii) saw no >> cause for complaint. I nearly bought him a drink. >> > >You did exactly what? Make such a claim? And DWS did not >rescue you? LHO lead and I drunkenly said "drawing trump" which equated in the instance to saying "playing all the trump first". Oppo contested. In came the police in the person of DWS on his white charger. EBU TDs are issued with horses for crowd control reasons. So, DWS, armed with his copy of the FLB, from which he proceeded to read at enormous length (well it seemed like it as I needed to have a pee), pitched up. The above sentence is constructed to keep the Dutch happy because you never know whats happening until the end of the sentence arrives ... Then he toddled off and consulted with other directors and then he came back and ruled I drew trump leaving me with an inescapable extra loser when the trumps broke 4-0. I agreed with him. >Or what? You forgot to see that trumps fell 4-0? Then why >did DWS come at the table? >Please elaborate! > As above:) Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Thief!______ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. | To Q. | |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | Luv D | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ ------- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 27 13:25:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 13:25:09 +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 NAA04764 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 13:25:01 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zu5sz-0000HS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 02:24:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 02:00:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) In-Reply-To: <3684A52D.D064046D@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3684A52D.D064046D@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Hi David, Hi all, > >This takes in my replies on David's two postings. > >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> >> No No No. The AC should *not* look at the score sheets. They *must* >> >> decide on the case on it's merits as a bridge hand. The result is >> >> passed down as 20% of this plus 30% of that. It is entirely wrong to >> >> look at the score sheets as one then fiddles the numbers to get an >> >> average plus, and that in effect is illegal. >> >> >Why ? When what we are proposing is in fact an enhancement >> >over the practice of giving Average+ in the first place ? >> >Surely that was not illegal ? >> >> It was illegal. >> It was unfair. >> It was biased. >> > >Good example coming up : > >> Suppose the auction goes >> >> 1S P 4C [splinter] P >> 4NT [RKCB] P 5D P >> 5NT [kings?] P 6D P >> ..6S [slow] P 7S P >> P P >> >> Suppose we disallow the 7S. A competent TD/AC gives EW 6S+1. An >> incompetent TD/AC gives EW Ave+. >> >> Suppose EW get a 90% score by making 6S+1 because everyone else is >> missing the slam completely. What are you going to do? >> Give them 6S +1. The infraction occurred after the 6S bid. That's what the guys were booked for. Anything else is illegal IMO. BTW DWS is in London directing at the Year End Congress ... and I am playing in the Year End Congress ... hehehe watch this space ...... Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Thief!______ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. | To Q. | |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | Luv D | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ ------- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 27 18:24:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA05180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 18:24:21 +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 SAA05175 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 18:24:13 +1100 Received: from modem75.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.203] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zuAYT-0006s8-00; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 07:24:02 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 07:14:45 -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 "Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really understand the situation" - Ed Murrow ==================================== > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) > Date: 18 December 1998 12:12 --------------------------------\x/------------------------------------------ > > This is in fact a problem which should be considered > "settled". I am quite certain that the method I will > describe is in fact the one which should be employed. I > have no official position in this, but I urge you to believe > me when I say that this is the "WBF-view". > --------------------------------\x/------------------------------------------- ++++ I am not quite clear which of the correspondents actually wrote this. I think the "WBF view" to be deduced from the wording of the law is that it is right to give zones the option of using the powers given in 12C3. Probably the writer of the above would have been safer saying that the view is that of the zonal authority.++++ #### On the generality of the subject my personal view is (1) Penalties and adjustments usually work best if they are calculated in the manner in which the score is finally expressed; certainly not in aggregate terms in an imp or match points competition. (2) The WBF does not state a position on the examination of frequencies when determining equity. I have known it done to get a feel for probabilities, more than once in major international competitions. Some of the assertions made in this thread on that subject, the personal opinions expressed, strike me as going to extremes; I would neither say that it is to be regarded as a normal process nor that it is everywhere and always without merit. #### ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 28 00:58:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:58:12 +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 AAA07888 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:58:04 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-225.uunet.be [194.7.9.225]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA22959 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 14:57:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3686383A.36B315DA@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 14:38:02 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim References: <36853191.2271506@post12.tele.dk> <3684CA3A.C8D8D2E@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 a much more natural explanation of this hasty claim is > "It's obvious everything is high - Why are we not in seven > ?" > It may well be declarer never counted trumps, much less > miscount them. > This actually happened to me yesterday. My partner had made a call which I consider inferior, and the result was that we were playing 4Sp. No need to play this, he said - 13 tricks, after which we started discussing the auction. The score sheet indeed showed that the whole room was either in 6Sp+1 or 7Sp=. Afterwards we started counting the tricks and it turned out there were only 12 of them, top ones that is, the thirteenth obviously coming fro the finesse on the Queen of diamonds. Now if partner had had the ten, he might have finessed both ways, and +680 would have been marked. But since he hadn't, the finesse was only possible one way and we did mark +710. The important bit is that partner never considered any line of play before claiming, so he could not show his carelessness in doing so. The TD (me) considered that he would not play in any other manner than the one which led to 13 tricks. Point being, that not showing that you have considered part of the play when making your claim should NOT mean that you were careless there, and should not mean that the irrational play would now become rational. Or to put it differently, it is NOT irrational not to consider the whole play before claiming. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 28 00:58:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:58:14 +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 AAA07894 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:58:07 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-225.uunet.be [194.7.9.225]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA22980 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 14:58:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36863996.1129F06A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 14:43:50 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim References: <36853191.2271506@post12.tele.dk> <3684CA3A.C8D8D2E@village.uunet.be> <368b33fe.5002443@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > >You would not, for example, refuse the claim of 13 tricks on > >: > >AK QJT98 AK5432 - > > > >QJT98 AK 76 A432 > > > >because a beginner would have some difficulty of tracking > >the correct order. > > No, but that is a different situation: here there is no > suggestion that declarer has not analyzed the hand and ensured > that he could get 13 tricks regardless of the opponents' hands. > He _knows_ that there are 13 tricks, even though he may not have > worked out the specific order. It is a valid claim (unless, as > you say, he is a beginner). Why is this different ? He _knows_ there are 13 tricks because he can see about 17 of them, but he has not worked out if he can actually make 13. By your same argument, he could still go wrong here. I don't believe it is -as you call it- rude to claim without checking the whole play. I find it rude to sit there thinking for 5 minutes with all 13 tricks, all the while having opponents also thinking about how to make unmakeable tricks. Far better to put your cards down, and then work out - both pairs together even, that all tricks are there. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 28 00:58:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:58:19 +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 AAA07901 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:58:12 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-225.uunet.be [194.7.9.225]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA22986 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 14:58:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36863AC4.9E914BCE@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 14:48:52 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C3 calculation (former - Hesitation) References: <36836622.10091B5@village.uunet.be> <3684A52D.D064046D@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I will snip all that David Stevenson wrote: (except to show you which post of his I mean) because I agree with David 100% now. > > > Score-sheets create a false picture, and are worse than a crutch: they > are a broken crutch, about to bring an unexpected pitfall to the user. > > > > >Can you agree on that one ? > > Oh yes! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 28 01:15:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 01:15:57 +1100 Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA07955 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 01:15:49 +1100 Received: from hlyxzurz (dialup-107.cork.iol.ie [194.125.43.107]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA17349 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 14:15:42 GMT Message-ID: <00dd01be31a3$c8c5f780$6b2b7dc2@hlyxzurz> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 14:18:30 -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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes David I was at one your excellent workshops a couple of years ago. There is one dog "Topsy" but no cats. I have been lurking here for a while although I have sent in at least 2 contributions. These obviously didn't get through - the Netscape browser mustn't be very suited to BLML. I'm now using Explorer. Congrats to all contributors it is a brilliant forum. Regards Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 28 01:48:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 01:48:37 +1100 Received: from netsurf.wwl.de (mail@nuernberg.netsurf.de [194.163.174.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA08042 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 01:48:27 +1100 Received: from maxi28.regensburg.netsurf.de (regensburg.netsurf.de) [194.233.128.92] by netsurf.wwl.de with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0zuHUN-0008Q5-00 (Debian); Sun, 27 Dec 1998 15:48:16 +0100 Message-ID: <36864978.DBACF3D8@regensburg.netsurf.de> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 15:51:36 +0100 From: "Hr. Stahl" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: [Fwd: Lille Appeal] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------A3F03214E106FCF31CE4866B" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format. --------------A3F03214E106FCF31CE4866B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------A3F03214E106FCF31CE4866B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <368163A0.8D162B47@regensburg.netsurf.de> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 22:41:52 +0100 From: "Hr. Stahl" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson , "majordomo@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Lille Appeal References: <2kOk4VA+JKc2EwEs@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------06188CEE00B0C917E7AB5E2E" --------------06188CEE00B0C917E7AB5E2E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear David, as a response to the latest contribution of Bobby Wolff in this case I want to make quite clear, that Beate Birr had nothing to do with my letter Bobby Wolff is commenting on. She only got to read it when it was already send. So she certainly didn`t "weave" anything, tell something "untrue" or get the story "skewed" or "defend herself any way (she) can". At this point I have to say that I`m not that happy with the some of Bobby Wolff`s wording. I suspect a committee wouldn`t be positivly impressed if players at a hearing were to refer to each other in this way. Specifically I´m most unhappy with the following sentence: "Ofcourse, if a pair is constantly misleading their opponents they should either quit, play a totally simple system, or be subject to scrutiny or else." I certainly hope Bobby Wolff didn`t mean to aim at Beate and me with this remark and I`d be glad if he`d confirmed this view or otherwise state on what facts he bases it. In my letter I stated a theory why I think East might have passed. In effect it was not because she was in any way misled by us, but because she thought psyching wasn`t allowed in 1st hand. This is something I obiously couldn`t prevent, because I couldn`t possibly know about her erroneous knowledge of the law. I`m surprised, that noone - to my knowledge - has as yet commented on this theory. Reading the last letter from Bobby Wolff I think I now can also see why the commitee ruled as it did. I never wanted to give the comittee the impression it seems to have got, that I knew 2C to be a psyche, when the bidding came round to me. I only knew 2C to be a bid, which didn`t "excist" (in our system, since obiously as a bid it does excist). This in turn could only mean that the 1NT-bid by Beate was in some way not normal, preventing her in her view from staying put in 1NT xxed. But this didnt`t neccesarily have to mean - although likely - that 1NT had to be an outright psyche. Beate might for example have wanted to bid a 6card C-suit, if she only happened to have (say) 10 HCP. If I had known the meaning of 2C as it later came to light, I would not have told East it didn`t excist (in our system). I would also not have told her it to be a psyche. Rather I`d have told her 1NT to be a psyche and 2C to conventionly mean shortness in C. I then would not have passed (showing readiness to play 2C xed even with this shortness) but rather have bid 2D looking for our best fit. Had I really told the committee I knew 2C to be psyche, I´m sure someone would have asked me, whether I´m not contradicting myself, when at the same time saying it didn`t excist (in our system): A call is obiously not a psyche, if partner knows the meaning, but rather a convention which must be alerted and its meaning fully disclosed. In view of Bobby Wolff`s stated remark as to this matter, I have to honestly say that I don`t know many pairs that so readily and fully disclose all their conventions as Beate and myself. Merry Xmas and a happy new Year to you all, Wolf David Stevenson schrieb: > I have managed to get this wrong - sorry. > > I have written another set of questions for Bobby Wolff on the > 'famous' Lille appeal. I have his replies which are below - but I have > managed to delete the questions, and by the time I realised this Bobby > had too! So you will have to imagine the questions. I do apologise but > it is too late to do anything about it. I think most of the questions > are fairly clear from the answers. > > ----------------------------------------- > > Dear David, > > Thanks for your infinite patience. Mine is running short . Too much to > do, too little time to do it. > > Wolf Stahl did remember right that his partner said she hadn't psyched > before, but almost everything else he (they) said, in the latest email > is either untrue or skewed. Have they woven a story to make themselves > martyrs and now they must defend themselves any way they can? > My whole case is based on lack of full disclosure (and especially to > inexperienced opponents). Maybe I wanted to appear an idiot and be > subject to ridicule, censure and eventual dismissal. If so, I lied. The > ironic fact in this matter is that I have always been a proponent of > psychics as long as they are not risk free (either by system or by > partner having privileged information). Adam Meredith was one of my > early idols and John Collings has my current respect. In my opinion, > neither of those fellows would ever consider priming partner. Please > bring on the other appeals members whomever they were. ( I hope they > remember, but perhaps the pressure may render them mute). > > Perhaps Ms. Rohan is correct, but my questions are usually direct and > not subject to confusion. At the committee hearing, if I remember > correctly, the two in question seemed very straightforward and honest. > > Wolf Stahl made a comment at their hearing that I am sure he said, > "What else could 2 clubs mean but a psychic?" when I asked what he meant > by his answer to his opponents of "2 clubs is not part of our system". > > If NS tells EW "I'm pretty sure 2 clubs is a psychic" then whatever > happens (at least if I'm on the committee) NS has done their duty. Of > course, if a pair is constantly misleading their opponents they should > either quit, play a totally simple system, or be subject to scrutiny or > else. > > Intentional convention disruption is a coined phrase by me which means > a player or pair conveniently forgets a weak bid convention e.g (an > opening 2 spade bid that shows 0-8 and the reds or the blacks) but > really has 2 other suits, or no suits at all and partner always finds a > reason not to bid or otherwise get the partnership in trouble. > Unfortunately this practice has occurred too often among some of the US > high-level partnerships. Hard to prove, but easy to feel. It's part of > what I call the poison gas laboratory that our bridge Saddam Husseins > practice. > > Finally, high-level bridge is a difficult game. Administering it > properly is also tedious and trying. It gets especially so when an > interested party can think I mean opening 4 spades to prevent the > opponents from using their relay system is wrong in any way. Maybe that > would be the thought from a 6th grader trying to understand English, but > how can we (I) deal with such trivia and survive. I can assure you I > can't. My writings will never be confused with Shakespeare but I don't > have time or the inclination to deal with Mr. DesJardins sarcasm. > > Double Holiday Cheers Bobby (and becky) > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ --------------06188CEE00B0C917E7AB5E2E Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear David,

as a response to the latest contribution of Bobby Wolff in this case
I  want to make quite clear, that Beate Birr had nothing to do with my
letter Bobby Wolff is commenting on. She only got to read it when it
was already send. So she certainly didn`t "weave" anything, tell
something "untrue" or get the story "skewed" or "defend herself any way
(she) can".

