From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 00:17:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 00:17:32 +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 AAA29234 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 00:17:24 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.116]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id PAA23464; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:17:04 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <368B795F.FF641601@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:17:19 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: axeman CC: Grattan , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: <386AC6C6.4A171CDE@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Roger The most important law item is : THE PLAY CEASES !!!!!!! There is NO PLAY after a claim .The judgment if there is an irrational or careless line to loose any number of tricks is a question of judgment .. but NO PLAY . For the specific analysis , based on my judgment (which is the best "LOL" in my opinion , fur sure !!!!) see my former post. Cordially Dany axeman wrote: > > 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 Fri Jan 1 01:09:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 01:09:26 +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 BAA29462 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 01:09:17 +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 JAA20917 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:08:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981231091026.00705924@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:10:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fumble and appeal In-Reply-To: <199812301744.MAA11518@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:44 PM 12/30/98 -0500, Steve wrote: >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. Absolutely not. To do so would be to directly contradict the message we want to send to our players: You should always assume that your opponents are acting legally and ethically at all times, and depend on the laws to protect you when that turns out not to be the case. >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. If we take the above as a general principle, we should deny redress. In this case declarer has gone wrong because he assumed that RHO acted illegally (violating L16A/L16C2) when in fact he didn't. LHO has violated L73A2 either way, of course, but players do do that a lot; it's a common and rarely punished violation, far less serious than a violation of L16. If there are indeed such things as inferences that a player must take "at his own risk" (L73D1), surely they include false inferences based on the assumption that an innocent opponent has acted illegally. The point is that just because a player violates L73A2 and his opponent subsequently takes a wrong view, we don't automatically adjust under L73F2 just because the opponent was able to come up with some rationalization for why it was the L73A2 violation that caused him to go wrong. To do so would be to make L73D1 meaningless. Granted, some have, in effect, argued that L73D1 *is* meaningless, as *any* variation "*may* work to the benefit of their side", so there is no "otherwise", but I don't buy it. However, if you substitute L73D2 for L73A2 in the above, then it works (i.e. we should adjust). I know I'm in the minority, but my reading of L73, influenced by the way that that law has evolved over the decades, is still that the intent of L73F2 is to provide redress for damage caused by actions that appear to have violated L73D2. It's not a coincidence that the inevitably cited "classic" example of an action that justifies a L73F2 adjustment is a hesitation with a singleton, and that that happens to be the same action that TFLB explicitly gives as an example of a L73D2 violation. 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 Jan 1 02:01:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 02:01:42 +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 CAA29880 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 02:01:36 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-103.uunet.be [194.7.13.103]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA20559 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:01:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <368B8A06.A16024F1@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:28:22 +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> <3689F3A9.87585C99@village.uunet.be> <368BA70A.D2CAC460@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Roger, axeman wrote: > > 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. > Read L70D again : The TD shall not accept any line not embraced in the original clarification statement IF there is an alternative normal line of play. So if there is no alternative NORMAL line of play, the TD can (and should) accept the one normal line. > 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? > True, if the claimer were always stating an exact line. But what if declarer does NOT state any line ? Are you then forcing him to use a non-normal line, just because he did not say anything. No you don't. Similarly, if he has stated something resembling a line, but from the rest of the cards, it becomes clear that this is not to be considered a "normal" line, you should not force him to follow it nevertheless. L70E has two examples in which this principle is clearly outlined. I believe (and most agree) that this is only a general principle and that one should follow the original stated line only to the point at which it becomes non-normal; and that all reverts to the TD after that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 02:01:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 02:01:46 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA29882 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 02:01:38 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-103.uunet.be [194.7.13.103]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA20568 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:01:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <368B8D1D.C3810987@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:41:33 +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> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > 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 seem to recall that claimer only said "playing trumps". If someone with only 3 high trumps says, "4 times trump", that would IMO be irrational, so if claimer actually says it, he has now made an irrational line part of his claim and he should stick to it. When he does not state a number of high trump tricks, 4 trump tricks are IMO "irrational". That should settle my remarks on your post, but let's read on anyway. > >(*) 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. > Because people sometimes do irrational things, but they are deemed not to do irrational things after a claim. Your statement above is an irrational claim, not irrational play after a claim. An irrational claim should stand, but a careless claim should not be judged with irrational plays in it. > 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. Because declarer's stated line only BECOMES irrational when actually playing it out. Forgetting to deal with bad breaks at the time of claiming is careless, not irrational. 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. Some people actually want to abolish claims altogether. That is not the correct way forward. > > Have as good a year as you can manage, in the circumstances. Same to you ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 03:41:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 03:41:50 +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 DAA00489 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 03:41:40 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-58.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.58]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA6352573; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 11:44:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <386B8AF3.518787F3@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:40:19 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dany Haimovici , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: <386AC6C6.4A171CDE@freewwweb.com> <368B795F.FF641601@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany, Is it correct to say that claimer's statement establishes what cards he is to play [and ostensibly when]? Your post indicates that this is incorrect. However, presuming it is correct anyway: Once the claim [AARGHHHH! We omniscient bridge experts know we had better test trumps before doing something this stupid] has been made, arguably the claim statement is claimer's 'last play' since play ceases. For the case under scrutiny, that means that claimer is committed to play five hearts. He did not state the order, but 70D says that he is not held to an irrational order so 70D says that they are played from the top. With the ace [ AARGHHHH! The claim is discovered faulty. We omniscient TDs knew it was faulty when on the first trump but that is not yet relevant.], king, queen there is no problem. The fourth round is a problem because it is won by an opponent which stops the line of play. What is relevant is that NOW we must find out how faulty. Claimer had made no further statement so this is where his line of play is unstated. Let's say LHO won the trick and RHO has the good spades. If the defenders do not cash their spade now, it would be irrational for claimer to not take the remaining tricks so they get their spade now PROVIDED they can-----. Now continue. Claimer still has a trump left and it would be irrational for him to not trump the third spade so he gets to. He can take the remaining tricks and it is irrational to not do so he gets them. I think this adjudication is in strict accordance with the laws. It is equitable to claimer because his statement was carried through for as long as it was valid. It is equitable to the opponents because they received every trick that it was possible to take in accordance with the laws. I have looked up Dany's ruling and it discards claimer's statement without executing it [in toto]. This deprives claimer the 'benefit' of his [bad] claim statement as well as deprives the opponents the 'benefit' of his [bad] claim statement. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 04:11:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 04:11:31 +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 EAA00614 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 04:11:22 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.241] by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zvldH-0000yL-00; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:11:35 +0000 Message-ID: <199812311711270790.0BDF3FFF@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <368B8D1D.C3810987@village.uunet.be> References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <368B8D1D.C3810987@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:11:27 +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: [snip of familiar stuff] >I seem to recall that claimer only said "playing trumps". >If someone with only 3 high trumps says, "4 times trump", >that would IMO be irrational, so if claimer actually says >it, he has now made an irrational line part of his claim and >he should stick to it. Quote from the original message: "Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: I play all the trumps." This is not a statement that would be made by a declarer whose native= tongue was English, and I do not know for certain what its exact import= might have been in its original language. If it were treated as an English= sentence, it would imply that declarer intended to play five rounds of= trumps (which would not be irrational in the context of the whole hand -= it would reduce the play to no trumps, but there were 13 tricks in that= denomination also). What it very probably meant was that declarer would= draw trumps in as many rounds as necessary - that is, he believed that he= could draw all the enemy trumps without loss. I see no reason why, having= made a statement to that effect in his claim, he should be deemed to= deviate from it during the (hypothetical) play following the claim. >When he does not state a number of high trump tricks, 4 >trump tricks are IMO "irrational". I think we need a definition of "irrational" before we can make much more= progress. Dictionary definitions are not actually helpful, since= "irrational" is defined as "not rational" and "rational" is defined as "of= the reason, agreeable to reason, sane...". This does not really allow us= to define the word in the context of the Laws of bridge. I think that a play may be defined as rational if, at the time of making it= (or claiming that he would make it), a player had either: a positive= reason for making it, or no positive reason for not making it. Moreover,= this "reason" (or absence of reason) should be identified in terms of what= the player himself perceived, not in terms of what other people might= consider "rational" play. If, for example, your last two cards are the AK of a suit, you have no= positive reason for playing one before the other, hence either play is= "rational". If you have AQ of a suit, and you believe that the king has= been played, you have again no positive reason for playing the ace before= the queen, so either play is "rational". If you were to make a claim on= the basis that both cards were high, I believe that an opponent with the= singleton king would be entitled to make a trick with it. Now, I suspect that this point is the basis of most of the problems with= claims. I am sure there are those who think that, in the second case where= declarer's last two cards are AQ, it would in fact be irrational to play= the queen first. Such people are (presumably) of the opinion that it is= irrational not to take a precaution against one's own belief being wrong,= since one knows from experience that one occasionally has mistaken= beliefs. Hence, a declarer with AQ who believes that the king has been= played does have a positive reason for not playing the queen first - the= reason being that his belief about the king may be an error. I have a great deal of symapthy with this as a point of view; it conforms= with reality to a greater extent than the alternative. However, as I have= said before, there is absolutely no reason at all why the Laws of a game= should have to resonate with everyday experience. The fundamental= requirements of a set of Laws for a game is that they be: comprehensible,= consistent, and - above all - easy to administer objectively. The Laws of= bridge are not very comprehensible, but bridge is a complex game. They are= fairly consistent - where they are not, this is almost always due to= fudging in order to protect rabbits from themselves. They are very= difficult to administer objectively, and that is one of the reasons why= bridge is not a more popular game. The difficulty with the second approach - that it is irrational for a= player not to safeguard against his own erroneous belief if he can - may= perhaps be illustrated by an example. Declarer in a spade contract has= four cards left - the AKQ of hearts, and a spade. He believes that all the= trumps have been drawn, and thus that his hand is high. What constitutes= "rational" play for declarer in these circumstances? My belief is that declarer has no reason to play any of his cards before= any of the others, so that if he makes a claim and a defender has a spade= left, declarer is deemed to lose as many tricks as possible contingent= upon the relative sizes of that spade and his own. I asked this very= question some while ago in order to check my understanding, and there was= complete unanimity among those who answered that the position was as I= have stated. However, those who subscribe to the notion that it is= "irrational" to fail to take precautions against your own erroneous= beliefs have a problem with this case. If declarer's spade were the ace, some people would say that it would be= "irrational" for declarer not to cash that card first - "just in case" -= before playing hearts. If, on the other hand, declarer's spade were the= two, it would be "irrational" for declarer to play it first - just in case= an opponent could win it and cash the rest of the tricks. In other words,= in the first case it would be irrational not to play a spade first, in the= second it would be irrational to play one - and for exactly the same= reason: that declarer's belief about the spade suit might be wrong. This in itself may sound paradoxical, but it is not. The question is,= though: how high does declarer's spade have to be before it becomes= irrational for him to play it before playing hearts? Of course, this will= depend on context. If the contract is a small slam, and declarer can= afford to lose a trick, it is "irrational" for him to play the spade first= unless it is the ace; if the contract is a grand slam, it is "irrational"= for him not to play the spade first unless it is the deuce. I do not believe that players should have to play a game, and referees= should have to administer one, where such legal complexities are possible.= How is anyone below the rank of expert supposed to understand that in= certain circumstances it will be deemed "rational" to play the six of= spades, while in others it will not, though the two cases appear= identical? Instead, I believe that players should have to play a game that= is as simple as we can make it. For that reason, I believe that either: The term "irrational" should be given a clear definition by the lawmakers,= so that it can be interpreted consistently; or The laws regarding claims should be changed so that the opponents of a= claimer receive all tricks that they could obtain by legal play of the= remaining cards, unless the claim has specified which cards will win= tricks and in which order they will be played. Those of you who have read my earlier messages will know that I am in= favour of the second option, but I would be happy with the first if a= suitable definition could be found - I would even volunteer to provide one= myself. >That should settle my remarks on your post, but let's read >on anyway. Not quite settled yet, I'm afraid! >Because people sometimes do irrational things, but they are >deemed not to do irrational things after a claim. >Your statement above is an irrational claim, not irrational >play after a claim. An irrational claim should stand, but a >careless claim should not be judged with irrational plays in >it. > Very well. Is a claim to the effect that "I can draw all the trumps" with= AKQxx facing xxxx careless or irrational? >> 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. > >Because declarer's stated line only BECOMES irrational when actually= playing it out. >Forgetting to deal with bad breaks at the time of claiming is careless,= not irrational. It may then be assumed that a declarer who claims "carelessly" will= continue to play "carelessly". I refuse to believe that the Laws allow a= player, who thinks he can draw trumps in the given position before he= plays a card, to be allowed to realise that he cannot after he has played= one. That assumption, rather than anything else about this case, is truly= "irrational" - not of the reason, not agreeable to reason, insane. >Some people actually want to abolish claims altogether. >That is not the correct way forward. I would not be averse to it, though I do not believe that it would actually= be helpful in the general run of events. Claims are a valuable way to save= time at the table, and time is a much-valued commodity. Disputed claims= are a valueless way to waste time, and engender poor sportsmanship and= ill-feeling. Let us, therefore, retain the concept of a claim, but remove= the causes of dispute. Predictably enough, a claim is a type 1 process= that works perfectly until it becomes circumscribed by type 2 legislation.= The remedy is, I would have thought, obvious. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 04:13:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 04:13:57 +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 EAA00645 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 04:13:50 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-58.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.58]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA6422875; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:16:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <386B9282.65EAC35@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:12:34 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws CC: Herman De Wael Subject: Re: Claim References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <3689F3A9.87585C99@village.uunet.be> <368BA70A.D2CAC460@freewwweb.com> <368B8A06.A16024F1@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman, L70E does not deal with stated lines of play. It is unequivocal on the matter. On to 70D 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 normal20 line of play that would be less successful. What does 'line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement' mean? It means that you talking about only lines of play outside of the original statement [this is what I have been saying all along]. It says nothing about changing the original statement. That big IF clause at the end pertains to the case where during your stated line you find out something relevant . You have stopped executing the statement because it has literally broken down. You are in unstated territory. Therefore you have knowledge which prevents imposing otherwise normal lines that would fail [they are irrational because of that knowledge]. L70D establishes what to do /what not to do wrt to unstated lines of play. It does not say that the original statement is subject to change, irrational or not. To do so is to open up endless possibilities. The clarification statement establishes what claimer is committed to do. Claimer made this commitment of his own free will. However, everything else is unstated. If claimer's instructions are executed in total, the claim is valid. At the point claimer's instructions are impossible to execute because the cards do not permit their execution, then the claim is faulty and you are now in unstated line of play territory. The unstated line of play territory is what is adjudicated. The claim statement is certain- it is either proven right or wrong by testing it. It matters not whether the statement is a stupid one or a brilliant one. The fact that a statement is wrong does not mean that it disappears. It must be executed up through the point it fails. To adjudicate otherwise is to set the precedent that an opponent can throw out a perfectly valid claim which works because it states an irrational line of play. The result is that claimer would be forced to take a 'rational line' which fails. Roger Pewick Herman De Wael wrote: > > Hi Roger, > > axeman wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Read L70D again : The TD shall not accept any line not > embraced in the original clarification statement IF there is > an alternative normal line of play. > > So if there is no alternative NORMAL line of play, the TD > can (and should) accept the one normal line. > > > 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? > > > > True, if the claimer were always stating an exact line. > > But what if declarer does NOT state any line ? > > Are you then forcing him to use a non-normal line, just > because he did not say anything. No you don't. > Similarly, if he has stated something resembling a line, but > from the rest of the cards, it becomes clear that this is > not to be considered a "normal" line, you should not force > him to follow it nevertheless. > > L70E has two examples in which this principle is clearly > outlined. > I believe (and most agree) that this is only a general > principle and that one should follow the original stated > line only to the point at which it becomes non-normal; and > that all reverts to the TD after that. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 04:33:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 04:33:47 +1100 Received: from mh2.cts.com (mh2.cts.com [209.68.192.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA00818 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 04:33:42 +1100 Received: from king.cts.com (root@king.cts.com [198.68.168.21]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA25479 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:33:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from sd.cts.com (root@sd.cts.com [192.188.72.28]) by king.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA16477 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:33:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from user by sd.cts.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0zvlyX-00006BC; Thu, 31 Dec 98 09:33 PST Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19981231093436.007ab100@sd.cts.com> X-Sender: flimflam@sd.cts.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) with Spelling Checker Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:34:36 -0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Fred Flam Subject: Alerting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems to me that the emphasis is misplaced. If the use of Law 20(F) were stressed then a simple universal set of alert regulations would serve very well. Against unfamiliar opponents, or following a complicated auction, players should be encouraged to ask at the end of the auction: "All calls natural and without hidden meaning?" Complicated alert regulations seem to assume that Law 20(F) does not exist. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 04:37:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 04:37:42 +1100 Received: from mh2.cts.com (mh2.cts.com [209.68.192.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA00862 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 04:37:36 +1100 Received: from king.cts.com (root@king.cts.com [198.68.168.21]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA26188 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:37:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from sd.cts.com (root@sd.cts.com [192.188.72.28]) by king.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA17144 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:37:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from user by sd.cts.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0zvm2J-00006mC; Thu, 31 Dec 98 09:37 PST Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19981231093831.007b4c40@sd.cts.com> X-Sender: flimflam@sd.cts.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) with Spelling Checker Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:38:31 -0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Fred Flam Subject: Alerting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:34:36 -0800 >To: LAWS >From: Fred Flam >Subject: Alerting > >It seems to me that the emphasis is misplaced. If the use of Law 20(F) were stressed then a simple universal set of alert regulations would serve very well. Against unfamiliar opponents, or following a complicated auction, players should be encouraged to ask at the end of the auction: "All calls natural and without hidden meaning?" Complicated alert regulations seem to assume that Law 20(F) does not exist. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 05:11:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 05:11:39 +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 FAA01023 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 05:11:32 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-58.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.58]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA6335822 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:14:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <386BA006.752D7350@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 12:10:14 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think this is what I have been saying, though not so forcefully. Roger Pewick David Burn wrote: > > 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. However, I am far less than sure that the following approach is a good one. The irrational restriction seems to be best here. : '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.' From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 09:46:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 09:46:11 +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 JAA02452 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 09:46:00 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zvqqk-0001xI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 22:45:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 21:36:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: list of abbreviations by blml References: <368B3989.D9771F13@ccnet.com> In-Reply-To: <368B3989.D9771F13@ccnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce Jarvis wrote: >To whom - I would like a list of the abbreviations used by the members. Hi Bruce - nice to see you. Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn BTW By the way C WBF Laws Committee C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from OKBridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn IIRC If I remember correctly IMHO In my humble opinion [included under protest] IMO In my opinion LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side NP No problem OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OKBD OKBridge discussion group OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] r.g.b. rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] rgbo rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from OKBridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for Unacceptable Behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3Ha 3H alerted Emails only: FFTQFTE Feel free to quote from this email The above may also be found on my Bridgepage specifically at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/usenet_br.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 Fri Jan 1 09:46:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 09:46:08 +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 JAA02449 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 09:45:57 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zvqqj-0001xF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 22:45:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 20:03:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <368a0047.5278690@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <368a0047.5278690@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >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. Jesper: we all make mistakes at this game, even in counting. Are you saying that when ever I miscount I am being rude? There is no suggestion that the claimer *intended* to miscount. [s] >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. Of course - and then when you play it out you somethimes find you miscounted! -- 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 Jan 1 09:46:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 09:46:09 +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 JAA02450 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 09:46:00 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zvqqk-0001xH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 22:45:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 20:20:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <368B8D1D.C3810987@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <368B8D1D.C3810987@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 Burn wrote: >>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". >I seem to recall that claimer only said "playing trumps". "I play all the trumps." -- 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 Jan 1 09:46:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 09:46:09 +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 JAA02451 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 09:46:00 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zvqqk-0001xG-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 22:45:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 20:59:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <01BE33FE.AE2C4840@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com> <368BFEA9.4F6CDFD2@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: <368BFEA9.4F6CDFD2@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: >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. Well, I can! L70D makes it quite clear that alternative lines are to be considered so long as there is no less successful normal line. But what is the point of all this discussion? Surely we know that we adjudicate claims on the basis of L70A and not on the basis of how can we screw claimer. >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. At the end of that thread I was convinced by other arguments and thus changed my position. However I do not think this thread has any connection: the positions are not comparable. >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. Exactly: shows I was wrong, doesn't it! Let's forget what I said at another time about an incomparable position. Let me at the very least summarise this one. Declarer said "I play all the trumps". Now, there are two possibilities, so let me list them. [1] He thought three rounds would draw them, ie he thought he had ten. What of his claim then? Probably it is reasonable that we would allow it if he can get rid of his spade losers either on the clubs or the diamonds, and also if the player with the last trump has no more spades: but most of the time he loses another trick. Why? Because if he was playing it out this is what he would do - and that is what L70A is all about. [2] He knew there were four trumps, but assumed casually that three rounds would draw them. Now we follow L70A by trying to rule as we would expect him to actually play if he had played the hand out. That means [unless we assume him to be an idiot] that after three rounds of trumps he would try to get his spade loser away on the clubs. So we give him the slam making unless this fails. Why not on the diamonds? That is so much more against the odds that it does not qualify as a "normal" line. Any attempt to rule under [2] by making him play four rounds of trumps is just not following the words or intent of L70. It is not "... as equitably as possible to both sides ...". It is not a normal play. If you believe [as I assumed when first posting to this thread] that declarer knows there are four outstanding trumps then you should allow the slam unless the first round of clubs will be ruffed from a holding of four trumps. However, [1] is more interesting. One poster said that as declarer had said "I will draw four rounds of trumps" that he should be made to follow this line. Perhaps he should if he had said that, but since he did not he does not have to! The problem is a simple one: after declarer cashes three rounds and *assuming he now believes there to be no trumps out* what normal lines are there? Would playing another trump be normal? Cashing the diamonds rather than the clubs to discard the spade loser - is that normal? I am less sure of this. My own feeling is that playing a fourth trump is not normal [what would be the point? You don't check for lurkers in a way that would take you off if you found one!]