At this point I have to say that I`m not that happy with the some of
Bobby Wolff`s wording. I suspect a committee wouldn`t be positivly
impressed if players at a hearing were to refer to each other in this way.

Specifically I´m most unhappy with the following sentence: "Ofcourse,
if a pair is constantly misleading their opponents they should either quit,
play a totally simple system, or be subject to scrutiny or else." I
certainly hope Bobby Wolff didn`t mean to aim at Beate and me with this
remark and I`d be glad if he`d confirmed this view or otherwise state on
what facts he bases it.

In my letter I stated a theory why I  think East might have passed.
In effect it was not because she was in any way misled by us, but because
she thought psyching wasn`t allowed in 1st hand. This is something  I
obiously couldn`t prevent, because I couldn`t possibly know about her
erroneous knowledge of the law. I`m surprised, that noone - to my
knowledge - has as yet commented on this theory.

Reading the last letter from Bobby Wolff I think I  now can also see why
the commitee ruled as it did. I never wanted to give the comittee the
impression it seems to have got, that I knew 2C to be a psyche, when
the bidding came round to me. I only knew 2C to be a bid, which didn`t
"excist" (in our system, since obiously as a bid it does excist). This in
turn could only mean that the 1NT-bid by Beate was in some way not
normal, preventing her in her view from staying put in 1NT xxed. But this
didnt`t neccesarily have to mean - although likely - that 1NT had to be an
outright psyche. Beate might for example  have wanted to bid a 6card C-suit,
if she only happened to have (say) 10 HCP.

If I had known the meaning of 2C as it later came to light, I  would not
have told East it didn`t excist (in our system). I would also not have told
her it to be a psyche. Rather I`d have told her 1NT to be a psyche and 2C to
conventionly mean shortness in C. I  then would not have passed (showing
readiness to play 2C xed even with this shortness) but rather have bid 2D
looking for our best fit.

Had I really told the committee I  knew 2C to be psyche, I´m sure someone
would have asked me, whether I´m not contradicting myself, when at the
same time saying it didn`t excist (in our system): A call is obiously not a
psyche, if partner knows the meaning, but rather a convention which must be
alerted and its meaning fully disclosed. In view of Bobby Wolff`s stated
remark as to this matter, I  have to honestly say that I don`t know many pairs
that so readily and fully disclose all their conventions as Beate and myself.

Merry Xmas and a happy new Year to you all,
 

Wolf
 

David Stevenson schrieb:

  I have managed to get this wrong - sorry.

  I have written another set of questions for Bobby Wolff on the
'famous' Lille appeal.  I have his replies which are below - but I have
managed to delete the questions, and by the time I realised this Bobby
had too!  So you will have to imagine the questions.  I do apologise but
it is too late to do anything about it.  I think most of the questions
are fairly clear from the answers.

               -----------------------------------------

Dear David,

Thanks for your infinite patience.  Mine is running short .  Too much to
do, too little time to do it.

  Wolf Stahl did remember right that his partner said she hadn't psyched
before, but almost everything else he (they) said, in the latest email
is either untrue or skewed.  Have they woven a story to make themselves
martyrs and now they must defend themselves any way they can?
My whole case is based on lack of full disclosure (and especially to
inexperienced opponents).  Maybe I wanted to appear an idiot and be
subject to ridicule, censure and eventual dismissal.  If so, I lied. The
ironic fact in this matter is that I have always been a proponent of
psychics as long as they are not risk free (either by system or by
partner  having  privileged information).  Adam Meredith was one of my
early idols and John Collings has my current respect.  In my opinion,
neither of those fellows would ever consider priming partner.  Please
bring on the other appeals members whomever they were.  ( I hope they
remember, but perhaps the pressure may render them mute).

  Perhaps Ms. Rohan is correct, but my questions are usually direct and
not subject to confusion.  At the committee hearing, if I remember
correctly, the two in question seemed very straightforward and honest.

  Wolf Stahl made a comment at their hearing that I am sure he said,
"What else could 2 clubs mean but a psychic?" when I asked what he meant
by his answer to his opponents of "2 clubs is not part of our system".

  If NS tells EW "I'm pretty sure 2 clubs is a psychic" then whatever
happens (at least if I'm on the committee) NS has done their duty.  Of
course, if a pair is constantly misleading their opponents they should
either quit, play a totally simple system, or be subject to scrutiny or
else.

  Intentional convention disruption is a coined phrase by me which means
a player or pair conveniently forgets a weak bid convention e.g (an
opening 2 spade bid that shows 0-8 and the reds or the blacks) but
really has 2 other suits, or no suits at all and partner always finds a
reason not to bid or otherwise get the partnership in trouble.
Unfortunately this practice has occurred too often among some of the US
high-level partnerships.  Hard to prove, but easy to feel.  It's part of
what I call the poison gas laboratory that our bridge Saddam Husseins
practice.

  Finally, high-level bridge is a difficult game.  Administering it
properly is also tedious and trying.  It gets especially so when an
interested party can think I mean opening 4 spades to prevent the
opponents from using their relay system is wrong in any way.  Maybe that
would be the thought from a 6th grader trying to understand English, but
how can we (I) deal with such trivia and survive.  I can assure you I
can't.  My writings will never be confused with Shakespeare but I don't
have time or the inclination to deal with Mr. DesJardins sarcasm.

Double Holiday Cheers            Bobby (and becky)

--
David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats   Railways   /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697            @ @
<bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk>  ICQ 20039682      bluejak on OKB  =( + )=
      Lawspage:    http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm     ~