. However, I believe playing the diamonds first is normal. So, my ruling is that [assuming the defender with the fourth trump has a second spade] [3] If I believe that declarer knows there are four trumps out, then he gets the slam unless the first club is ruffed [4] If I do not believe that declarer knows there are four trumps out, then he gets the slam unless the first club or any of the diamonds are ruffed. axeman wrote: >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? The essence of Bridge is that you follow the Laws of the game, rather than precepts that have exceptions. This is just as bad as quoting the Scope of the Laws to try and prove that Procedural Penalties are illegal. -- 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 Jan 1 10:08:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 10:08:13 +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 KAA02673 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 10:08:06 +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 SAA12462 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 18:08:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA12658 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 18:08:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 18:08:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199812312308.SAA12658@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > To recap: declarer, with a trump suit of AKQxx facing xxxx The discussions have not all been consistent. In some, declarer's trumps were assumed to be AKQTx. > 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, Not exactly. See Herman's remarks quoted below. > Of course, none of this would happen if claims were governed (as they > should be) by type 1 rules and not type 2 rules. Yes, this would simplify rulings. It would also discourage claims. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the overall effect would be good or bad. > From: Herman De Wael > An irrational claim should stand, but a > careless claim should not be judged with irrational plays in it. This is the best statement of the general principle I have seen. > Because declarer's stated line only BECOMES irrational when > actually playing it out. And now L70E applies. > Forgetting to deal with bad breaks at the time of claiming > is careless, not irrational. Does anybody disagree with this? David Burn again: > Quote from the original message: > "Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > I play all the trumps." > This is not a statement that would be made by a declarer whose native > tongue was English, and I do not know for certain what its exact import > might have been in its original language. Yes, this is a problem. Even when everyone speaks the same language we have to rule on the basis of what declarer meant (insofar as we can determine it), not on the basis of what he said. > I think that a play may be defined as rational if, at the time of > making it (or claiming that he would make it), a player had either: a > positive reason for making it, or no positive reason for not making it. > Moreover, this "reason" (or absence of reason) should be identified in > terms of what the player himself perceived, not in terms of what other > people might consider "rational" play. This seems reasonable, at least at first glance. > If, for example, your last two cards are the AK of a suit, you have no > positive reason for playing one before the other, hence either play is > "rational". Agreed. > If you have AQ of a suit, and you believe that the king has > been played, you have again no positive reason for playing the ace > before the queen, so either play is "rational". Oh? What if the two cards are A2, and one card is still out? I thought it was settled that suits are "rationally" played from top down unless there is a blockage or some other specific reason to do otherwise. > Declarer in a spade contract > has four cards left - the AKQ of hearts, and a spade. He believes that > all the trumps have been drawn, and thus that his hand is high. What > constitutes "rational" play for declarer in these circumstances? Again, I thought it was settled that if declarer makes no statement, he plays suits he believes to be good in any order. L70C seems to be pretty specific if one of the suits is trumps. If not, we must rely on 70D, but I think we get the same answer. > The term "irrational" should be given a clear definition by the > lawmakers, so that it can be interpreted consistently; One can hardly object to this! > From: axeman > Is it correct to say that claimer's statement establishes what cards he > is to play [and ostensibly when]? Yes, provided you interpret the _meaning_ of the statement, not what the words literally say. L70A tells us to deny careless claims but not careless statements. The obvious example is that "playing trumps" means "playing trumps from the top down but not blocking the suit," at least in simple cases. If trumps are K2 opposite AQJT9, would anybody rule that they must be played in order A then K? I certainly hope not! > For the case under scrutiny, that means that claimer is > committed to play five hearts. This is the point under debate. > The > fourth round is a problem because it is won by an opponent which stops > the line of play. Yes, the stated line fails _no later_ than this point. The legal question is whether the stated line fails earlier. Having played the first trump and seen West show out, is playing more trumps "careless," or is it "irrational?" This is a question of bridge judgment, and reasonable people can disagree. In the spirit of L70A, I personally would vote "irrational," and I would expect a large majority of bridge players to agree. As we see, though, nobody should expect the vote to be unanimous. > That big IF clause at the end [of L70E] > pertains to the case where during your stated > line you find out something relevant . Exactly! > At the point claimer's instructions are > impossible to execute because the cards do not permit their execution, > then the claim is faulty and you are now in unstated line of play > territory. The unstated line of play territory is what is adjudicated. Not exactly. Look at "subsequently would have failed" in L70E. This clearly embraces events that declarer would have discovered in the process of playing out the hand. Yes, if the claim statement is "Play exactly five rounds of trumps, no matter who shows out or when," that statement must stand. If it's "Draw trumps," I don't think we disagree, either. Do we? I would let declarer enter dummy and finesse if necessary because the problem seems to be declarer's statement of his intent, not the intent itself. The oritinal statement we were given is confusing, as David Burn pointed out. Perhaps that is why there is so much disagreement. Would people rule differently if the claim had been simply "drawing trumps?" (Yes, I know David Burn wouldn't change his ruling.) Cheers, and Happy New Year to all. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 10:17:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 10:17:46 +1100 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA02749 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 10:17:39 +1100 Received: from modem89.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.217] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zvrLQ-0002dM-00; Thu, 31 Dec 1998 23:17:33 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Claim Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 23:14:51 -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 ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ========================================---------- From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: 31 December 1998 08:04 Herman wrote: >At the time, and after lengthy debate, we came to the >agreement that when adjudicating a claim, we should : > 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). ----------------------------- \x/ ---------------------------------- 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. ---------------------------------------- \x/ ---------------------------------------------- ++++ Whilst leaving your conclusions to one side without comment, it has to be pointed out that the basis in law for accepting a new line of play is set down in Law 70D. It should also be acknowledged that declarer's view of what is rational is as subjective as any other. The objective view can only be established by external observation with all the facts exposed. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 13:17:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 13:17:01 +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 NAA03301 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 13:16:54 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zvu8s-0001OH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 02:16:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 23:30:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Interpretation MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "David Burn" >> The term "irrational" should be given a clear definition by the >> lawmakers, so that it can be interpreted consistently; >One can hardly object to this! This is the type of statement that sounds so reasonable that people assume it without thought. It is my belief that in several areas of the law book over- interpretation and consistency are undesirable. While it may be a reasonable view in many cases it is not automatic. An LA is interpreted differently in Chicago and Cologne: is that a bad thing? Many people think that to eliminate differences between peoples is desirable: I think it will make for a very boring world. Differences in Bridge-Law interpretations is a very small part of a bigger problem: the assumption that everyone is the same and/or should be treated the same which is not necessarily a good idea. -- 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 Jan 1 14:22:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA03379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 14:22:53 +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 OAA03374 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 14:22:47 +1100 Received: from modem115.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.243] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zvvAZ-0006vg-00; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 03:22:36 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Claim Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 03:10:51 -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 ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ====================================== From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: 31 December 1998 17:11 -------------------------------- \x/ ------------------------ I think we need a definition of "irrational" before we can make much more progress. Dictionary definitions are not actually helpful, since "irrational" is defined as "not rational" and "rational" is defined as "of the reason, agreeable to reason, sane...". This does not really allow us to define the word in the context of the Laws of bridge. ---------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- ++++ Oh, do come on, David; what sort of a dictionary is that? Since the laws do not define 'irrational' especially for their purposes and the promulgated version is in English, it is to the meaning of the English language that we must look. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives the meaning of 'irrational' as: Contrary to or not in accordance with reason Unreasonable Utterly illogical Absurd I would think someone could find something there that would meet the need. (2) Returning to the mainstream discussion; on some board a claimer (C) and a Director (D) might have this exchange: (C) When I find that trumps break like this I know I can never make the contract if I continue to draw them, to do that makes no sense, so I take the club finesse instead. (D) I agree it would be absurd to continue drawing trumps and but for one thing I would allow your new line of play; but it is also reasonable to take the Diamond finesse and that way you go light so I cannot allow the club play and I will rule on the basis of your taking the diamond finesse. ++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 14:54:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA03431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 14:54:46 +1100 Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA03426 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 14:54:38 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.145] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zvvfi-0007iW-00; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 03:54:46 +0000 Message-ID: <199901010354410520.0E2C3B83@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 03:54:41 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >++++ Whilst leaving your conclusions to one side without comment, it has >to be pointed out that the basis in law for accepting a new line of play= is >set >down in Law 70D. It should also be acknowledged that declarer's view of >what is rational is as subjective as any other. The objective view can= only >be established by external observation with all the facts exposed. I think that this may be another point of difference between me and the= rest of the world, although I am not sure why this should be. Herman= appears to me to believe that declarer's point of view when making his= claim ("I can draw all the outstanding trumps without loss") should be= subject to variation as soon as he plays one top trump and "observes" the= 4-0 break. I do not see any basis for this in law or in logic; if declarer= thinks that he can draw trumps having played no cards, why should he not= ("rationally") continue to think so having played one, two, three or even= four cards? Given that his original belief was, in some sense,= "irrational", why does there come a point at which he is suddenly allowed= to be assumed to be a "rational" being? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 15:23:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA03460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 15:23:23 +1100 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA03455 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 15:23:16 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.145] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zvw79-00008G-00; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 04:23:07 +0000 Message-ID: <199901010423200190.0E467619@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 04:23:20 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 01/01/99, at 03:10, Grattan wrote: >Grattan >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee >From: David Burn >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: Claim >Date: 31 December 1998 17:11 > >-------------------------------- \x/ ------------------------ >I think we need a definition of "irrational" before we can make much more >progress. Dictionary definitions are not actually helpful, since= "irrational" >is defined as "not rational" and "rational" is defined as "of the reason, >agreeable to reason, sane...". This does not really allow us to define the >word in the context of the Laws of bridge. > >---------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > >++++ Oh, do come on, David; what sort of a dictionary is that? Chambers 1998, since you ask - a "better" dictionary in my [entirely= subejctive] view than anything put out by the OUP. >Since the laws do not define 'irrational' especially for their purposes= and >the promulgated version is in English, it is to the meaning of the >English language that we must look. The New Shorter Oxford English >Dictionary gives the meaning of 'irrational' as: > Contrary to or not in accordance with reason > Unreasonable > Utterly illogical > Absurd >I would think someone could find something there that would meet >the need. I would not. The first definintion is unarguable; the other three are= purely subjective if the word is to be interpreted in a legal context, and= thus wholly unhelpful. The point I was trying to make is that "reason is= in the eye of the beholder"; if a man with AKQxx facing xxxx has reason to= believe before he starts to play this suit that he has no loser therein,= why ("rationally") should he be assumed after the first round to believe= otherwise? > > (2) Returning to the mainstream discussion; on some board a >claimer (C) and a Director (D) might have this exchange: >(C) When I find that trumps break like this I know I can never make >the contract if I continue to draw them, to do that makes no sense, so >I take the club finesse instead. >(D) I agree it would be absurd to continue drawing trumps and but >for one thing I would allow your new line of play; but it is also= reasonable >to take the Diamond finesse and that way you go light so I cannot allow >the club play and I will rule on the basis of your taking the diamond >finesse. Well, if I were D, I don't think I would have been a participant in this= discussion. Rather, I would have enquired of C on what basis he assumed= that he could draw trumps without loss. If, as is not unlikely, he= shrugged his shoulders at this point, I would have required him to= continue with his stated line. As one of Grattan's favourite librettists= put it: See how the Fates their gifts allot, For A is happy--B is not. Yet B is worthy, I dare say, Of more prosperity than A! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 15:54:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA03505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 15:54:22 +1100 Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA03500 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 15:54:16 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.145] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zvwbQ-00041y-00; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 04:54:25 +0000 Message-ID: <199901010454200850.0E62DB61@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 04:54:20 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Interpretation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 31/12/98, at 23:30, David Stevenson wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: "David Burn" > >>> The term "irrational" should be given a clear definition by the >>> lawmakers, so that it can be interpreted consistently; > >>One can hardly object to this! > > This is the type of statement that sounds so reasonable that people >assume it without thought. > > It is my belief that in several areas of the law book over- >interpretation and consistency are undesirable. While it may be a >reasonable view in many cases it is not automatic. > > An LA is interpreted differently in Chicago and Cologne: is that a bad >thing? Yes, of course it is. And if a Law is interpreted differently, that is a= worse thing. The reason that people assume a reasonable statement to be= acceptable without thought is that it requires none. Ex def, or ipso= facto, or whatever Grattan would say. > Many people think that to eliminate differences between peoples is >desirable: I think it will make for a very boring world. Differences in >Bridge-Law interpretations is a very small part of a bigger problem: the >assumption that everyone is the same and/or should be treated the same >which is not necessarily a good idea. If an "interesting" world is to be defined as one in which people can argue= the Laws of bridge until Gabriel blows his horn, then I have some sympathy= with this view, though I fear it may have ceratin impractiable= limitations. My own view is that the Laws of bridge should be the same the= whole world over - easy to follow, easy to adminster, and such that no one= can break them without knowing that they are doing wrong. Differences in= Bridge-Law interpretations are, currently, a very big part of what ought= to be a very much smaller problem - it is we who make it far larger than= it ought to be. A happy New Year to all. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 16:44:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA03560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 16:44:36 +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 QAA03555 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 16:44:27 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-91.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.91]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA6837728 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 00:46:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <368D512B.62C11F5B@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 16:50:19 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: <199812312308.SAA12658@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The essence of the current discussion is whether claim statements change or stay put. David Burn and I say stay put. I will even stray so far as to surmise that we hold so for the same reason [if I am wrong, please remove the shrapnel from the whip]. The statement is the only evidence that anyone has as to what claimer wanted at the relevant time. That evidence goes to claimer's skill on that hand at that time. Ultimately, the score ought reflect that exercise of that skill and not skill at some other time or some other person. This is emphasized by L68D: PLAY CEASES. There's a little good stuff below. Roger Pewick Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "David Burn" > > To recap: declarer, with a trump suit of AKQxx facing xxxx > > The discussions have not all been consistent. In some, declarer's > trumps were assumed to be AKQTx. > > > 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, > Not exactly. See Herman's remarks quoted below. I am afraid not!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! quote > 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 > > unquote > > > > Of course, none of this would happen if claims were governed (as they > > should be) by type 1 rules and not type 2 rules. > > Yes, this would simplify rulings. It would also discourage claims. > Reasonable people can disagree on whether the overall effect would > be good or bad. > > > From: Herman De Wael > > An irrational claim should stand, but a > > careless claim should not be judged with irrational plays in it. If Herman feels that irrational plays in statements should not be judged, I can not concur. If he says that they are to be voided I strongly disagree. But I am not up to guessing what he means . > > This is the best statement of the general principle I have seen. What general principle do you refer? > > Because declarer's stated line only BECOMES irrational when > > actually playing it out. I am not sure if this has much to do about much. > > And now L70E applies. To unstated lines only, of course. > > > Forgetting to deal with bad breaks at the time of claiming > > is careless, not irrational. Perhaps stupid is in there also since many people want to cancel your statement if you do- and really take you to the cleaners if they can. But all this probably is not relevant. > > Does anybody disagree with this? > > David Burn again: > > Quote from the original message: > > "Declarer takes the Ace and claims with the following statement: > > I play all the trumps." > > > This is not a statement that would be made by a declarer whose native > > tongue was English, and I do not know for certain what its exact import > > might have been in its original language. I have seen my partner do this very thing over and over. I shall not live to be 42 even though I claim to be 41 today. > Yes, this is a problem. Even when everyone speaks the same language > we have to rule on the basis of what declarer meant (insofar as we > can determine it), not on the basis of what he said. This should not be a problem. If it is get an intrepreter. The claimer's words are the only evidence at the time of the claim unless there is a meaningful grunt or squeal in there. > > I think that a play may be defined as rational if, at the time of > > making it (or claiming that he would make it), a player had either: a > > positive reason for making it, or no positive reason for not making it. > > Moreover, this "reason" (or absence of reason) should be identified in > > terms of what the player himself perceived, not in terms of what other > > people might consider "rational" play. > > This seems reasonable, at least at first glance. > > > If, for example, your last two cards are the AK of a suit, you have no > > positive reason for playing one before the other, hence either play is > > "rational". > > Agreed. > > > If you have AQ of a suit, and you