  --------------06188CEE00B0C917E7AB5E2E-- --------------A3F03214E106FCF31CE4866B-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 28 03:51:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 03:51:14 +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 DAA08457 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 03:51:07 +1100 Received: from ip7.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.7]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981227165059.NVHC6075.fep4@ip7.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 17:50:59 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 17:50:58 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36865766.164796@post12.tele.dk> References: <36853191.2271506@post12.tele.dk> <3684CA3A.C8D8D2E@village.uunet.be> <3686383A.36B315DA@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3686383A.36B315DA@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 14:38:02 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >My partner had made a call which I consider inferior, and >the result was that we were playing 4Sp. > >No need to play this, he said - 13 tricks, after which we >started discussing the auction. The score sheet indeed >showed that the whole room was either in 6Sp+1 or 7Sp=3D. > >Afterwards we started counting the tricks and it turned out >there were only 12 of them, top ones that is, the thirteenth >obviously coming fro the finesse on the Queen of diamonds.=20 >Now if partner had had the ten, he might have finessed both >ways, and +680 would have been marked. But since he hadn't, >the finesse was only possible one way and we did mark +710. There are two possibilities: either your partner was convinced at the time of the claim that he had 13 top tricks, or he was not. If he was convinced that there were 13 top tricks, then it is not irrational to take them in an order that destroys the finesse position early in the play, and I would rule 12 tricks. In the following I will assume that he was _not_ convinced that there were 13 top tricks. If this was really the case, there may be a large cultural difference between Herman and me. I simply cannot comprehend why any bridge player would make a claim that he did not trust himself. Doing so has nothing to do with bridge; it is at best rude to the opponents (and the TD), at worst unethical; it is a violation of L74B1 and L68C. (L68C requires the claimer to state the line of play through which he proposes to win the tricks claimed. This is the nearest I could find to a law that directly forbids players to make claims they do not believe in themselves. Since it implies that there has to be such a line of play, it does require the claimer to believe in his claim.) It seems to me that there is quite a large risk that the next time your partner claims, the situation will be slightly different: (a) your partner has that ten, so that the finesse is not obvious (or there is no finesse position at all), and (b) your opponents accept the claim without counting the tricks, and you do not analyze the hand further until after the correction period has elapsed. If that happens, you will get a trick that you clearly do not deserve. It is declarer's job to play the hand, not the opponents' and the TD's. Claiming is one way to "play" the hand, and it should be done just as carefully as if the hand was played out. If a declarer does not take the trouble to count his tricks before claiming, then I would assume that it is not irrational for that declarer to also play the hand out without counting his tricks first. >The important bit is that partner never considered any line >of play before claiming, so he could not show his >carelessness in doing so. He has shown quite incredible carelessness by not even counting his top tricks. It is reasonable to assume that he would play the hand out just as carelessly. >The TD (me) considered that he >would not play in any other manner than the one which led to >13 tricks. > >Point being, that not showing that you have considered part >of the play when making your claim should NOT mean that you >were careless there, and should not mean that the irrational >play would now become rational. >Or to put it differently, it is NOT irrational not to >consider the whole play before claiming. In some situations it is not necessary to "consider the whole play" before claiming - but considering how many tricks you are going to get _is_ necessary, and your partner did not even do that. Declarer is assumed to play the hand, including counting tricks and choosing any necessary finesses. Sometimes declarers try to do so and fail, resulting in invalid claims; in those cases the opponents and TD are needed to get the right result. But it is IMO not acceptable for a declarer to not try at all, but just show his hand and let opponents and TD play it for him. Declarers who do so should expect that their play will be assumed to be just as careless as their claims. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 28 04:02:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 04:02:29 +1100 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA08526 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 04:02:21 +1100 Received: from ip7.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.7]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981227170215.NVSC6075.fep4@ip7.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 18:02:15 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 18:02:14 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <368865b8.3831168@post12.tele.dk> References: <36853191.2271506@post12.tele.dk> <3684CA3A.C8D8D2E@village.uunet.be> <368b33fe.5002443@post12.tele.dk> <36863996.1129F06A@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36863996.1129F06A@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 14:43:50 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >You would not, for example, refuse the claim of 13 tricks on >> >: >> >AK QJT98 AK5432 - >> > >> >QJT98 AK 76 A432 >> > >> >because a beginner would have some difficulty of tracking >> >the correct order. >>=20 >> No, but that is a different situation: here there is no >> suggestion that declarer has not analyzed the hand and ensured >> that he could get 13 tricks regardless of the opponents' hands. >> He _knows_ that there are 13 tricks, even though he may not have >> worked out the specific order. It is a valid claim (unless, as >> you say, he is a beginner). > >Why is this different ? > >He _knows_ there are 13 tricks because he can see about 17 >of them, but he has not worked out if he can actually make >13. By your same argument, he could still go wrong here. The difference is that in the original hand, he already has gone wrong: he has claimed 13 tricks in a situation where the number of tricks depend on the opponents' cards. In the simple case above, there is no reason at all to believe that declarer does not know that he has 13 tricks. I find the whole idea of claiming a number of tricks without knowing whether you have that many tricks completely meaningless. Why would anyone do that? >I don't believe it is -as you call it- rude to claim without >checking the whole play. I find it rude to sit there >thinking for 5 minutes with all 13 tricks, all the while >having opponents also thinking about how to make unmakeable >tricks. If it takes 5 minutes to plan the play, then you should play the hand - claiming is something you do when winning the claimed tricks is so simple that it is faster to claim than to play. >Far better to put your cards down, and then work out - both >pairs together even, that all tricks are there. Planning the play of declarer's hand is declarer's job, not the opponents'. Doing the thinking involved (and becoming more tired by doing so) is declarer's job. =46or 4 people to analyze a hand together may be a good and interesting way to spend time, but it is not playing bridge. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 29 00:02:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:02:47 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA10312 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:02:40 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-113.uunet.be [194.7.9.113]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA21731 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:02:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3687656A.ADC54C6A@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 12:03:06 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim References: <36853191.2271506@post12.tele.dk> <3684CA3A.C8D8D2E@village.uunet.be> <3686383A.36B315DA@village.uunet.be> <36865766.164796@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There is one thing in what Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > There are two possibilities: either your partner was convinced at > the time of the claim that he had 13 top tricks, or he was not. > > If he was convinced that there were 13 top tricks, then it is not > irrational to take them in an order that destroys the finesse > position early in the play, and I would rule 12 tricks. > > In the following I will assume that he was _not_ convinced that > there were 13 top tricks. > > If this was really the case, there may be a large cultural > difference between Herman and me. ... that is the crux to this problem. Probably in Denmark, players are always very careful about their claims. In Belgium they are less so. I believe that the Law allows for far more leniency than what Danish players and directors are used to. > I simply cannot comprehend why > any bridge player would make a claim that he did not trust > himself. Of course he did trust it, he was fairly certain, but sadly somewhat overconfident. > Doing so has nothing to do with bridge; it is at best > rude to the opponents (and the TD), at worst unethical; it is a > violation of L74B1 and L68C. > The opponents should find nothing rude in claiming. It stops them fro making silly and normal mistakes as well. > (L68C requires the claimer to state the line of play through > which he proposes to win the tricks claimed. This is the nearest > I could find to a law that directly forbids players to make > claims they do not believe in themselves. Since it implies that > there has to be such a line of play, it does require the claimer > to believe in his claim.) > I don't believe L68C requires the claimer to do anything. Only if he doesn't, he has no protection. > It seems to me that there is quite a large risk that the next > time your partner claims, the situation will be slightly > different: > (a) your partner has that ten, so that the finesse is not obvious > (or there is no finesse position at all), and This frequently happens - and is the best reason not to claim without checking first - but that in itself is not a reason for me to forbid him claiming (as a TD - as a partner, I will tell him to be more careful) > (b) your opponents accept the claim without counting the tricks, > and you do not analyze the hand further until after the > correction period has elapsed. > I would say - their problem, but of course when a player frequently tries this, and not as certain as he should be, I may well treat him even harsher than normal. But that's another story altogether. When an opponent of mine claims without even drawing trumps, I will check quite carefully. > If that happens, you will get a trick that you clearly do not > deserve. > > It is declarer's job to play the hand, not the opponents' and the > TD's. Claiming is one way to "play" the hand, and it should be > done just as carefully as if the hand was played out. > NO IT SHOULD NOT ! Claiming exists to shorten play. That means it can be done less carefully. Of course if there is anything the claimer did not foresee, this will count against him. But he should not be careful just for the sake of it. > If a declarer does not take the trouble to count his tricks > before claiming, then I would assume that it is not irrational > for that declarer to also play the hand out without counting his > tricks first. > These are two quite different kinds of irrationality. You say that careless claiming is irrational, but it is not. So claimer should now not be subjected to irrational mistakes, careless ones are enough. > >The important bit is that partner never considered any line > >of play before claiming, so he could not show his > >carelessness in doing so. > > He has shown quite incredible carelessness by not even counting > his top tricks. It is reasonable to assume that he would play > the hand out just as carelessly. > I don't find his actions incredible, just careless. So his subsequent play can still include careless plays, not irrational ones. Failing to count one suit to thirteen remains irrational, and none of his actions so far, reduce that to just careless. > >The TD (me) considered that he > >would not play in any other manner than the one which led to > >13 tricks. > > > >Point being, that not showing that you have considered part > >of the play when making your claim should NOT mean that you > >were careless there, and should not mean that the irrational > >play would now become rational. > >Or to put it differently, it is NOT irrational not to > >consider the whole play before claiming. > > In some situations it is not necessary to "consider the whole > play" before claiming - but considering how many tricks you are > going to get _is_ necessary, and your partner did not even do > that. > Yes he did, he said "thirteen". > Declarer is assumed to play the hand, including counting tricks > and choosing any necessary finesses. Sometimes declarers try to > do so and fail, resulting in invalid claims; in those cases the > opponents and TD are needed to get the right result. > > But it is IMO not acceptable for a declarer to not try at all, > but just show his hand and let opponents and TD play it for him. > Declarers who do so should expect that their play will be assumed > to be just as careless as their claims. Let's just agree to disagree. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 29 00:27:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:27:51 +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 AAA12604 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:27:44 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA18596 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 08:27:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981228083040.00702408@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 08:30:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:55 PM 12/25/98 +0100, Martaandras wrote: >Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > >Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx >Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x > >Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > I play all the trumps. > >TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. It would be irrational for declarer to play a fourth round of trump, so I will not force him to do so. It would be careless but not irrational to abandon trump and attempt to pitch dummy's spades on diamonds, rather than taking the better percentage play of pitching declarer's spade on a high club, so: 12 tricks unless the opponent with the long trump can ruff either the first club or the second diamond, in which case 11 tricks. 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 Dec 29 00:50:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:50:38 +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 AAA12682 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:50:32 +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 IAA19163 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 08:50:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981228085331.00705aa8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 08:53:31 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:15 PM 12/25/98 -0900, Gordon wrote: >I really wish that all the club TDs of ACBLand were watching this little >thread. Frankly, I have never played in a club where anything other than >"declarer, you are an idiot for claiming, you lose trick 5 to the HJ and >trick 6 to the SK" would even be considered. There seems to be a strong >tendency to punish bad claims to the full extent of the law (which is not >necessarily a bad thing - a bad board is better inspiration to be good in >the future than a lecture from the TD is) and even beyond the law here. >Reading L70D and L71C, I now believe that we award 12 tricks if there is >no club ruff. I pity the poor defenders if this had happened at my club -- >there is nothing in the world that would convice E-W that they don't have >a god-given right to win the HJ and SK. Such is life in my neck of the >woods. There is (at least in the U.S.) a strong feeling among many less experienced, less educated club players that claims are somehow a bad thing. These players believe it is never right to claim, believe claims to be one of the mechanisms by which experts take advantage of weaker players, resent being told by the director that the law gives a player the right to claim (although I've never heard a club director point out that the law encourages claims, which it does, L74B4), and, in many cases, believe that they have the right, as with alerts, to require their opponents not to claim, or to force them to "just play on" after an attempt to claim. The tendency on the part of club TDs to rule as Gordon describes is the result of catering directly to this constituency. 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 Dec 29 06:02:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 06:02:11 +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 GAA13442 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 06:02:03 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA06335; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:01:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-27.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.59) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma006279; Mon Dec 28 13:00:50 1998 Received: by har-pa1-27.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE326A.11E38C40@har-pa1-27.ix.netcom.com>; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:57:56 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE326A.11E38C40@har-pa1-27.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List , "'Eric Landau'" Subject: RE: Claim Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:53:58 -0500 Encoding: 74 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I never thought that I would be defending ACBL club director rulings (except in games I direct of course) but Gordon has overgenralised and overstated the situation. I have found far too many of the ignorant director types he notes...but a surprisingly large number of directors who do undertstand such concepts as "play ceases" and "careless or inferior but not irrational" quite well. While there is a bias toward the non-offending side in a contested claim, I have even seen a proven finesse allowed! The mindset of the poorer players to "just play it out" can often be overcome with some education. Explaining (over and over) that taking good claimers frees up time for thought on the hands where it is needed for BOTH sides and helps everyone get done on time is one they can comprehend. It can be an attitude changer, especially when they are made to see that they are well protected under the Laws for the occasional defective/erroneous claim. If you want to play a 26 or 27 Board Mitchell in 3 hours not 3 1/2, you had best get your people to understand, accept and use claims. For perhaps the first time I find myself in disagreement with Jesper whose posts are usually a model of good sense and excellent analysis. A well intentioned claim is NOT rude, even if the claimer is occasionally not as rigourous as he should be. Claims are a substantial courtesy to everyone at the table and many times to everyone in the room. They eliminate the boredom of mechanically playing out what is foreordained perhaps in the misguided hope of a revoke. This courtesy should extend to doing enough analysis of the situation to be reasonably certain that the claim is a valid one of course. Frequent defective claims slow matters down. I wonder how much of the problem stems from online bridge where the just-play-it-outers can mulishly insist on having their way. Craig ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 1998 8:53 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Claim At 12:15 PM 12/25/98 -0900, Gordon wrote: >I really wish that all the club TDs of ACBLand were watching this little >thread. Frankly, I have never played in a club where anything other than >"declarer, you are an idiot for claiming, you lose trick 5 to the HJ and >trick 6 to the SK" would even be considered. There seems to be a strong >tendency to punish bad claims to the full extent of the law (which is not >necessarily a bad thing - a bad board is better inspiration to be good in >the future than a lecture from the TD is) and even beyond the law here. >Reading L70D and L71C, I now believe that we award 12 tricks if there is >no club ruff. I pity the poor defenders if this had happened at my club -- >there is nothing in the world that would convice E-W that they don't have >a god-given right to win the HJ and SK. Such is life in my neck of the >woods. There is (at least in the U.S.) a strong feeling among many less experienced, less educated club players that claims are somehow a bad thing. These players believe it is never right to claim, believe claims to be one of the mechanisms by which experts take advantage of weaker players, resent being told by the director that the law gives a player the right to claim (although I've never heard a club director point out that the law encourages claims, which it does, L74B4), and, in many cases, believe that they have the right, as with alerts, to require their opponents not to claim, or to force them to "just play on" after an attempt to claim. The tendency on the part of club TDs to rule as Gordon describes is the result of catering directly to this constituency. 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 Dec 29 09:12:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:12:47 +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 JAA13870 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:12:39 +1100 Received: from ip100.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.100]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19981228221230.QJKQ6075.fep4@ip100.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 23:12:30 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Claim Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 23:12:30 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <368a0047.5278690@post12.tele.