believe that the king has > > been played, you have again no positive reason for playing the ace > > before the queen, so either play is "rational". I suspect that it is not a good idea to get into the mind reading business. > Oh? What if the two cards are A2, and one card is still out? I > thought it was settled that suits are "rationally" played from top down > unless there is a blockage or some other specific reason to do > otherwise. > > > Declarer in a spade contract > > has four cards left - the AKQ of hearts, and a spade. He believes that > > all the trumps have been drawn, and thus that his hand is high. What > > constitutes "rational" play for declarer in these circumstances? > > Again, I thought it was settled that if declarer makes no statement, > he plays suits he believes to be good in any order. L70C seems to > be pretty specific if one of the suits is trumps. If not, we must > rely on 70D, but I think we get the same answer. > > > The term "irrational" should be given a clear definition by the > > lawmakers, so that it can be interpreted consistently; > > One can hardly object to this! after we finish cutting all of hte trees in America do we have permission to start in on Europe ? > > From: axeman > > Is it correct to say that claimer's statement establishes what cards he > > is to play [and ostensibly when]? > > Yes, provided you interpret the _meaning_ of the statement, not what > the words literally say. L70A tells us to deny careless claims but not > careless statements. The obvious example is that "playing trumps" > means "playing trumps from the top down but not blocking the suit," > at least in simple cases. If trumps are K2 opposite AQJT9, would > anybody rule that they must be played in order A then K? I certainly > hope not! > > > For the case under scrutiny, that means that claimer is > > committed to play five hearts. > > This is the point under debate. Claimer said play all the trumps. He did not say anything about UNLESS. He had five trumps in one hand, I can think of no other meaning to ascribe the statement except 'play five rounds of trumps'. We are certain he said this. It is not a doubtful point. There is nothing to adjudicate here. We just do it. If he could not see the fall of the cards he would have no reason to do otherwise until an opponent says 'I won the trick'. Maybe this BLIND TEST is a way to establish when a claim has broken down. > > The > > fourth round is a problem because it is won by an opponent which stops > > the line of play. > > Yes, the stated line fails _no later_ than this point. > > The legal question is whether the stated line fails earlier. Having > played the first trump and seen West show out, is playing more trumps > "careless," or is it "irrational?" This is a question of bridge > judgment, and reasonable people can disagree. Actually, playing the second round is executing the claim statement. And so on. When we run out of statement, we get into unstated line territory. Irrational comes into play for unstated lines [or as L70D says- for 'any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement...']. the essence of L70D is that if the statement would have uncovered something relevant it can be used to avoid an irrational play in the unstated territory. For instance, during the stated line you would have found out that RHO is void in a suit by counting the other suits. The stated line has proven faulty and now you are into unstated territory and declarer has to lead that suit. It would be irrational to play dummy's ace until LHO has played the king when dummy holds AQJ so claimer would not be held to playing the ace on air; BUT, more to the point, if declarer needs three tricks outside of his certain tricks and one way is to take a losing finesse which may or may not result in losing more than one of those three tricks AND the other is the proven finesse through that AQJ, claimer gets to take that 'proven' finesse. I think this is an appropriate ruling. It has a sense of equity to it and I would not feel like quibbling over it and seems in accordance with L70D/E. I say this even though it requires reading the mind of claimer whether he would have been up to the task of knowing and doing the arithmetic. And I am willing to be easily convinced otherwise if the information is not more concrete than that. In the spirit of L70A, > I personally would vote "irrational," and I would expect a large > majority of bridge players to agree. As we see, though, nobody > should expect the vote to be unanimous. I think it is not relevant as to an assessment of whether the claim statement or play inside a statement is irrational. > > > That big IF clause at the end [of L70E] > > pertains to the case where during your stated > > line you find out something relevant . > > Exactly! > > > At the point claimer's instructions are > > impossible to execute because the cards do not permit their execution, > > then the claim is faulty and you are now in unstated line of play > > territory. The unstated line of play territory is what is adjudicated. > > Not exactly. Look at "subsequently would have failed" in L70E. I believe that you have been trying to convince me that claim statements are to be altered yet you are referring to L70E to do it. L70E applies only to unstated lines and nothing else. My observation is that many intelligent people want to change claim statements [a] because they appear to believe that L70D requires it and [b] they want to force lines of play upon claimer based on the theory that it is equitable to insist on giving claimer one more chance to make his tricks as well as two more chances to lose additional tricks. I liken this to Russian roulette because it takes claimer's destiny out of his hands. > This clearly embraces events that declarer would have discovered in the > process of playing out the hand. Yes, if the claim statement is "Play > exactly five rounds of trumps, no matter who shows out or when," that > statement must stand. If it's "Draw trumps," I don't think we > disagree, either. Do we? I would let declarer enter dummy and finesse > if necessary because the problem seems to be declarer's statement of > his intent, not the intent itself. > > The oritinal statement we were given is confusing, as David Burn > pointed out. Perhaps that is why there is so much disagreement. > Would people rule differently if the claim had been simply "drawing > trumps?" (Yes, I know David Burn wouldn't change his ruling.) > > Cheers, and Happy New Year to all. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 1 16:55:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA03593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 16:55:36 +1100 Received: from mail.dynamite.com.au (mail.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA03588 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 16:55:32 +1100 Received: from bridge.dynamite.com.au (isp166.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.23.182.46]) by mail.dynamite.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA29854 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 16:55:38 +1100 Message-ID: <003301be354b$f22ff0c0$2eb617cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "majordomo" Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 16:58:21 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0030_01BE35A7.F021A560" 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_0030_01BE35A7.F021A560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable subscribe bridge-laws bridge@dynamite.com.au ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01BE35A7.F021A560 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
subscribe bridge-laws bridge@dynamite.com.au<= /DIV> ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01BE35A7.F021A560-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 2 01:33:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 01:33:05 +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 BAA06615 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 01:32:57 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zw5dC-0007YX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 14:32:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 13:13:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alerting References: <3.0.6.32.19981231093436.007ab100@sd.cts.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19981231093436.007ab100@sd.cts.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fred Flam wrote: >It seems to me that the emphasis is misplaced. If the use of Law 20(F) >were stressed then a simple universal set of alert regulations would serve >very well. Against unfamiliar opponents, or following a complicated >auction, players should be encouraged to ask at the end of the auction: >"All calls natural and without hidden meaning?" Complicated alert >regulations seem to assume that Law 20(F) does not exist. It is difficult and not necessarily desirable to persuade the mass of players to take such action. Why not have an alerting mechanism that protects them in the majority of cases? Furthermore, without alerting they may be damaged in the bidding - and questions at the end of the auction do not help. Alerting is at its best when you get an auction such as 1H 1S 2H 2S 3H 3S 4H 4S .... and you do not need to ask in case one of the bids shows clubs! All an alert does is to say that perhaps this is the time to ask. The presence of L20F says you may ask, not whether it is desirable on a particular occasion. Whether alerting should be simple or efficient is something people will probably always argue about. In England we have gone for fairly simple - but in fact there are some countries quite a lot simpler than us. The ACBL alerting is the most efficient I know. Nice to see you here! -- 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 Jan 2 01:45:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 01:45:47 +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 BAA06648 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 01:45:41 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA06955 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 09:45:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990101094711.007063a8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 09:47:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Alerting In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19981231093436.007ab100@sd.cts.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:34 AM 12/31/98 -0800, Fred wrote: >It seems to me that the emphasis is misplaced. If the use of Law 20(F) >were stressed then a simple universal set of alert regulations would serve >very well. Against unfamiliar opponents, or following a complicated >auction, players should be encouraged to ask at the end of the auction: >"All calls natural and without hidden meaning?" Complicated alert >regulations seem to assume that Law 20(F) does not exist. Before the introduction of alerts (early 1970s in the ACBL) L20F was the sole means of obtaining information about opponents' auctions, and didn't serve very well at all. Indeed, alerts were invented specifically due to problems with L20F: As folks became more sensitive to the strictures of L16, and attempted to take steps to eliminate "that ol' black magic" from the game, it became apparent that it was extremely difficult to exercise one's rights under L20F without passing UI. Alerts were an attempt to control, or at least reduce, the inevitable UI resulting from players' attempts to use L20F to keep themselves informed -- not to mention, perhaps, attempts by afficianados of black magic to use L20F improperly *for the purpose* of passing UI, back in the days when one could usually get away with doing so. One can argue that the cure was worse than the disease, but there is little doubt that it contributed to the fact that, 25+ years later, we have a lot more complexity in the rules, and a lot less of that ol' black magic. 