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: >A well=20 >intentioned claim is NOT rude, even if the claimer is occasionally not = as=20 >rigourous as he should be. No. But "well-intentioned" requires, IMO, that you have at least counted your top tricks so carefully that you would trust that count if you were to play it out yourself. >Claims are a substantial courtesy to everyone at=20 >the table and many times to everyone in the room. They eliminate the=20 >boredom of mechanically playing out what is foreordained perhaps in the=20 >misguided hope of a revoke. I absolutely agree, as long as they are valid claims. When they are not valid, I find it reasonable (and important) to use the specific error(s) in the claim as some indication of what went on in declarer's mind at the time of the claim, and use the result to judge actions as "irrational" or "careless" for that player in that situation. >This courtesy should extend to doing enough=20 >analysis of the situation to be reasonably certain that the claim is a=20 >valid one of course. Frequent defective claims slow matters down. Exactly. I believe that the laws require the claimer to be reasonably sure that he can actually take the tricks he claims. When I count 13 top tricks and claim them, my planned line of play (if I had to play it out) would be to take my top tricks in any non-blocking order - and get only 12 if there really were only 12, because my belief in the 13 tricks may have made me destroy finesse positions early in the play. It seems that when Herman's partner counts 13 top tricks and claims them, his plan would instead be "count top tricks once more, just in case I didn't do it correctly the first time, then make a new plan if necessary". So he expects to be allowed to finesse if after all there really are only 12 top tricks. The difference between Herman's and my opinion seems to be that I believe that the trick count you use for a claim should be certain enough that you would also trust it for playing out the hand. If I play against a player who I know to be able to (usually) count correctly to 13 and who I also know to be ethical (I'm sure Herman's partner qualifies in both respects) and he claims 13 tricks, then I'll check fairly carefully whether there is some bad break he might have overlooked, but I do not always count his tricks - I assume that he has done that himself well enough for me to trust it. Though of course I am partly at fault for not checking carefully, I would find it rude ("discourteous" might be a better word) if he had not done the counting so well that he would trust it himself if he were going to play out the hand - it is rude to suggest that your opponents should trust your count when that count has been made so carelessly that you would not trust it yourself. In the terms of the law, I do not find it "irrational" to trust your first count of 13 top tricks (and therefore get only 12) if you were going to play it out. As I understand Herman, in Belgium it is accepted that claims are more careless than the corresponding trick count made as a preparation to actually play the hand would be, and that the opponents therefore must always be very careful to check it out. Therefore Herman allows for a more careful plan when adjudicating the result than the plan presented as part of the claim. It seems to me to be contrary to L68C and L70E (re-counting your top tricks and re-planning is "an unstated line of play"). If Herman's partner had not claimed 13 tricks, but instead said "We should have been in a slam. I'm not going to play this - there are lots of tricks, let's see how many ..." and shown his hand, I would not mind ruling 13 tricks. That way of claiming is not legal, but in an informal game I would have nothing against it. Eric wrote: >There is (at least in the U.S.) a strong feeling among many less >experienced, less educated club players that claims are somehow a bad >thing. These players believe it is never right to claim,=20 Correct, and that is bad. >believe claims to >be one of the mechanisms by which experts take advantage of weaker = players, That is IMO unfortunately true to some degree - when TDs rule 12 tricks on the hand that started this thread without wondering why declarer claimed 13 tricks when there obviously was a possibility of a trump loser, then the claimer ("expert" or not) may have gained a trick by claiming instead of playing. >resent being told by the director that the law gives a player the right = to >claim (although I've never heard a club director point out that the law >encourages claims, which it does, L74B4), and, in many cases, believe = that >they have the right, as with alerts, to require their opponents not to >claim,=20 I don't think that part of it is a problem in Denmark. >or to force them to "just play on" after an attempt to claim. That may be a result of not learning early enough that claims are part of the game. The fact that many classic bridge books are from a time when you did play on may also have an effect (I love Mollo's "Menagerie" books, for instance, but I hate to think that people may trust what they read there about the rules). >The tendency on the part of club TDs to rule as Gordon describes is the >result of catering directly to this constituency. Yes. But too many TDs also forget to ask themselves "What in the world was the claimer thinking about when he made this ridiculous claim?". The answer to that question often makes otherwise "irrational" actions "normal". Herman wrote: >Let's just agree to disagree. Agreed! Though I believe that earlier BLML discussions have also shown that I tend to rule bad claims a little harder than most BLMLers, I do find it very interesting that Herman and I can disagree so strongly on this point. I hope I've not misstated your opinions in this post, Herman - I trust that you will correct me if I have. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 29 14:47:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 14:47:27 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA14292 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 14:47:20 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zuq7k-00071p-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 03:47:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 03:46:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Grosvenor (also posted to rgb) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have to share this one. Playing against my son, UK under-20 International, (the Rottweiller) in the UK Year End Tourney (pairs side game) we have the following position in the trump suit. Q AK9xx T7x J86x with me South. Richard (the Rottweiller) cashes the Ace and enters dummy to lead the 7. I know if I cover he has a trump loser so I duck. Long slow look, ... "I don't believe you could" ... pause ... King. Got him! Screams of rage! Director call! DWS can verify it A fabulous 24-carat solid gold 100% genuine Grosvenor. The sulking has lasted for three days. He's told the whole Tourney. I've been approached by people I hardly know and congratulated. Wonderful game, Bridge. Gloat hehe snigger hehe Gloat hehe snigger hehe Gloat. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Thief!______ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. | To Q. | |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | Luv D | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ ------- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 29 23:41:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 23:41:03 +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 XAA15153 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 23:40:57 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-185.uunet.be [194.7.14.185]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA09000 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 13:40:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3688C895.718DA234@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 13:18:29 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim References: <368a0047.5278690@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We don't disagree all that much, really, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > When I count 13 top tricks and claim them, my planned line of > play (if I had to play it out) would be to take my top tricks in > any non-blocking order - and get only 12 if there really were > only 12, because my belief in the 13 tricks may have made me > destroy finesse positions early in the play. > Agreed. > > If I play against a player who I know to be able to (usually) > count correctly to 13 and who I also know to be ethical (I'm sure > Herman's partner qualifies in both respects) and he claims 13 > tricks, then I'll check fairly carefully whether there is some > bad break he might have overlooked, but I do not always count his > tricks - I assume that he has done that himself well enough for > me to trust it. > Agreed. > > It seems to me to be contrary to L68C and L70E (re-counting your > top tricks and re-planning is "an unstated line of play"). > Agreed. > If Herman's partner had not claimed 13 tricks, but instead said > "We should have been in a slam. I'm not going to play this - > there are lots of tricks, let's see how many ..." and shown his > hand, I would not mind ruling 13 tricks. That way of claiming is > not legal, but in an informal game I would have nothing against > it. > Actually, that is something like what he did. However, legally, that is a claim, and it should be judged exactly like one, meaning that if he has the 10 of diamonds, he will make only 12 tricks. When something is a claim ("any statement wishing to curtail the play") and it is not accompanied, not by a statement on play, but neither on a number of tricks, then how to judge it other than what we did. You may not like it, some opponents might not like it, but these opponents did not mind. > > >Let's just agree to disagree. > > Agreed! > I don't think we disagree. > Though I believe that earlier BLML discussions have also shown > that I tend to rule bad claims a little harder than most BLMLers, > I do find it very interesting that Herman and I can disagree so > strongly on this point. > > I hope I've not misstated your opinions in this post, Herman - I > trust that you will correct me if I have. not at all. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 00:26:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 00:26:13 +1100 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-005.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA17470 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 00:26:07 +1100 Received: from larochel4-102.abo.wanadoo.fr [164.138.145.102] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Tue, 29 Dec 1998 14:23:43 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199812291323.OAA12478@wanadoo.fr> Reply-To: From: "Noblet-Dominique" To: Subject: Law 28B Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 14:30:16 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1160 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by wanadoo.fr id OAA12478 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bonjour =E0 tous, In the Law 28B (and Law 60 ...), what does the sentence mean: "...before a penalty has been assessed..." ? Why is different from :" before (or after) attention was drawn to ..." ? (Law 62C for example) ? Bien cordialement, PS: I love cats and dogs but i have no cats and no dogs. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 01:08:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 01:08:13 +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 BAA17568 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 01:08:04 +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 JAA00710 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:07:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA09170; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:07:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:07:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199812291407.JAA09170@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Craig wrote: > >>A well >>intentioned claim is NOT rude, even if the claimer is occasionally not as >>rigourous as he should be. > >No. But "well-intentioned" requires, IMO, that you have at least >counted your top tricks so carefully that you would trust that >count if you were to play it out yourself. > >>Claims are a substantial courtesy to everyone at >>the table and many times to everyone in the room. They eliminate the >>boredom of mechanically playing out what is foreordained perhaps in the >>misguided hope of a revoke. > >I absolutely agree, as long as they are valid claims. When they >are not valid, I find it reasonable (and important) to use the >specific error(s) in the claim as some indication of what went on >in declarer's mind at the time of the claim, and use the result >to judge actions as "irrational" or "careless" for that player in >that situation. The actual footnote is: "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, normal includes play that would be careless or inferior for the *class of player* involved, but not irrational." (emphasis mine) This would seem to make an individual declarer's mind at the time of the claim irrelevant. Would this be a correct reading of the footnote? If not, how is the footnote read in the various jurisdictions? Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 02:51:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:51:53 +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 CAA17919 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:51:47 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-190.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.190]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA4429828 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 10:54:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36891CB6.D209912D@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 12:17:26 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Claim References: <3.0.1.32.19981228083040.00702408@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Much discussion has been done about giving the claimer the benefit of the doubt [based on the irrational principle] when the line in the statement would reveal that the line was faulty and that another might be successful. What about when the bad claim is better than a possible substitute [one that does not leave the original in tact] line which is not [and should not be] adjusted in favor of the other side? Such a situation, when curried favor only to the claimer, is a double standard, and an unjust one. I think the original statement needs to remain in tact. Roger Pewick Eric Landau wrote: > > At 01:55 PM 12/25/98 +0100, Martaandras wrote: > > >Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > > > >Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx > >Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x > > > >Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > > I play all the trumps. > > > >TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. > > It would be irrational for declarer to play a fourth round of trump, so I > will not force him to do so. It would be careless but not irrational to > abandon trump and attempt to pitch dummy's spades on diamonds, rather than > taking the better percentage play of pitching declarer's spade on a high > club, so: 12 tricks unless the opponent with the long trump can ruff either > the first club or the second diamond, in which case 11 tricks. > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 03:34:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 03:34:08 +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 DAA17968 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 03:34:00 +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 LAA01539 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:33:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA10755 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:34:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 11:34:03 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199812291634.LAA10755@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Wish List X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I don't expect to have got the hang of > the new laws before - oh shall we say 2007 :)) New rubber laws are due in 2003, aren't they? As some but not all may know, The Bridge World (presumably Jeff Rubens) has suggested that the rubber and duplicate laws be combined into a single volume. The specific suggestion was to organize the laws into a short section specifying correct procedures and larger sections dealing with irregularities. The latter would need two sections according to whether or not an arbiter or TD is available. Is the suggestion of combined laws being given serious consideration? Perhaps an intermediate approach would be to produce a combined law book in 2003 but not adopt it for duplicate until 2007. (The 2003 version could be considered a "beta release.") That way there would be plenty of time for consideration. Producing a combined law book will be an enormous effort, and it's unreasonable to expect the first edition to be without problems. In general, though, I agree that too frequent revisions (and even too frequent revised interpretations) are a bad idea. I'm even willing to live with L25B until 2007. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 04:14:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:14:59 +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 EAA18227 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:14:53 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zv2jG-0004cJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:14:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:03:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Wish List In-Reply-To: <199812291634.LAA10755@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199812291634.LAA10755@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> I don't expect to have got the hang of >> the new laws before - oh shall we say 2007 :)) > >New rubber laws are due in 2003, aren't they? > >As some but not all may know, The Bridge World (presumably Jeff Rubens) >has suggested that the rubber and duplicate laws be combined into a >single volume. The specific suggestion was to organize the laws into >a short section specifying correct procedures and larger sections >dealing with irregularities. The latter would need two sections >according to whether or not an arbiter or TD is available. > >Is the suggestion of combined laws being given serious consideration? > >Perhaps an intermediate approach would be to produce a combined law >book in 2003 but not adopt it for duplicate until 2007. (The 2003 >version could be considered a "beta release.") That way there would be >plenty of time for consideration. Producing a combined law book will >be an enormous effort, and it's unreasonable to expect the first >edition to be without problems. > >In general, though, I agree that too frequent revisions (and even too >frequent revised interpretations) are a bad idea. I'm even willing to >live with L25B until 2007. :-) I'm not so sure that combined laws are a good idea. The rubber bridge laws are written in excellent English, assume the players to be gentlemen not lawyers and leave a lot unsaid. OTOH the FLB ..... -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Thief!______ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. | To Q. | |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | Luv D | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ ------- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 05:23:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 05:23:26 +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 FAA18373 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 05:23:20 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA02243; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 12:21:57 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.45) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma002185; Tue Dec 29 12:21:22 1998 Received: by har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE332D.B813C1C0@har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 13:18:26 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE332D.B813C1C0@har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'axeman'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Claim Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 12:39:38 -0500 Encoding: 35 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: axeman[SMTP:axeman@freewwweb.com] Much discussion has been done about giving the claimer the benefit of the doubt [based on the irrational principle] when the line in the statement would reveal that the line was faulty and that another might be successful. What about when the bad claim is better than a possible substitute [one that does not leave the original in tact] line which is not [and should not be] adjusted in favor of the other side? Such a situation, when curried favor only to the claimer, is a double standard, and an unjust one. I think the original statement needs to remain in tact. Roger Pewick #### I cannot agree Roger. The Laws appear to dictate otherwise and so does common sense. The revelation of a situation that it would be irrational to ignore in the course of following a stated line of play has always been and should be cause to modify the line. The ability to allow a finesse where the other defender shows out in a defective claim situation is a classic example. It would be irrational to play for the drop! We do not want to penalise claimers...we want to encourage them, to speed up the game. The claimer is not an offender. Following the Laws strictly, he is already forced to bear careless and inferior lines of play if he has not stated clearly, correctly and completely how he expects to win his tricks. That is a fair and reasonable penalty for his carelessness in making a defective claim. Excessive rigidity beyond what the Laws dictate is neither right nor desireable. This would be akin to allowing impossible concessions...or enforcing the unofficial policy of "if it hesitates, shoot it." There is no "double standard" here...only one, the one rather clearly stated in the Laws and in the way they have been interpreted and applied for years. I do not think any change is needed. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 06:08:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 06:08:56 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA18442 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 06:08:50 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA08557 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 13:08:12 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.45) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008547; Tue Dec 29 13:07:45 1998 Received: by har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE3334.33A32B40@har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 14:04:51 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3334.33A32B40@har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Grosvenor (also posted to rgb) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 13:51:52 -0500 Encoding: 44 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The acorns really don't fall very far from the tree, do they? :-)) Good on you! But whatever was the director call for? Was he trying to make sure you got all the credit due you? Where are the folks from Bols when you need them! Regards, Craig ---------- From: John (MadDog) Probst[SMTP:john@probst.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, December 28, 1998 10:46 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Grosvenor (also posted to rgb) I have to share this one. Playing against my son, UK under-20 International, (the Rottweiller) in the UK Year End Tourney (pairs side game) we have the following position in the trump suit. Q AK9xx T7x J86x with me South. Richard (the Rottweiller) cashes the Ace and enters dummy to lead the 7. I know if I cover he has a trump loser so I duck. Long slow look, ... "I don't believe you could" ... pause ... King. Got him! Screams of rage! Director call! DWS can verify it A fabulous 24-carat solid gold 100% genuine Grosvenor. The sulking has lasted for three days. He's told the whole Tourney. I've been approached by people I hardly know and congratulated. Wonderful game, Bridge. Gloat hehe snigger hehe Gloat hehe snigger hehe Gloat. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Thief!______ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. | To Q. | |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | Luv D | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ ------- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 07:27:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 07:27:07 +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 HAA18559 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 07:27:00 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-190.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.190]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA4672883 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 15:29:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36895D39.145FD0C7@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 16:52:41 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Claim References: <01BE332D.B813C1C0@har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I will attempt to discuss the concept intelligently. however, in order to clarify what I am getting at I first need the correct ruling in this type of situation since I suspect my discussion probably relies on the outcome. [using the hand offered in this thread and creating a set of defenders hands] > Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, Akxxx LHO Kxxx --- xxxxxxx Qx RHO Jxxx J987 ---- Jxxx Hand: xx, AKQTx, AKJ109, x >Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. >Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > I play all the trumps. > >TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. RHO contests the claim since because of the 4-0 split, "in order for declarer to take the 13 tricks he claimed he has to get to dummy to take the trump [heart] finesse. When he plays a diamond to the Q, I will trump it, play a spade to the king and partner will lead a diamond and I will trump that too. The result should be DOWN 2 not down 1. " What is the ruling and why? Roger Pewick Craig Senior wrote: > > From: axeman[SMTP:axeman@freewwweb.com] > > Much discussion has been done about giving the claimer the benefit of > the doubt [based on the irrational principle] when the line in the > statement would reveal that the line was faulty and that another might > be successful. What about when the bad claim is better than a possible > substitute [one that does not leave the original in tact] line which is > not [and should not be] adjusted in favor of the other side? Such a > situation, when curried favor only to the claimer, is a double > standard, and an unjust one. I think the original statement needs to > remain in tact. > > Roger Pewick > > #### I cannot agree Roger. The Laws appear to dictate otherwise and so does > common sense. The revelation of a situation that it would be irrational to > ignore in the course of following a stated line of play has always been and > should be cause to modify the line. The ability to allow a finesse where > the other defender shows out in a defective claim situation is a classic > example. It would be irrational to play for the drop! We do not want to > penalise claimers...we want to encourage them, to speed up the game. The > claimer is not an offender. Following the Laws strictly, he is already > forced to bear careless and inferior lines of play if he has not stated > clearly, correctly and completely how he expects to win his tricks. That is > a fair and reasonable penalty for his carelessness in making a defective > claim. > Excessive rigidity beyond what the Laws dictate is neither right nor > desireable. This would be akin to allowing impossible concessions...or > enforcing the unofficial policy of "if it hesitates, shoot it." There is > no "double standard" here...only one, the one rather clearly stated in the > Laws and in the way they have been interpreted and applied for years. I do > not think any change is needed. I think there is rigidity which is good and rigidity which is not good. A good discussion ought to clarify such things. I do not think [at least yet] I am contemplating a change in law, but am attempting to clarify it. > > Craig > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 07:28:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 07:28:31 +1100 Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA18574 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 07:28:25 +1100 Received: from default ([195.89.178.81]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 4017400 ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 21:30:21 -0000 Message-ID: <000401be3369$baa65c40$51b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Wish List Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 20:19:23 -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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am told that people are trying to get recognition for duplicate bridge with olympic committees and governments. could it do harm to this if the not gambling game is brought closely together with the gambling game? -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 29 December 1998 18:38 Subject: Re: Wish List >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> I don't expect to have got the hang of >> the new laws before - oh shall we say 2007 :)) > >New rubber laws are due in 2003, aren't they? > >As some but not all may know, The Bridge World (presumably Jeff Rubens) >has suggested that the rubber and duplicate laws be combined into a >single volume. The specific suggestion was to organize the laws into >a short section specifying correct procedures and larger sections >dealing with irregularities. The latter would need two sections >according to whether or not an arbiter or TD is available. > >Is the suggestion of combined laws being given serious consideration? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 08:10:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 08:10:35 +1100 Received: from smtp2.mindspring.com (smtp2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA18630 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 08:10:28 +1100 Received: from default (user-37ka84r.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.155]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA16645 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 16:10:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981229161004.006c8174@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 16:10:04 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <36895D39.145FD0C7@freewwweb.com> References: <01BE332D.B813C1C0@har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:52 PM 12/29/98 -0600, Roger wrote: >I will attempt to discuss the concept intelligently. however, in order >to clarify what I am getting at I first need the correct ruling in this >type of situation since I suspect my discussion probably relies on the >outcome. > > [using the hand offered in this thread and creating a set of defenders >hands] > >> Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, Akxxx > >LHO Kxxx --- xxxxxxx Qx RHO Jxxx J987 ---- Jxxx > > Hand: xx, AKQTx, AKJ109, x > >>Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > >>Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: >> I play all the trumps. >> >>TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. > >RHO contests the claim since because of the 4-0 split, "in order for >declarer to take the 13 tricks he claimed he has to get to dummy to take >the trump [heart] finesse. When he plays a diamond to the Q, I will >trump it, play a spade to the king and partner will lead a diamond and I >will trump that too. The result should be DOWN 2 not down 1. " > >What is the ruling and why? > >Roger Pewick > A well-crafted example. IMO, the ruling is down 2. We don't know how declarer will react when he spots the 4-0 break, but I agree with Eric, inter alia, that it would be irrational for him to play 4 rounds of trumps, and I will not impose that line upon him. Thus I have to consider other lines that might be careless or inferior, though not irrational. Among those is certainly the line proposed by RHO. Indeed, this may well be the best line, depending on the form of scoring, state of match, etc. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 09:19:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:19:27 +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 JAA18742 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:19:20 +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 RAA15377 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:19:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA11070 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:19:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:19:24 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199812292219.RAA11070@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 28B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Noblet-Dominique" > In the Law 28B (and Law 60 ...), what does the sentence mean: > "...before a penalty has been assessed..." ? > > Why is different from :" before (or after) attention was drawn to ..." ? > (Law 62C for example) ? Bonjour, Dominique. I've never seen this discussed, but my guess is that the L28B and L60 provisions apply (the right to penalize is forfeited) if a non- offending player acts after attention is drawn but before the TD rules. For example: it is South's turn, but West bids. South says "Hey, wait, it was my turn. I'll bid 3S." Now L28B gives us no options. Whatever West said is cancelled (but L16C applies), the 3S bid stands, and the auction proceeds to West. Easy! If the language were instead "before attention is drawn," we might have a hard time figuring out what to do when, as above, South acts after drawing attention but before a ruling. L11A might apply, but the TD would have to consider alternatives. I'd further _guess_ that different language is used in L62C because knowledge of the NOS option may affect the card the offending player chooses when he corrects his revoke. In this more complex situation, the TD is offered the option of L11A, but it isn't mandatory. Anybody having real knowledge is urged to correct the above. Happy New Year to all. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 09:48:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:48:38 +1100 Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (exim@nz41.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA18804 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:48:32 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (af06@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.114.243]) by mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #2) id 0zv7vs-00064D-00; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 23:48:08 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA136401687; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 23:48:07 +0100 Subject: Re: Claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 23:48:07 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <36895D39.145FD0C7@freewwweb.com> from "axeman" at Dec 29, 1998 04:52:41 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to axeman: > >I will attempt to discuss the concept intelligently. however, in order >to clarify what I am getting at I first need the correct ruling in this >type of situation since I suspect my discussion probably relies on the >outcome. > > [using the hand offered in this thread and creating a set of defenders >hands] > >> Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, Akxxx > >LHO Kxxx --- xxxxxxx Qx RHO Jxxx J987 ---- Jxxx > > Hand: xx, AKQTx, AKJ109, x > >>Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > >>Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: >> I play all the trumps. >> >>TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. > >RHO contests the claim since because of the 4-0 split, "in order for >declarer to take the 13 tricks he claimed he has to get to dummy to take >the trump [heart] finesse. When he plays a diamond to the Q, I will >trump it, play a spade to the king and partner will lead a diamond and I >will trump that too. The result should be DOWN 2 not down 1. " > >What is the ruling and why? Excellent example. I think the ruling should be down 2. It is irrational not to cross to dummy to take the H finesse. Even at IMPs the play for the overtrick is as safe as the play for the contract. Using the DQ as an entry to dummy sems to be the best line, but this will be ruffed. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 09:56:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:56:20 +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 JAA18827 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:56:13 +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 RAA15342 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:56:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA11104 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:56:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:56:18 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199812292256.RAA11104@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fumble and appeal X-Sun-Charset: ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > (my only quibble is about "deceptive", > which I suspect is a US-UK difference; I certainly wouldn't call David's > obscured "No left turn" sign "deceptive"); >From the online dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary : (This is a Merriam-Webster product, which I believe to be American. Hmmm... checking "boot," the meaning of "an automobile trunk" is given but identified as British.) Main Entry: de7cep7tive Pronunciation: di-'sep-tiv Function: adjective Date: circa 1611 : tending or having power to deceive : MISLEADING Nothing about intent there. > Here's the sort of situation I have in mind: I bid 6S, and LHO (who had > nothing to think about but was distracted by an attractive young caddy > walking by) takes a significant amount of time before passing. Two more > passes follow, and I find myself with 12 top tricks and a two-way guess of > a queen to make the overtrick. I misguess, call the cops, and explain that > since the only possible bridge reason I could imagine for LHO's hesitation > is that he was thinking of doubling, I assumed he held all of the three > queens and two jacks I was missing, finessed him for the relevant queen, > and lost the trick. Do I get my overtrick? I think so. The elements of 73F1 are: 1. false inference from tempo, mannerism, etc. -- yes 2. no bridge reason -- yes 3. could have known...that the action could work to his benefit There's some doubt about 3, and clearly it depends on the hand held and the auction, but in most cases a player holding nothing could have known that hesitating might make an opponent think he has something and thus finesse the wrong way. So generally one could expect an adjustment here. > Does it matter if the auction > was contested vigorously, so that I might just as easily have inferred that > he was thinking of saving? This is harder. We have 1 and 2 easily enough, but 3 may be harder to establish. But it isn't necessary for an opponent to be able to foresee just how you might go wrong, only that the misleading action would be more likely to do you harm than good. So if the opponent holds a flat nothing, he "could have known" that you might play him for some different hand, and that might well be good for his side. Basically, L73F1 resembles L16A in some ways. We don't ask what the NOS did or might have done (in most cases). We ask whether the elements of the infraction exist and whether there was damage. Of course in considering damage, we take into account the inferences that might have been drawn. Hmmm... here's a good problem. Dealer opens 3S, normal preempt. LHO doubles in a voice of thunder, literally pounding on the table, and all pass. The double is described as "optional, two-way values." Declarer plays for RHO to hold most of the trumps and goes down, but the contract could have been made by playing LHO for the trump length (which he obviously had). Everyone agrees to the facts. In the middle of the hand, once the trump situation has been revealed, the TD is called. It will turn out that RHO has passed with a decent outside suit, doubleton trumps, and little defense. You decide that both pass and bidding his suit were LA's, so it looks like the pass is a L16A violation. Declarer explains his play by saying that after RHO passed the loud double, he assumed that RHO's pass was legal. If so, it must show better than average defense, presumably trump length. (In reality, declarer was pretty sure where the trump length really was and that RHO had committed an infraction, but he didn't want to make an accusation before he had seen RHO's hand.) How do you rule? How do you rule if declarer had played LHO for the trumps, but it turned out RHO really had them? (Don't ask me where the loud double came from!) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 10:07:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:07:11 +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 KAA18857 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:07:04 +1100 Received: from modem115.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.243] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zv8E2-0000hZ-00; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 23:06:55 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Dany Haimovici" Cc: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Wish List Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 23:05:14 -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 "Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really understand the situation" - Ed Murrow ======================================= ---------- > From: Dany Haimovici > To: Grattan > Cc: David Stevenson ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Wish List > Date: 24 December 1998 13:55 > ---------------------- \x/ -------------------------------- > > I agree with your and David's opinion that there will be no > "daily" changes of the laws . But I believe that during the > next few years , will be some intensive developments in > the technology of the bridge game - both the table game and > the internet game. > IMHO , both games need a worldwide "constitution"; > and I am not sure that I agree with David for this item...... > But I think that the WBFLC would fulfill its tasks in the best way > if they will start to gather and classify and discuss and.... etc. > the remarks of all people interested to have the best possible laws > in order to enjoy the game and satisfy the necessities for serious > and pleasant contests. I feel that the WBFLC started to walk on this way > during the last months, in spite of the knowledge that there can be many > mines and other troubles...... -------------------------- \x/ ------------------------------ > ++++ Well, yes Dany, I do agree with the proposition that the WBFLC should continue to walk towards laws effective world-wide, and its constitution does in effect require it to do this. But we need to step gently if we are not to smash the whole thing - the ACBL in particular is jealous of its own hegemony within its territory and asserts its right to settle how the laws will apply there; if the ACBL can do that, so can any zone and we have anarchy. So we need to all sit down and talk and work out how we are going to do it. Kaplan studiously avoided the issue - some things agreed in the WBFLC long ago do not seem to have ever arrived in Memphis. But the state of the world is changing; we are all being compressed into one CD-ROM and we now have players arriving more and more to play international bridge who are taken by surprise when they meet up with directors applying international regulations and interpretations that are different from the ones they know at home. We are beginning to look at this question. I have just seen (and commented upon) some thoughts arising from the Lille appeal on a delay of return of the tray; something is gradually moving under the stimulation of the President of the WBF. ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 11:52:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 11:52:19 +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 LAA19061 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 11:52:11 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-113.