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 Jan 2 01:48:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 01:48:33 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA06667 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 01:48:26 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-226.uunet.be [194.7.9.226]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA23313 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 15:48:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <368CCFA2.286A003C@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 14:37:38 +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: Statistics - Fourth trimester 1998 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by carbon.uunet.be id PAA23313 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As of midnight, january 1st (Australian time), there were on this list 246 e-mail addresses 13 addresses dissapeared since september, and there were 46 new readers 6 of those were changes of e-mail address, so that means only 7 drop-outs over this period. Of the 40 new readers, there were 4 former drop-outs returning, so we have 36 genuine new readers. 246 addresses means only 244 readers, as at least two have double addresses on the list (I wonder why that is - but them being TOP people may have something to do with it) 43 people have never shown themselves in any way, and have no domains we can infer a country from (29 com, 10 net, 3 edu, 1 org) 201 others are divided by zone and country : (35 countries) zone 1 : 100 (25 countries) GB 28 DE 11 NL 9 DK 8 BE 7 FR 6 RU 5 IL 4 PT 3 CH, IT, PL 2 AT, CZ, EE, ES, FI, GL, HR, HU, IE, LT, NO, SE, UA 1 zone 2 : 74 (3 countries) US 62 CA 11 BM 1 zone 4 : 2 (2 countries) ZA, IN 1 (sadly we have lost John from zone 5) zone 6 : 3 (3 countries) ID, JP, SG 1 zone 7 : 22 (2 countries) AU 14 NZ 8 There were 1637 posts during the period, with the top posters being : (1) 200 (1) David Stevenson (2) 100 (7) Herman De Wael (3) 93 (4) Steve Willner (4) 89 (2) Marvin L. French (5) 68 (6) John (MadDog) Probst (6) 67 (5) Eric Landau (7) 63 (3) Grattan (8) 50 (11) Craig Senior (9) 43 (10) Jan Kamras (10) 42 (9) Dany Haimovici (11) 41 (41) Axeman (Roger Pewick) (12) 36 (17) Michael S. Dennis (13) 33 (21) David Grabiner (14) 32 (17) Anne Jones (14) 32 (20) David Burn (16) 29 (16) Tim Goodwin (17) 27 (12) Vitold Brushtunov (17) 27 (32) Michael Farebrother (19) 22 Claude Dadoun (20) 20 (8) Jesper Dybdal (20) 20 (41) Nancy T. Dressing (22) 17 (12) David Martin (23) 16 (60) Thomas Dehn (23) 16 (27) Linda Weinstein (23) 16 (60) Richard Willey (26) 15 Norman Scorbie (26) 15 (50) Irwin J. Kostal (28) 14 (25) Bill Segraves (28) 14 (22) Richard F Beye (30) 13 (17) Anton Witzen (30) 13 (15) Grant C. Sterling (32) 12 (41) Jeff Goldsmith (32) 12 John S. Nichols (34) 11 (38) Laval Dubreuil (34) 11 (38) Adam Beneschan (34) 11 David Metcalf (34) 11 (34) John R. Mayne (38) 10 (50) Laurence Kelso (39) 9 (50) Jean-Pierre Rocafort (39) 9 Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) (39) 9 (41) Jan Peter Pals (39) 9 (34) KRAllison (39) 9 (50) John A. Kuchenbrod (44) 8 (29) Robin Barker (44) 8 (23) Tim West-Meads (44) 8 (75) E.Angad-Gaur (44) 8 (27) Richard Lighton (44) 8 (75) Simon Edler (44) 8 (34) Gordon Bower (50) 7 (50) A.L. Edwards (50) 7 (50) Jay Apfelbaum (50) 7 (41) Mark Abraham (53) 6 LORMANT Philippe (53) 6 (50) Michael Amos (53) 6 (31) Henk Uijterwaal (53) 6 (75) Peter Haglich (53) 6 (75) B A Small (58) 5 (75) Sergey Kapustin (58) 5 (60) Barry Wolk (58) 5 (25) Tony Musgrove (58) 5 Bill Bickford (62) 4 (24) Christian Bernscherer (62) 4 (75) Con Holzscherer (62) 4 (60) Sergei Litvak (62) 4 Don Kersey (62) 4 Peter Newman (67) 3 (75) Ralf Teichmann (67) 3 (50) Kooijman (67) 3 (60) Jan Romanski (67) 3 (75) Jack Rhind (67) 3 (75) David Kent (67) 3 (60) Chris Pisarra (67) 3 Jim Guida (67) 3 (60) Richard or Barbara Odlin (67) 3 (75) Robert Nordgren (67) 3 (50) Michael Albert (77) 2 Nico De Roover (77) 2 Norbert Fornoville (77) 2 (60) Yvan Calam=E9 (77) 2 beate birr (77) 2 Hr. Stahl (77) 2 Niels Wendell Pedersen (77) 2 Martaandras@uze.net (77) 2 Fearghal O'Boyle (77) 2 emarchen@microinform.ru (77) 2 (14) Adam Wildavsky (77) 2 Brian Baresch (77) 2 (41) Chyah E Burghard (77) 2 Jon C. Brissman (77) 2 Mr. Kent V Burghard (77) 2 (38) Reg Busch (77) 2 Wayne Burrows (77) 2 Slawek Latala (77) 2 John MacGregor (95) 1 Jan Boets (95) 1 (75) Christian Farwig (95) 1 Richard Bley (95) 1 Noblet-Dominique (95) 1 Jean-Francois Chevalier (95) 1 magda.thain (95) 1 Ian Crorie (95) 1 (34) Jeremy Rickard (95) 1 (75) Martin Pool (95) 1 Stephanie Rohan (95) 1 Martin Hunter (95) 1 (41) AlLeBendig (95) 1 Robert E Harris (95) 1 (75) Daniel Jackson (95) 1 dlmanning@earthlink.net (95) 1 (75) Georgiana Gates, Leslie West (95) 1 (32) Hirsch Davis (95) 1 Kryst, Jack (95) 1 (60) Mike Dodson (95) 1 paulhar@juno.com (95) 1 (60) R Craig H (95) 1 VINAY I DESAY (95) 1 Grahame Jones (95) 1 (41) Markus Buchhorn (95) 1 (60) Patrick (95) 1 non-reader Over 1998, a total of 174 posters managed to produce 6728 messages and no prizes for guessing the top contributor : (1) 857 David Stevenson (2) 399 Marvin L. French (3) 377 Herman De Wael (4) 361 Steve Willner (5) 350 Grattan (6) 302 John (MadDog) Probst (7) 301 Eric Landau (8) 189 Dany Haimovici (9) 174 Craig Senior (10) 163 Michael S. Dennis (11) 159 David Martin (12) 158 Jesper Dybdal (13) 133 Anne Jones (14) 125 David Grabiner (15) 116 Vitold Brushtunov (16) 103 Labeo=20 (17) 97 Adam Beneschan (18) 92 Jan Kamras (19) 90 Tim Goodwin (20) 87 Robin Barker (21) 79 Grant C. Sterling (22) 78 David Burn (23) 65 Jens & Bodil (24) 59 Axeman (Roger Pewick) (24) 59 Nancy T. Dressing (26) 58 Jeff Goldsmith (27) 48 Richard Lighton (28) 47 Michael Farebrother (29) 41 Tim West-Meads (30) 40 Linda Weinstein (30) 40 Bill Segraves (30) 40 Anton Witzen (30) 40 Jeremy Rickard (34) 39 Richard Willey (35) 38 Mark Abraham (35) 38 Hirsch Davis (37) 36 John S. Nichols (38) 35 Henk Uijterwaal (38) 35 Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com (40) 34 KRAllison (40) 34 A.L. Edwards (42) 32 Laurence Kelso1 (43) 31 John A. Kuchenbrod (43) 31 Adam Wildavsky (45) 30 Laval Dubreuil (45) 30 John R. Mayne (47) 29 Richard F Beye (48) 29 E.Angad-Gaur (49) 28 af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de(Thomas Dehn) (50) 27 Gordon Bower (51) 26 Jay Apfelbaum (51) 26 Tony Musgrove (53) 25 Irwin J. Kostal (53) 25 Jan Peter Pals (55) 23 David Metcalf (56) 22 Claude Dadoun (56) 22 Chyah E Burghard (56) 22 Reg Busch (59) 20 AlLeBendig (60) 19 Markus Buchhorn (61) 18 Jean-Pierre Rocafort (61) 18 Jon C. Brissman (61) 18 Roger Pewick (64) 17 Simon Edler (64) 17 Michael Amos (64) 17 Christian Bernscherer (64) 17 Don Kersey (68) 15 normanscorbie@hotmail.com (68) 15 Sergei Litvak (68) 15 Robert Nordgren (68) 15 R Craig H (72) 14 B A Small (73) 13 Kooijman (73) 13 Julie Atkinson (75) 12 Chris Pisarra (75) 12 Christian Farwig (75) 12 Everett Boyer (78) 11 Michael Albert (78) 11 Wayne Burrows (78) 11 Martin Kretschmar (78) 11 Christian Chantigny (78) 11 Eitan Levy (83) 10 Richard or Barbara Odlin (83) 10 Edward Sheldon (85) 9 Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) (85) 9 Barry Wolk (85) 9 Con Holzscherer (85) 9 David Kent (85) 9 Robin Michaels (90) 7 Peter Haglich (90) 7 Peter Newman (90) 7 Ralf Teichmann (90) 7 Brian Baresch (90) 7 Patrick (90) 7 Albert "biigAl" Lochli (90) 7 QQSV (Dick Wagman) (97) 6 LORMANT Philippe (97) 6 Sergey Kapustin (97) 6 Richard Bley (97) 6 Paul Barden (97) 6 Donald Mamula (102) 5 Bill Bickford (102) 5 Jan Romanski (102) 5 Yvan Calam=E9 (102) 5 Mike Dodson (102) 5 Andr=E9 Pion (107) 4 Jack Rhind (107) 4 Martin Pool (107) 4 Georgiana Gates, Leslie West (107) 4 Damian Hassan (107) 4 Larry Bennett (107) 4 Vytautas Rekus (107) 4 Rui Marques (107) 4 Ron Johnson (115) 3 Jim Guida (115) 3 Norbert Fornoville (115) 3 Niels Wendell Pedersen (115) 3 Jens Ulrik Fougt (115) 3 Ken Richardson (115) 3 Jim Boyce (115) 3 Roger Penny (115) 3 mallory.voelker@rmcnet.fr (115) 3 Ercan Kuru (124) 2 Nico De Roover (125) 2 beate birr (126) 2 Hr. Stahl (127) 2 Martaandras@uze.net (128) 2 Fearghal O'Boyle (129) 2 emarchen@microinform.ru (130) 2 Mr. Kent V Burghard (131) 2 Slawek Latala (132) 2 John MacGregor (133) 2 Jan Boets (134) 2 Martin Hunter (135) 2 Daniel Jackson (136) 2 Kryst, Jack (137) 2 Ian Reissmann (138) 2 Bob Scruton (139) 2 Michael Kopera (140) 2 RuefulR (141) 2 Siddiqui, Aslam (142) 2 Rusty Court (143) 2 Ann Parker (144) 2 Alexey V. Gerasimov (145) 2 Deirdre Mark (146) 2 jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com (147) 1 Noblet-Dominique (147) 1 Jean-Francois Chevalier (147) 1 magda.thain (147) 1 Ian Crorie (147) 1 Stephanie Rohan (147) 1 Robert E Harris (147) 1 dlmanning@earthlink.net (147) 1 paulhar@juno.com (147) 1 VINAY I DESAY (147) 1 Grahame Jones (147) 1 non-reader (147) 1 Jan Volhejn (147) 1 Eric Favager (147) 1 Ilan Shezifi (147) 1 Louis Arnon (147) 1 Buzz Kribs (147) 1 Dale Blank (147) 1 Mary Crenshaw (147) 1 Wirt Gilliam (147) 1 Jim & Eve Lopushinsky (147) 1 John Strauch (147) 1 robinswr@erols.com (147) 1 Richard L. Hull (147) 1 Richard Colker (147) 1 Curtis A. Hastings (147) 1 Sund (147) 1 Vladimir Machat (147) 1 Robin Wigdor Since september 1997, we have had 329 members in total. Anything else you want me to dig out of this mass (mess ?) ? --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 2 02:22:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 02:22:33 +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 CAA06934 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 02:22:27 +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 KAA07220 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 10:21:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990101102401.0070a9d0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 10:24:01 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: References: <368BFEA9.4F6CDFD2@freewwweb.com> <01BE33FE.AE2C4840@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com> <368BFEA9.4F6CDFD2@freewwweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:59 PM 12/31/98 +0000, David wrote: > So, my ruling is that [assuming the defender with the fourth trump has >a second spade] > >[3] If I believe that declarer knows there are four trumps out, then he >gets the slam unless the first club is ruffed > >[4] If I do not believe that declarer knows there are four trumps out, >then he gets the slam unless the first club or any of the diamonds are >ruffed. FTR, on the actual hand, declarer makes in [4] unless the first club or the first or second diamond is ruffed; dummy's last spade goes on the third diamond, and dummy still has a trump. Is this sufficent to reconsider David's ruling in [3], considering declarer's playing diamonds before clubs clearly inferior but not irrational? [Aside to David S.: Does "FTR", common net-speak for "For the record," belong on your list?] 