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.113]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA4865038; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 19:54:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:44:21 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas, Claimer points out that he was playing all the trumps. Well, it turned out that the defenders got the fourth round and that means there could be no ruff. They can cash their spade but I would still have a trump left as control and the entries to take 11 tricks not 10. Are the opponents really supposed to void claimer's statement? Or the TD or AC for that matter? Roger Pewick af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: > > According to axeman: > > > >I will attempt to discuss the concept intelligently. however, in order > >to clarify what I am getting at I first need the correct ruling in this > >type of situation since I suspect my discussion probably relies on the > >outcome. > > > > [using the hand offered in this thread and creating a set of defenders > >hands] > > > >> Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, Akxxx > > > >LHO Kxxx --- xxxxxxx Qx RHO Jxxx J987 ---- Jxxx > > > > Hand: xx, AKQTx, AKJ109, x > > > >>Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > > > >>Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > >> I play all the trumps. > >> > >>TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. > > > >RHO contests the claim since because of the 4-0 split, "in order for > >declarer to take the 13 tricks he claimed he has to get to dummy to take > >the trump [heart] finesse. When he plays a diamond to the Q, I will > >trump it, play a spade to the king and partner will lead a diamond and I > >will trump that too. The result should be DOWN 2 not down 1. " > > > >What is the ruling and why? > > Excellent example. > > I think the ruling should be down 2. > It is irrational not to cross to dummy to take the > H finesse. Even at IMPs the play for > the overtrick is as safe as the play for the > contract. Using the DQ as an entry to dummy sems > to be the best line, but this will be ruffed. If claimer had said they were going to finesse and did not specify how, then the adjudication would call for the suit of entry to be the one that could be ruffed. ps imo it is stupid to make that claim statement. Claimer has earned their reward and punishment for that stupidity. the claim statement avoids down 2, doesn't it? > Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 12:13:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:13:55 +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 MAA19117 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:13:49 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zvACl-00042B-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 01:13:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 01:12:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Grosvenor (also posted to rgb) In-Reply-To: <01BE3334.33A32B40@har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01BE3334.33A32B40@har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com>, Craig Senior writes >The acorns really don't fall very far from the tree, do they? :-)) Good on >you! > >But whatever was the director call for? Well with the Rottweiller, me and a couple of other high profile operators at the table (jointly we probably have three or four of the largest psyche files in the EBU) we requested a TD to keep an eye on us, so DWS wandered over and said "hmmm, I hope we're all going to be good boys ... aren't we ..." so when I grosvenored Richard he called DWS back to complain that I was being frivolous :)))))))))) >I have to share this one. Playing against my son, UK under-20 >International, (the Rottweiller) in the UK Year End Tourney (pairs side >game) we have the following position in the trump suit. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Thief!______ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. | To Q. | |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | Luv D | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ ------- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 12:15:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:15:40 +1100 Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (exim@nz41.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA19134 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:15:30 +1100 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (af06@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.114.243]) by mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #2) id 0zvAEG-00029I-00; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:15:16 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA158920510; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:15:10 +0100 Subject: Re: Claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:15:10 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> from "axeman" at Dec 30, 1998 04:44:21 AM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk according to axeman: >Claimer points out that he was playing all the trumps. Well, it turned >out that the defenders got the fourth round and that means there could >be no ruff. They can cash their spade but I would still have a trump >left as control and the entries to take 11 tricks not 10. Nah, nobody plays 6H for a sure down 1 when he has an obvious 99.9% chance of making. Playing four rounds of trumps when trumps split 4-0 is an irrational line of play. >Are the >opponents really supposed to void claimer's statement? Or the TD or AC >for that matter? In this case, yes. I don't think he could talk me into believing that he thought he had 10 trumps in both hands. Note that we would allow him to play the H finesse if the DQ were an entry and trumps split 4-0. The ruling would be 6H+1 then. >af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: >> >> According to axeman: >> > >> >I will attempt to discuss the concept intelligently. however, in order >> >to clarify what I am getting at I first need the correct ruling in this >> >type of situation since I suspect my discussion probably relies on the >> >outcome. >> > >> > [using the hand offered in this thread and creating a set of defenders >> >hands] >> > >> >> Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, Akxxx >> > >> >LHO Kxxx --- xxxxxxx Qx RHO Jxxx J987 ---- Jxxx >> > >> > Hand: xx, AKQTx, AKJ109, x >> > >> >>Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. >> > >> >>Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: >> >> I play all the trumps. >> >> >> >>TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. >> > >> >RHO contests the claim since because of the 4-0 split, "in order for >> >declarer to take the 13 tricks he claimed he has to get to dummy to take >> >the trump [heart] finesse. When he plays a diamond to the Q, I will >> >trump it, play a spade to the king and partner will lead a diamond and I >> >will trump that too. The result should be DOWN 2 not down 1. " >> > >> >What is the ruling and why? >> >> Excellent example. >> >> I think the ruling should be down 2. >> It is irrational not to cross to dummy to take the >> H finesse. Even at IMPs the play for >> the overtrick is as safe as the play for the >> contract. Using the DQ as an entry to dummy sems >> to be the best line, but this will be ruffed. > >If claimer had said they were going to finesse and did not specify how, >then the adjudication would call for the suit of entry to be the one >that could be ruffed. That's obvious. >imo it is stupid to make that claim statement. Yes, he should play one round of trumps before claiming. >Claimer has earned their >reward and punishment for that stupidity. the claim statement avoids >down 2, doesn't it? I don't think so. Thus far the count seems to be 2 votes for down 2, one vote for down 1. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 14:25:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:25:41 +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 OAA19393 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:25:35 +1100 Received: from modem23.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.151] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zvCGB-00002b-00; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 03:25:24 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Law 28B Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 01:40:04 -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 "Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really understand the situation" - Ed Murrow ============================================= ---------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Law 28B > Date: 29 December 1998 22:19 > > > From: "Noblet-Dominique" > > In the Law 28B (and Law 60 ...), what does the sentence mean: > > "...before a penalty has been assessed..." ? > > > > Why is different from :" before (or after) attention was drawn to ..." ? > > (Law 62C for example) ? > > Bonjour, Dominique. > > I've never seen this discussed, but my guess is that the L28B and L60 > provisions apply (the right to penalize is forfeited) if a non- > offending player acts after attention is drawn but before the TD > rules. > --------------------------------- \x/ ---------------------------------------- > > I'd further _guess_ that different language is used in L62C because > knowledge of the NOS option may affect the card the offending player > chooses when he corrects his revoke. In this more complex situation, > the TD is offered the option of L11A, but it isn't mandatory. > > Anybody having real knowledge is urged to correct the above. +++ I think you are on the right spot. Also there is the Law 9B2 requirement that is relevant and which should be recognized. ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 16:11:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA19557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 16:11:10 +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 QAA19552 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 16:11:02 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-76.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.76]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA5010330; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 00:13:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <368B0753.EF9F75EF@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:10:43 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I will try to make another approach. I am playing for $1000 per point. I have claimed. Play has stopped and I have seen the hands. I can see that if I now attempt to make 6H or 7H the ruling will be I owe $200,000. However, my line of play, a quite stupid one before the claim, would result in owing only $100,000. Your position is that I am irrational for wanting to hold my loss [which I earned] to $100,000 instead of $200,000 [which I did not earn]. I do not grasp your concept of irrational. Is there anything unclear about 'I'm playing all the trumps?' or what the effect is of playing all the trumps? Roger Pewick af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: > > according to axeman: > >Claimer points out that he was playing all the trumps. Well, it turned > >out that the defenders got the fourth round and that means there could > >be no ruff. They can cash their spade but I would still have a trump > >left as control and the entries to take 11 tricks not 10. > > Nah, nobody plays 6H for a sure down 1 when > he has an obvious 99.9% chance of making. > Playing four rounds of trumps when trumps > split 4-0 is an irrational line of play. > > >Are the > >opponents really supposed to void claimer's statement? Or the TD or AC > >for that matter? > > In this case, yes. I don't think he could > talk me into believing that he thought > he had 10 trumps in both hands. Claimer does not have to convince anyone of anything except what his statement was. the TD adjudicates the contested claim. > Note that we would allow him to play the H finesse > if the DQ were an entry and trumps split 4-0. > The ruling would be 6H+1 then. But, wrt your approach, if the club were capable of being ruffed, the adjudication would be that the club would be ruffed...etc. fwiw A minimum, but thorough, statement at T1 might go: 'I will test trumps. If I have a loser I will pull 3 rounds then pitch a spade on a club. If I don't have an apparent loser, then I will pull trumps, entering* dummy with a club if needed- using the diamond as an entry to pitch the spade.' and oh yes- 'and let the tricks fall where they may'. This covers all the relevant points. If there was an entry problem [a void] and I got it wrong, it is the way I would have played it and the adjudication would reflect the appropriate number of tricks. This line will always arrive at 11, 12, or 13 tricks but never ten because the defense can not successfully ruff two clubs- check it out, once RHO has shown up with a spade, It is impossible to be void in 2 suits so two ruffs can not be garnered. If he started with a stiff spade, then he has no entry to partner for the second trick let alone a second ruff. *It is probably a good idea to mention the purpose club entry even though it is obviously to finesse the onside heart- it follows that if the club were ruffed then the SK would have to be cashed else dummy's spades would disappear on the diamonds and declarer's spade would be ruffed with the fourth heart. That the opponents might 'forget to cash their spade' when they trump the club demands that the hand not be claimed until this point is resolved by play. An aside This reasoning shows that using a club as an entry is superior to a diamond which has been suggested by others- not that it matters when adjudicating doubtful points. > >af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: > >> > >> According to axeman: > >> > > >> >I will attempt to discuss the concept intelligently. however, in order > >> >to clarify what I am getting at I first need the correct ruling in this > >> >type of situation since I suspect my discussion probably relies on the > >> >outcome. > >> > > >> > [using the hand offered in this thread and creating a set of defenders > >> >hands] > >> > > >> >> Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, Akxxx > >> > > >> >LHO Kxxx --- xxxxxxx Qx RHO Jxxx J987 ---- Jxxx > >> > > >> > Hand: xx, AKQTx, AKJ109, x > >> > > >> >>Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > >> > > >> >>Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > >> >> I play all the trumps. > >> >> > >> >>TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. > >> > > >> >RHO contests the claim since because of the 4-0 split, "in order for > >> >declarer to take the 13 tricks he claimed he has to get to dummy to take > >> >the trump [heart] finesse. When he plays a diamond to the Q, I will > >> >trump it, play a spade to the king and partner will lead a diamond and I > >> >will trump that too. The result should be DOWN 2 not down 1. " > >> > > >> >What is the ruling and why? > >> > >> Excellent example. > >> > >> I think the ruling should be down 2. > >> It is irrational not to cross to dummy to take the > >> H finesse. Even at IMPs the play for > >> the overtrick is as safe as the play for the > >> contract. Using the DQ as an entry to dummy sems > >> to be the best line, but this will be ruffed. > > > >If claimer had said they were going to finesse and did not specify how, > >then the adjudication would call for the suit of entry to be the one > >that could be ruffed. > > That's obvious. > > >imo it is stupid to make that claim statement. > > Yes, he should play one round of trumps before claiming. > > >Claimer has earned their > >reward and punishment for that stupidity. the claim statement avoids > >down 2, doesn't it? > > I don't think so. Thus far the count seems to be > 2 votes for down 2, one vote for down 1. > > Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 30 20:52:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA20181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:52:35 +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 UAA20176 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:52:29 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-199.uunet.be [194.7.9.199]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA15912 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:52:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3689F3A9.87585C99@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:34:33 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All, This seems familiar, This has lots of reminisences of the "strange claim" thread of more than a year ago. At the time, and after lengthy debate, we came to the agreement that when adjudicating a claim, we should : - follow the play according to (one of) claimer's line - until there is something which tells him that line will fail - then follow (one of) the non-irrational line that is clearly indicated We should not consider the cases where : - claimer fails to notice trumps falling 4-0 (*) - claimer stupidly continues playing 4 rounds of trumps, giving up one. I believe that settles Roger's remark. Really Roger, believe me, and don't open up another thread of 3 months. (*) I know, it can happen, but after a claim, this should be classed as irrational. axeman wrote: > > Thomas, > > Claimer points out that he was playing all the trumps. Well, it turned > out that the defenders got the fourth round and that means there could > be no ruff. They can cash their spade but I would still have a trump > left as control and the entries to take 11 tricks not 10. Are the > opponents really supposed to void claimer's statement? Or the TD or AC > for that matter? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 01:33:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 01:33:28 +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 BAA22894 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 01:33:19 +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 JAA23054 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:32:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981230093427.00702778@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:34:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fumble and appeal In-Reply-To: <199812292256.RAA11104@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:56 PM 12/29/98 -0500, Steve wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> (my only quibble is about "deceptive", >> which I suspect is a US-UK difference; I certainly wouldn't call David's >> obscured "No left turn" sign "deceptive"); > >>From the online dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary : >(This is a Merriam-Webster product, which I believe to be American. >Hmmm... checking "boot," the meaning of "an automobile trunk" is given >but identified as British.) > >Main Entry: de7cep7tive >Pronunciation: di-'sep-tiv >Function: adjective >Date: circa 1611 >: tending or having power to deceive : MISLEADING > >Nothing about intent there. American Heritage Dictionary, a bit more attuned to current American usage than M-W, gives "Intended or tending to deceive; disingenuous." "Disingenuous" is defined as "Not straightforward; crafty." This part of the discussion could move to alt.usage.english, except that that newsgroup has been taken over by its flame wars, leaving little room for English usage. Meanwhile, back at the subject... >> Here's the sort of situation I have in mind: I bid 6S, and LHO (who had >> nothing to think about but was distracted by an attractive young caddy >> walking by) takes a significant amount of time before passing. Two more >> passes follow, and I find myself with 12 top tricks and a two-way guess of >> a queen to make the overtrick. I misguess, call the cops, and explain that >> since the only possible bridge reason I could imagine for LHO's hesitation >> is that he was thinking of doubling, I assumed he held all of the three >> queens and two jacks I was missing, finessed him for the relevant queen, >> and lost the trick. Do I get my overtrick? > >I think so. The elements of 73F1 are: >1. false inference from tempo, mannerism, etc. -- yes >2. no bridge reason -- yes >3. could have known...that the action could work to his benefit > >There's some doubt about 3, and clearly it depends on the hand held and >the auction, but in most cases a player holding nothing could have >known that hesitating might make an opponent think he has something and >thus finesse the wrong way. So generally one could expect an adjustment >here. > >> Does it matter if the auction >> was contested vigorously, so that I might just as easily have inferred that >> he was thinking of saving? > >This is harder. We have 1 and 2 easily enough, but 3 may be harder to >establish. But it isn't necessary for an opponent to be able to >foresee just how you might go wrong, only that the misleading action >would be more likely to do you harm than good. So if the opponent >holds a flat nothing, he "could have known" that you might play him for >some different hand, and that might well be good for his side. > >Basically, L73F1 resembles L16A in some ways. We don't ask what the >NOS did or might have done (in most cases). We ask whether the elements >of the infraction exist and whether there was damage. Of course in >considering damage, we take into account the inferences that might have >been drawn. > >Hmmm... here's a good problem. Dealer opens 3S, normal preempt. LHO >doubles in a voice of thunder, literally pounding on the table, and all >pass. The double is described as "optional, two-way values." Declarer >plays for RHO to hold most of the trumps and goes down, but the >contract could have been made by playing LHO for the trump length >(which he obviously had). Everyone agrees to the facts. > >In the middle of the hand, once the trump situation has been revealed, >the TD is called. It will turn out that RHO has passed with a decent >outside suit, doubleton trumps, and little defense. You decide that >both pass and bidding his suit were LA's, so it looks like the pass >is a L16A violation. > >Declarer explains his play by saying that after RHO passed the loud >double, he assumed that RHO's pass was legal. If so, it must show >better than average defense, presumably trump length. (In reality, >declarer was pretty sure where the trump length really was and that RHO >had committed an infraction, but he didn't want to make an accusation >before he had seen RHO's hand.) > >How do you rule? > >How do you rule if declarer had played LHO for the trumps, but it >turned out RHO really had them? (Don't ask me where the loud double >came from!) My problem with L73F2 is already well known to the group. If we read what, IMO, is too much into Steve's #3, we will rule for declarer in both cases, as LHO *could* have known that declarer *could* be deceived into taking either position. That interpretation means that when a player does *anything* out of the ordinary he is doomed; if his opponent takes a wrong view of the hand and claims it was due to his remark, body English, tempo break, or whatever, we will find that he *could* have known that it *could* work to his benefit -- it *did*, so obviously it *could*, and since it *could*, the player *could have known* that it would. We wind up, in effect, penalizing *any* "remark, manner, tempo, or the like [for which one] has no demonstrable bridge reason" any time an opponent winds up with a less-than-best-possible result. Previously, I suggested that one way out of this trap is to read L73F2 as requiring some finding that LHO's action might have been intended to deceive (notwithstanding the precise literal language, which I believe was really designed to allow us to punish possibly intended deception without having to accuse the offender of a deliberate transgression), but this is not a popular interpretation. In the message to which Steve responds, I was attempting to find an alternative way out of the trap, by suggesting that we infer a requirement that the "false inference" must be reasonable, i.e. require that the NO have some valid "bridge reason" for taking the inference in question. The only alternative would seem to be to accept without question any assertion by the NO that *whatever* he did was based on an inference from the offender's actions. Steve writes "Of course in considering damage, we take into account the inferences that might have been drawn." Does that mean the reasonable or rational inferences, or does it mean any inferences that the NO may claim to have taken for any reason whatsoever? If we take the hard line, we adjust in either case, and we're back to "if it hesitates shoot it". In Steve's primary scenario, we will already have considered (and presumably rejected, or the L73B2 issue would be moot) RHO's potential violation of L16A2. We're saying "Don't worry, if we can't find a way to get them with L16A2 there's always L73F2 to save us from having to give them a PP." Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 03:32:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 03:32:40 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA23292 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 03:32:31 +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 LAA5262970; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 11:34:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <368BA70A.D2CAC460@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:32:10 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <3689F3A9.87585C99@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman, You have stated that the group's consensus is that the TD and/ or the opponents are supposed to change claimer's stated line of play. I need help finding it in the laws. I have found a bit in L70D that talks about what claimer can't change wrt his unstated line of play. I think that it is better to follow the play until the stated line grinds to a halt under its own weight. Is not the essence of bridge the score one gets based on what one actually does with the cards as opposed to what someone else says that the cards will produce? Roger Pewick Herman De Wael wrote: > > Hi All, > > This seems familiar, > > This has lots of reminisences of the "strange claim" thread > of more than a year ago. > > At the time, and after lengthy debate, we came to the > agreement that when adjudicating a claim, we should : > > - then follow (one of) the non-irrational line that is > clearly indicated > We should not consider the cases where : > > - claimer fails to notice trumps falling 4-0 (*) > - claimer stupidly continues playing 4 rounds of trumps, > giving up one. To what point are we to take bridge judgment in adjudication? From claimer's point of view on this hand, even if trumps do not split, there is still a chance that the hand with 4 trumps can also now be void in spades and not able to put their partner in- 12 tricks. In other words, when trumps do not break, there is still hope of taking 12 tricks by the stated line. I have been in many hundreds of contracts, granted that most of such contracts were poor ones, where there were legitimate chances that might make but chose to take the line that while insured going down it also assured going down the fewest tricks. If I had claimed, would I be subject to an adjustment because during the line of play I would discover that I would not make my contract and there were legitimate chances which would fail and lose me additional tricks? According to the consensus, I would lose the tricks. I think that such a policy is wrong. If that means that the consensus is wrong then I think the consensus should change. > I believe that settles Roger's remark. > > Really Roger, believe me, and don't open up another thread > of 3 months. > > (*) I know, it can happen, but after a claim, this should be > classed as irrational. > > axeman wrote: > > > > Thomas, > > > > Claimer points out that he was playing all the trumps. Well, it turned > > out that the defenders got the fourth round and that means there could > > be no ruff. They can cash their spade but I would still have a trump > > left as control and the entries to take 11 tricks not 10. Are the > > opponents really supposed to void claimer's statement? Or the TD or AC > > for that matter? > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 04:44:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:44:40 +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 EAA23620 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:44:33 +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 MAA31488 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:44:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA11518 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:44:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:44:39 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199812301744.MAA11518@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fumble and appeal X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > My problem with L73F2 is already well known to the group. If we read what, > IMO, is too much into Steve's #3, we will rule for declarer in both cases, > as LHO *could* have known that declarer *could* be deceived into taking > either position. That interpretation means that when a player does > *anything* out of the ordinary he is doomed; I agree we want a way out of the "all hesitations gets punished" problem, but I think Eric is not taking "could have known" to be as strong as it is. L73F2 doesn't say "could have speculated" or "could have guessed;" it says "could have known." It's not hard to see how hesitating with a singleton can mislead declarer, so that almost automatically satisfies "could have known." But if, say, dummy has AQT and each defender has one of the K and J, it's hard to imagine how either defender "could have known" that a tempo break would cause declarer to guess wrong. Why shouldn't it equally likely cause declarer to guess right? > In the message to which Steve responds, I was attempting to find an > alternative way out of the trap, by suggesting that we infer a requirement > that the "false inference" must be reasonable, We have recourse to "no adjustment after wild or gambling actions," but Eric seems to be suggesting something stronger. I think it's probably to be found in the "damage" question. Did the tempo break or whatever significantly decrease declarer's chance of going right? If not, there was no damage. This is the same standard we apply to a MI case, for example, and I don't see any reason not to apply it when the "information" is a tempo break or other mannerism. So yes, Eric, I think the false inference must be reasonable in order to be redressable. Or more precisely, the chance of the NOS going right must be _less_ after the OS action than it would have been without the action. The determination of "less" should be based on the estimated skill level of the NOS, just as in a MI case. > In Steve's primary scenario, we will already have > considered (and presumably rejected, or the L73B2 issue would be moot) > RHO's potential violation of L16A2. I think my first example was a L16A2 case. The question is whether you deny redress on grounds that declarer should have used the loud double to get the trumps right. I'm not sure what to do in the second case. That's why I asked about it. I suppose if there is a case for an adjusted score, it has to come from L73F2. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 06:20:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 06:20:13 +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 GAA23869 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 06:20:07 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA19079; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:18:40 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.43) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma019035; Wed Dec 30 13:17:16 1998 Received: by har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE33FE.AE2C4840@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:14:14 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE33FE.AE2C4840@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de'" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Claim Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:13:42 -0500 Encoding: 77 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Crossing to dummy with a diamond to take the marked fineese of the heart seems a potential line of play just as much as crossing with a club...you just have to pick the non-void suit! Taking the finesse before pulling the second round of clubs for the spade pitch will then assure the overtrick even if there is a singleton club. So down two on this (extremely unlikely) lie of the cards. I presume that you meant east to have the fifth club instead of a 12 card hand. As to an argument by south that this line would be wrong because it overrides the claim statement, and therefore he is due 11 tricks, that is absurd. It is clearly irrational to play for down one when the heart void is revealed with the jack onside. How often do you see a 7-0 diamond split anyhow! Were the clubs void in east, declarer also loses of course. Crossing to the board in either suit is post facto inferior...but clearly not irrational. If there is a rational, unsuccessful line available to declarer after his claim, he gets to play it. He is not allowed the self-serving argument that he would continue to play the trumps after the void turned up though, to limit the losses to down one. (If you believe that one, I have some wonderful land in Arizona with a clear view of the Sydney Harbour bridge...owned by a little old lady who only breathed the air on Sunday.) Craig ---------- From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de[SMTP:af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 6:48 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim According to axeman: > >I will attempt to discuss the concept intelligently. however, in order >to clarify what I am getting at I first need the correct ruling in this >type of situation since I suspect my discussion probably relies on the >outcome. > > [using the hand offered in this thread and creating a set of defenders >hands] > >> Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, Akxxx > >LHO Kxxx --- xxxxxxx Qx RHO Jxxx J987 ---- Jxxx > > Hand: xx, AKQTx, AKJ109, x > >>Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > >>Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: >> I play all the trumps. >> >>TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. > >RHO contests the claim since because of the 4-0 split, "in order for >declarer to take the 13 tricks he claimed he has to get to dummy to take >the trump [heart] finesse. When he plays a diamond to the Q, I will >trump it, play a spade to the king and partner will lead a diamond and I >will trump that too. The result should be DOWN 2 not down 1. " > >What is the ruling and why? Excellent example. I think the ruling should be down 2. It is irrational not to cross to dummy to take the H finesse. Even at IMPs the play for the overtrick is as safe as the play for the contract. Using the DQ as an entry to dummy sems to be the best line, but this will be ruffed. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 09:46:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:46:27 +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 JAA24218 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:46:19 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-109.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.109]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA5595813; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:48:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <368BFEA9.4F6CDFD2@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:46:01 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" CC: Craig Senior Subject: Re: Claim References: <01BE33FE.AE2C4840@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com> 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 RAA5595813 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig, This example was for the purpose of establishing what a proper adjudication would be in order to pursue discussion on a related matter. At this point I am not convinced that the ruling is settled.=20 With that in mind I respond to your concerns. I do not feel that holding claimer to his statement is an absurd requirement. I can find no place in the laws that permit claimer to deviate from his line. Perhaps you can. Herman has advised me that the matter was settled almost two years ago by consensus to 'Strange Claim'. The consensus essentially being that if the claim was not valid it is to be discarded. He noted at the time that there were four dissenting opinions, including DWS. =20 Subsequently, DWS responded that given the laws as they WERE he felt the proper adjudication was to follow the statement to the letter until it could no longer be followed [or something to that effect]. I believe that such an interpretation would yield in this example declarer plays 4 rounds of trumps- losing the fourth round. =20 However, he did not stop there. He went further. He said suppose that the law were different: [see below for the snip] He stated [in my words] that he feels that the effect of this law would nullify his interpretation of the L70 as to claimer's statement must be carried through. I interpret this to mean that under those circumstances, the defense would get three tricks in the example. I have not tried to work my way through his proposed 70B4, I suspect that I might interpret as he has done. Mind you, this is different from the approved laws. So back to voiding claimer's statement. You feel that the statement becomes void at trick two when the trump break is revealed exposing the finessible trump. That the natural inclination is for declarer to change course at this point in order to avoid not only a heart loser but a spade as well. You use the term irrational to justify the change in course. Well, if declarer were playing the hand, I would tend to agree with you. However, he is NOT playing the hand anymore because play has stopped for adjudication. 70D says that for those matters not covered in the statement, reasonable lines of play are to be used for adjudicating the maximum number of tricks to the other side. In other words, irrational lines are not to be used to give the other side the maximum number of tricks. How people get 'claimer's statement changes when it proves to be a bust' is a little beyond me even though a lot of highly intelligent people have that opinion. Now, back to voiding the claim statement. After claimer cashes the trump ace, is he able to play another trump?=20 Yes. After the king? Yes. After the Q? yes. After the fourth round?=20 NO. the opponent wins the trick. In this example, the statement breaks down after the fourth round of trump and at this point becomes an unstated line of play and adjudication of doubtful points is called for. The only doubtful point is whether the defense will cash the spade and the law says that the defense is entitled to it. Now. L70E E. Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop) The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal20 line of play; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. This law is quite explicit that if refers solely to unstated lines of play. In this example, the statement breaks down after the fourth round of trump and at this point becomes an unstated line of play. It seems obvious that there are no further doubtful points wrt to a finesse or drop. [the snip] DWS- old- Strange Claim=85 Let us try for a better wording of L70B4, based on the presumption=3D20 that L70C, L70D and L70E are just special cases of L70B4. 4. Decision The Director then adjudges the claim as fairly as possible, following the clarification statement if possible, but allowing for the opponents' objections. The Director shall not consider any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal [*] line of play that would be less successful.=3D20 Note that I have deleted the bit about declarer not getting a second=3D20 shot. When you read the wording above, it is not really necessary,=3D20 because it will be clearly ignored, and it is not possible to stop=3D20 declarer explaining at length: the TD just does not act on it. I believe this to be a reasonable interpretation of the Laws, and I=3D2= 0 feel that, if agreed, it should be included in a future Law book. =3D20 National authorities might consider accepting it as an interpretation=3D2= 0 until that happens. Do you agree? End DWS Roger Pewick Craig Senior wrote: >=20 > Crossing to dummy with a diamond to take the marked fineese of the hear= t > seems a potential line of play just as much as crossing with a club...y= ou > just have to pick the non-void suit! Taking the finesse before pulling = the > second round of clubs for the spade pitch will then assure the overtric= k > even if there is a singleton club. So down two on this (extremely unlik= ely) > lie of the cards. I presume that you meant east to have the fifth club > instead of a 12 card hand. >=20 > As to an argument by south that this line would be wrong because it > overrides the claim statement, and therefore he is due 11 tricks, that = is > absurd. It is clearly irrational to play for down one when the heart vo= id > is revealed with the jack onside. How often do you see a 7-0 diamond sp= lit > anyhow! Were the clubs void in east, declarer also loses of course. > Crossing to the board in either suit is post facto inferior...but clear= ly > not irrational. If there is a rational, unsuccessful line available to > declarer after his claim, he gets to play it. He is not allowed the > self-serving argument that he would continue to play the trumps after t= he > void turned up though, to limit the losses to down one. (If you believe > that one, I have some wonderful land in Arizona with a clear view of th= e > Sydney Harbour bridge...owned by a little old lady who only breathed th= e > air on Sunday.) >=20 > Craig >=20 > ---------- > From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de[SMTP:af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de] > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 6:48 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Claim >=20 > According to axeman: > > > >I will attempt to discuss the concept intelligently. however, in order > >to clarify what I am getting at I first need the correct ruling in th= is > >type of situation since I suspect my discussion probably relies on the > >outcome. > > > > [using the hand offered in this thread and creating a set of defender= s > >hands] > > > >> Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, Akxxx > > > >LHO Kxxx --- xxxxxxx Qx RHO Jxxx J987 ---- Jxxx > > > > Hand: xx, AKQTx, AKJ109, x > > > >>Declarer plays 6 Hearts, spade opening. > > > >>Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > >> I play all the trumps. > >> > >>TD is called as the trumps are 4-0. > > > >RHO contests the claim since because of the 4-0 split, "in order for > >declarer to take the 13 tricks he claimed he has to get to dummy to ta= ke > >the trump [heart] finesse. When he plays a diamond to the Q, I will > >trump it, play a spade to the king and partner will lead a diamond and= I > >will trump that too. The result should be DOWN 2 not down 1. " > > > >What is the ruling and why? >=20 > Excellent example. >=20 > I think the ruling should be down 2. > It is irrational not to cross to dummy to take the > H finesse. Even at IMPs the play for > the overtrick is as safe as the play for the > contract. Using the DQ as an entry to dummy sems > to be the best line, but this will be ruffed. >=20 > Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 10:24:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:24:44 +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 KAA24289 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:24:38 +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 SAA06890 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 18:24:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA11819 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 18:24:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 18:24:45 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199812302324.SAA11819@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was trying to stay out of this one. Oh, well. > From: axeman > I do not feel that holding claimer to his statement is an absurd > requirement. I can find no place in the laws that permit claimer to > deviate from his line. Perhaps you can. If claimer has given a complete statement that covers all contingencies, of course there is no reason to deviate. The problem is what happens if the statement is incomplete -- a common situation. L70A tells us what we are trying to accomplish: adjudicate as fairly as possible to both sides. To me, this means make the best guess as to what would have happened had the board been played out but resolve doubtful points against the claimer. We have to remember, though, that we wish to encourage claims, so we do not wish to judge harshly. Let's go back to the example where declarer says "play all the trumps." One can take this as a complete statement, I suppose, and hold declarer literally to it, but I don't think that's the way it was intended or should be interpreted. A more plausible interpretation is "play trumps unless there will be a loser." Yes, declarer could and should have said it that way, but we don't punish people for faulty claim statements; only for faulty claims. Suppose LHO shows out on the first round, leaving a finesse position if declarer can reach dummy. Don't you think declarer will try to take the finesse? Isn't letting him do so consistent with equity? The last clause of L70E "unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational" seems to require it, in fact, if it is irrational to continue trumps as the original statement contemplated. Most times, declarer will benefit from this approach, but in rare cases (e.g., the putative dummy entry gets ruffed), he will lose. Still, this seems consistent with the overriding equity goal stated by L70A. Isn't this what you think would have happened had the hand been played out? Of course if there are two potential dummy entries with no obvious reason to choose one over the other, the declarer is forced to use the failing one if any. Which entry he would use is a "doubtful point," and it is resolved against the claimer. > Subsequently, DWS responded that given the laws as they WERE he felt the > proper adjudication was to follow the statement to the letter until it > could no longer be followed [or something to that effect]. I think the proper approach is to follow the original statement until some event makes it irrational. That seems to be what L70E is telling us. Of course a line is automatically irrational if it cannot be executed, for example because the lead is in the wrong hand (or in an opponent's hand!). > I believe > that such an interpretation would yield in this example declarer plays 4 > rounds of trumps- losing the fourth round. What we have is a question of bridge judgment: at what point does the stated line become irrational? As soon as an opponent shows out? Just before leading the fourth round, when an opponent has a high trump? Or only after the fourth round is actually led,and the opponent's high trump wins the trick? Bearing in mind our sympathy for claims and the language of L70E, most of us think it's as soon as the opponent shows out. > 70D says that for those matters not covered > in the statement, reasonable lines of play are to be used for > adjudicating the maximum number of tricks to the other side. In other > words, irrational lines are not to be used to give the other side the > maximum number of tricks. How people get 'claimer's statement changes > when it proves to be a bust' is a little beyond me even though a lot of > highly intelligent people have that opinion. The claim statement is voided when the fall of the cards proves it to be irrational. When that occurs is a matter of bridge judgment. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 10:34:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:34:24 +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 KAA24350 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:34:18 +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 SAA07015 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 18:34:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA11831 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 18:34:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 18:34:26 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199812302334.SAA11831@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rubber bridge laws. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Despite all this, I understand that the international agreements on > copyright on the Internet are far from clear and probably legally > unenforceable. In the US, there have been successful prosecutions for distributing copyrighted material over the Internet. No doubt there are aspects of the law that are unclear, but I would not advise anyone to assume that a valid copyright is unenforceable just because the Internet is somehow involved. (I would also not necessarily assume that a claimed copyright is valid or enforceable, and "fair use" may apply sometimes.) As always, if real money or one's liberty is at stake, seek competent legal advice. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 10:52:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:52:07 +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 KAA24404 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:52:00 +1100 Received: from modem31.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.159] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zvVP7-0005W8-00; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:51:53 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "axeman" , Cc: Subject: Re: Claim Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:49:12 -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 "Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really understand the situation" - Ed Murrow ============================= ---------- > From: axeman > To: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Claim > Date: 31 December 1998 05:10 > > I will try to make another approach. > > > af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: > > > > according to axeman: > > >Claimer points out that he was playing all the trumps. Well, it turned > > >out that the defenders got the fourth round and that means there could > > >be no ruff. They can cash their spade but I would still have a trump > > >left as control and the entries to take 11 tricks not 10. > > > > Nah, nobody plays 6H for a sure down 1 when > > he has an obvious 99.9% chance of making. > > Playing four rounds of trumps when trumps > > split 4-0 is an irrational line of play. ++++ Having fun boys? Whatever conclusion you come to there is a need to justify it in comparison with two stipulations of the laws:- (1) Law 70D : there is no alternative *normal* line of play that would be less successful. (2) Footnote: that "normal" may be careless or inferior, but shall not be irrational for the class of player concerned. Would it be "normal" or "irrational" for *this* player to draw all the trumps if he were physically playing out the hand, or would he inevitably stop and change his course of action? The statement of claim does not commit him to an irrational action. We do not seem to have mentioned the law recently. I just thought I would do that. P.S. I recall a declarer's claim for all the remaining tricks based on a trump contract; declarer was actually playing in NT. The ruling allowed him to deviate from his statement at the point when he would first try to ruff, since it would then be irrational to continue playing as for a suit contract; he ended up with nine tricks when had he been in the suit contract he would have made eleven - a small adverse swing at IMPs. ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 10:52:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:52:01 +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 KAA24398 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:51:54 +1100 Received: from modem31.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.159] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zvVP0-0005W8-00; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:51:47 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Fumble and appeal Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 11:14:55 -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 "Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really understand the situation" - Ed Murrow ================================== --------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Fumble and appeal > Date: 29 December 1998 22:56 > > > From: Eric Landau > > (my only quibble is about "deceptive", > > which I suspect is a US-UK difference; I certainly wouldn't call David's > > obscured "No left turn" sign "deceptive"); > > From the online dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary : > (This is a Merriam-Webster product, which I believe to be American. > Hmmm... checking "boot," the meaning of "an automobile trunk" is given > but identified as British.) > > Main Entry: de7cep7tive > Pronunciation: di-'sep-tiv > Function: adjective > Date: circa 1611 > : tending or having power to deceive : MISLEADING > > Nothing about intent there. > +++++ Oxford English: "Deceptive - Apt or tending to deceive; giving a false impression;easily mistaken for something else or as having a different quality. examples: - Keats' letters have a deceptive spontaneity... - - This half light is very deceptive -. I would say the word describes the effect rather than the cause. ~Grattan~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 10:58:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:58:51 +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 KAA24428 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:58:44 +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 SAA07196 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 18:58:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA11879 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 18:58:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 18:58:51 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199812302358.SAA11879@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: slow doubles X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message I seem to have deleted, David Stevenson said that a slow double suggests that doubler is unenthusiastic about playing the doubled contract, and therefore the hesitation suggests pulling the double. He offered as an example the auction 3H-P-4H-...x; P- . Now David claims that second hand is allowed to bid 4S only if pass is not a LA. [David: I'm truly sorry if I have misrepresented your position.] David's general principle seems clear *for doubles that will be left in more often than not*, but his specific example seems wrong to me. Surely the double is takeout and will usually be taken out. (Yes, it will be passed more often than a double at the one-level, but still that is far from a majority of the time for most pairs.) The hesitation seems to suggest unsuitable distribution, maybe spade shortage, or minimal overall strength, or maybe a good outside suit, but I don't see that it suggests bidding over passing and certainly not 4S over some other bid. By coincidence, the November Bridge World offers the following problem: matchpoints, red (your side vul, opponents not), the auction is 4H on your left with two passes to you. You hold: AK K6 KQT83 AK82 . Your call? And a followup question if you double: what will you do if partner bids 4S? I dare say even some experts would make a slow double with this hand. Admittedly the auction isn't the same as David's, but I dare say his auction would produce a few slow doubles too. Do you really think the hesitation encourages a 4S bid? So I would suggest that the rule should be: a hesitant penalty or cooperative double encourages partner to pull. For partner to bid is therefore illegal if pass is a logical alternative. But a hesitant takeout double doesn't in general suggest any action over another. A particular hand and auction may be an exception, of course, if partner can tell that the hesitation is likely to have a specific cause. Happy New Year to all. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 13:44:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:44:43 +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 NAA24778 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:44:35 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-136.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.136]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA5870336; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 21:47:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <386AC6C6.4A171CDE@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 20:43:18 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let me see if I have this right. The claim was irrational to begin with because it relied on there being a trump suit which did not exist. However, when the contested claim was adjudicated, the play proceeded in accordance with the statement until claimer could no longer play in accordance with his statement [where he lost the lead where he said he would trump]. Thereafter, which tricks that would be taken would be resolved by the cards and doubtful points decided in favor of the other side. However, for the doubtful points, Claimer's tricks were not lost by an irrational line of play. I need to figure out what this all means. Roger Pewick Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > "Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really > understand the situation" - Ed Murrow > ============================= > ---------- > > From: axeman > > To: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de > > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: Claim > > Date: 31 December 1998 05:10 > > > > I will try to make another approach. > > > > > > af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: > > > > > > according to axeman: > > > >Claimer points out that he was playing all the trumps. Well, it turned > > > >out that the defenders got the fourth round and that means there could > > > >be no ruff. They can cash their spade but I would still have a trump > > > >left as control and the entries to take 11 tricks not 10. > > > > > > Nah, nobody plays 6H for a sure down 1 when > > > he has an obvious 99.9% chance of making. > > > Playing four rounds of trumps when trumps > > > split 4-0 is an irrational line of play. But when claimer can tell that an adjucation would result in down 2 [remember, play has stopped] if he were to try to make 12 tricks, it certainly would be rational to get down one that would result in playing according to his statement. > ++++ Having fun boys? > Whatever conclusion you come to there is a > need to justify it in comparison with two stipulations > of the laws:- > (1) Law 70D : there is no alternative *normal* line of play > that would be less successful. > (2) Footnote: that "normal" may be careless or inferior, > but shall not be irrational for the class of player concerned. > Would it be "normal" or "irrational" for *this* player > to draw all the trumps if he were physically playing out the > hand, or would he inevitably stop and change his course > of action? The statement of claim does not commit him > to an irrational action. > We do not seem to have mentioned the law recently. > I just thought I would do that. > > P.S. I recall a declarer's claim for all the remaining tricks > based on a trump contract; declarer was actually playing in NT. > The ruling allowed him to deviate from his statement at the > point when he would first try to ruff, since it would then be > irrational to continue playing as for a suit contract; he ended > up with nine tricks when had he been in the suit contract he > would have made eleven - a small adverse swing at IMPs. > ~Grattan~ > ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 17:36:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:36:00 +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 RAA25481 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:35:50 +1100 Received: from modem31.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.159] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zvVP5-0005W8-00; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:51:52 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Max Bavin" , "bridge-laws" Cc: "Patricia Davidson" , "ron endicott" , "Anna Gudge" , "Lynn&Dan Hunt" , "Carol von Linstow" , "john macgregor" , "Chip Martel" , "Valerie Rippon" , "William (Kojak) Schoder" , Subject: Gester hilarious. Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:39:02 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really understand the situation" - Ed Murrow ++++ For the person who may be slightly interested we are happy to report reactivation today of the gester address. It has only taken a change of PC to achieve it. Outward messages from gester will gradually pick up but for the moment the system is grappling with either 1879 or 1880 accumulated emails (variously reported) since our crash. For the uninitiated both gester and hermes are my possessions, gester being alongside my desk in the office, hermes here at home. ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 19:04:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA25810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 19:04:20 +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 TAA25805 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 19:04:13 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.98] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zvd5q-0004DP-00; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 08:04:30 +0000 Message-ID: <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 08:04:19 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >At the time, and after lengthy debate, we came to the >agreement that when adjudicating a claim, we should : > >- follow the play according to (one of) claimer's line >- until there is something which tells him that line will fail >- then follow (one of) the non-irrational line that is clearly indicated > >We should not consider the cases where : > >- claimer fails to notice trumps falling 4-0 (*) >- claimer stupidly continues playing 4 rounds of trumps, giving up one. I am not sure who this "we" are - I emphatically do not agree with any of= the foregoing, since I do not think that it will work in all or even the= majority of cases. To recap: declarer, with a trump suit of AKQxx facing= xxxx has announced that he will make the rest of the tricks "playing four= [rounds of] trumps". Now, as far as one can take this statement at face= value, it indicates that: (a) declarer knows that there are four outstanding trumps (correct); and (b) he believes, at the time of making his claim, that he can draw them all= without loss by playing four rounds of trumps (incorrect). >(*) I know, it can happen, but after a claim, this should be >classed as irrational. It most certainly should not. At the time of making the claim, declarer= believed (incorrectly, but "carelessly" rather than "irrationally") that= he could draw trumps without loss even should a defender hold four of= them. That is what he said, and that is how it should be assumed that he= will play, regardless of the fact that the 4-0 break becomes apparent= after the first round of trumps. I simply do not understand how Herman can= assert that "it can happen" (which, as we all know from experience, is= true) but "it should be classed as irrational" following a claim. If there= were no such thing as a claim, this declarer would - as far as one can= tell from his statement - play HAKQ and another in the belief that he= could draw trumps without loss thereby. What the people who would allow declarer to make his contract appear to be= asserting is that if declarer's stated line of play is "irrational", he= should (somehow) be deemed not to follow it, but to do something= "rational" instead. I see absolutely no basis in Law or in logic for this= belief. Moreover, since it appears to substitute the Director or Appeals= Committee's view of what is "rational" play for the view of the player= actually at the table, it introduces an undesirable degree of subjective= analysis into a situation where none is required. If a declarer has= announced that he will play the hand in such-and-such a fashion, then it= is to be assumed that this is how he would have played the hand if there= were no such thing as a claim, and a ruling should be given accordingly. Of course, none of this would happen if claims were governed (as they= should be) by type 1 rules and not type 2 rules. A claim accompanied by no= statement should result in the loss of any trick that the opponents could= acquire by any legal play of the remaining cards. If the claimer does not= want this to happen, he should state the precise cards with which he= intends to win tricks, and the precise order in which he will play those= cards (from both his own hand and dummy if he is declarer). Claims would= take a second or two longer than they do at present if this rule were in= place. Appeals Committee hearings would be cut short by hours, if not= days, and players would be far less agitated by "unfair" (i.e. type 2)= rulings given by daft Committees who believe that a player who cannot= count trumps while he is claiming will magically be able to do so while he= is playing. Have as good a year as you can manage, in the circumstances. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 19:39:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA25907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 19:39:30 +1100 Received: from mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (mailhub2.ncal.verio.com [204.247.247.54]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA25902 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 19:39:24 +1100 Received: from ccnet.com (h204-247-101-52.ncal.verio.com [204.247.101.52]) by mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA09553 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:39:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <368B3989.D9771F13@ccnet.com> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:44:57 -0800 From: Bruce Jarvis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: list of abbreviations by blml Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To whom - I would like a list of the abbreviations used by the members. Thank you. HNY From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 31 21:32:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA26316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 21:32:13 +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 VAA26310 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 21:32:04 +1100 Received: from phedre.meteo.fr (phedre.meteo.fr [137.129.12.11]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA13025 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:31:27 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 KAA29185 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:30:44 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981231103224.007b0b90@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:32:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Alerting In-Reply-To: References: <367bdfdb.1808109@post12.tele.dk> <36754C30.DD486D00@wanadoo.fr> <367bdfdb.1808109@post12.tele.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:35 20/12/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > I have been asked for a simple set of alert rules [not the original >reason for the posting. OK, I suggested, how about these? > > If I was asked for a simple set of alerting rules I think I would go >for the following: > >#1 If a call has a meaning that opponents are unlikely to be aware of >then it should be alerted [subject to #4 and #5]. > >#2 If a call is forcing when opponents would expect otherwise, it >should be alerted [subject to #4 and #5]. > >#3 If a call is non-forcing when opponents would expect otherwise, it >should be alerted [subject to #4 and #5]. > >#4 After the opening bidder calls again, no double shall be alerted. > >#5 After the opening bidder calls again, no call shall be alerted once >4C is reached. As expected, it's not easy to implement simple alert rules. Your set of 5 rules happen to be comprehensible but I can't manage to tell if they are too simple or not simple enough! Everybody understands the purpose of #4 and #5 but it can't be so easy: unfortunately there exist situations in which a call at a high level or late in the bidding progress, has an unexpected agreed meaning, one which the opponents are very unlikely to think to differ from normal use. For instance, some people agree to exchange natural meaning of "pass" and "double" of adverse cue-bid of their own suit. Aren't they right to be very keen to let their opponents know it in due time? 1D 2H 2S 3H 4H ? Here, Pass would confirm "normal" hearts, and double would require a lead in another suit than hearts, against a spade contract. According to this set of 5 simple rules, it would be impossible to warn opponents in either case. Happy new year to all the kind addicts of the list. 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 ________________________________________________________________