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 Jan 2 02:39:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 02:39:05 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06982 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 02:38:57 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-155.uunet.be [194.7.14.155]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA26202 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 16:38:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <368CE654.6FCF17DF@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 16:14:28 +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: Claim References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <3689F3A9.87585C99@village.uunet.be> <368BA70A.D2CAC460@freewwweb.com> <368B8A06.A16024F1@village.uunet.be> <386B9282.65EAC35@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Roger, May I ask you to please stop trying to prove an untenable statement by twisting the words of the Laws. axeman wrote: > > Herman, > > L70E does not deal with stated lines of play. It is unequivocal on the > matter. > Indeed it is, but enquivocal in some other meaning than what you read in it. > On to 70D > > 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 normal20 line of play that would be less successful. > > What does 'line of play not embraced in the original clarification > statement' mean? It means that you talking about only lines of play > outside of the original statement [this is what I have been saying all > along]. It says nothing about changing the original statement. But changing the original statement IS some other line of play. I fail to see the distinction you are trying to make. Declarer has made a statement. He now sees that line will fail. He sees another line and wants to change his line of play. L70D is exactly what this is all about. That new line must not be accepted, when any other normal line shall lead to less tricks. Remark that the original line of play has totally dissapeared ! "an alternative normal line". If claimer has stated line A, and now proposes to change it to B, and if A is no longer "normal", but some other line C is normal, then claimer will receive the lesser of B or C, but never A ! That is the meaning of L70D. Declarer should NOT be held to his original line, if this is a "non-normal" one, or becomes one in the process of it playing out. Suppose in the original example, declarer had said nothing. How would you dela with it ? Well, you would not take in lines that do not start with even one round of trumps. It is irrational to think that declarer will not draw trumps. It is considered equally irrational for claimer not to notice the trump break, and it is also irrational not to allow him to change his plan afterwards. His statement, while helping to narrow some other lines (he will not be allowed to NOT play trumps first, if there should be a safety play starting that way, for example) should not be held against him. As Steve said, we do not wish to discourage claims, rather encourage them. And we should not punish bad claim statements, only bad claims! That > big IF clause at the end pertains to the case where during your stated > line you find out something relevant . You have stopped executing the > statement because it has literally broken down. You are in unstated > territory. Therefore you have knowledge which prevents imposing > otherwise normal lines that would fail [they are irrational because of > that knowledge]. > Well, considering the number of posters (and silent majority) who believe that the stated line breaks down once one opponent shows out, rather than when strangely somebody comes up with a thirteenth trump, I urge you to change your opppinion on that one. > L70D establishes what to do /what not to do wrt to unstated lines of > play. It does not say that the original statement is subject to change, > irrational or not. To do so is to open up endless possibilities. > As indeed the laws are intended (IOHO). > The clarification statement establishes what claimer is committed to > do. Claimer made this commitment of his own free will. However, > everything else is unstated. If claimer's instructions are executed in > total, the claim is valid. At the point claimer's instructions are > impossible to execute because the cards do not permit their execution, > then the claim is faulty and you are now in unstated line of play > territory. The unstated line of play territory is what is adjudicated. > The claim statement is certain- it is either proven right or wrong by > testing it. It matters not whether the statement is a stupid one or a > brilliant one. > Sadly, you are wrong in this respect. > The fact that a statement is wrong does not mean that it disappears. It > must be executed up through the point it fails. To adjudicate otherwise > is to set the precedent that an opponent can throw out a perfectly valid > claim which works because it states an irrational line of play. The > result is that claimer would be forced to take a 'rational line' which > fails. > Considering that of all 'normal' lines, he is judged afterwards to have taken the least successful one, I see no problem in allowing him to change an irrational line for any normal one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 2 02:39:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 02:39:07 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06983 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 02:38:59 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-155.uunet.be [194.7.14.155]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA26206 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 16:38:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <368CEB87.CA9C9CA5@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 16:36:39 +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: Times of posts Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While reading the last batch of blml messages, I noticed that David S was writing at 23:30 on Dec 31, Grattan at 23:14 and 03:10 on Jan 1, and David B at 03:54, 04:23 and 04:54 on Jan 1. (their times) On behalf of over 200 other readers of blml, I wish to distance myself from these sad excesses and I would like to wish the three of you a good deal of something else than blml in 1999. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 2 04:00:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 04:00:00 +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 DAA07158 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 03:59:52 +1100 Received: from ip196.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.196]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990101165944.XQNI6075.fep4@ip196.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:59:44 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 17:59:43 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 08:04:19 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >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 Yes. (The "agreement" was between quite a few of us, and we even convinced David S in the end, as I remember.) >>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. Except if declarer thought there were only 3 trumps out, of course - in that case, he really would continue with a fourth round. >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). He said he would play all the trumps. And in Roger's slightly modified example (which I believe we are currently discussing) he also has the ten of trumps so he might try a finesse. If he said (as he did) that he would play all the trumps, we need to determine whether he thought there were only 3 trumps out. If he knew that there were 4 outstanding trumps, but somehow believed that they could not be 4-0, them I'd "allow" him to change his plan, and go down 2 (or win the contract, if any "not irrational" way of trying to get to dummy for the finesse succeeds). Otherwise he'd go down 1. The determination of whether "he knew" is of course to be made with the benefit of doubt going whichever way is advantageous to the opponents, depending on the layout of their cards. I believe that the intention of the laws about claims is and should be that the onus is on the claimer to present a statement that convinces the TD that the claimer would actually have won the claimed tricks if the hand had been played out. Unfortunately, the laws do not say so in so many words. I'd really like the laws to say that after a contested claim the claimer gets the minimum number of tricks that the TD is convinced that the claimer would get if he had actually played out the hand. I think that that is basically what the laws try to say in a more specific way. In particular, I believe very strongly that if we sometimes allow a claimer to detect a 4-0 split and modify his plan in cases where the modification works to his advantage, then we must also "allow" him to modify it in cases where the modification is even worse than the original plan. Otherwise, we are effectively allowing the claimer to follow the one of two possible plans that will turn out to be most successful, depending on the opponents' cards. If we do that, claiming with an incomplete statement can become a better way to win than _any_ line of play! (As Herman said, this is much like the "Strange claim" discussion, though the point seems even clearer here. If anybody wants to read the "Strange claim" thread, please feel free to ask me for a copy by e-mail - I still have it. But beware: it is about 60 messages long.) >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. That is a consistent view, but I do not share it. Grattan's example of a declarer who thought he was playing a trump contract but was in notrumps is good: when his first attempt to ruff fails, he will unavoidably discover his mistake, and we should then rule as if there were no statement covering the play from that point onwards. >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. That would make claims very different from what they are today, and would take some getting used to. I have some sympathy for the idea, since I believe many claims without statements actually result in the claimer getting more tricks than he would get by playing it out. But I would prefer it to be simply made clear that a claimer gets his tricks if and only if it is quite clear to the TD that he would get them if he had played out the hand. Possibly combined with a law that said that any outstanding trump is to be considered forgotten if not mentioned. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 2 03:59:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 03:59:45 +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 DAA07143 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 03:59:39 +1100 Received: from ip196.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.196]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990101165932.XQND6075.fep4@ip196.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:59:32 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 17:59:31 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <369dfd78.9072485@post12.tele.dk> References: <368a0047.5278690@post12.tele.dk> <3688C895.718DA234@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3688C895.718DA234@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 Tue, 29 Dec 1998 13:18:29 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >We don't disagree all that much, really, I'm also beginning to think that. >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> 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. That makes a lot of difference IMO. If he made it clear to the opponents that he had not really counted the tricks carefully, then I would probably give him 13 tricks (and tell him that he ought not to claim in that way in a serious event). >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,=20 You did write that he claimed 13 tricks. >then how to judge it other than what we did. - but since I now understand that he did it in a way that rather signalled a claim of "approximately 13 tricks", I can understand your ruling. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 2 03:59:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 03:59:39 +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 DAA07136 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 03:59:32 +1100 Received: from ip196.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.196]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990101165925.XQMX6075.fep4@ip196.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:59:25 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 17:59:24 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <369cfd20.8984318@post12.tele.dk> References: <368a0047.5278690@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 20:03:20 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > Jesper: we all make mistakes at this game, even in counting. Are you >saying that when ever I miscount I am being rude?=20 Certainly not! Some of us - certainly I - sometimes miscount in just about the most stupid ways imaginable. >There is no >suggestion that the claimer *intended* to miscount. I'm only saying that it is rude to claim based on a count of top tricks that you have done so carelessly that you would not trust it if you were to play the hand out. The rudeness is not in the claiming, but in the assumption that you can be more careless when counting tricks with the purpose of claiming than when counting tricks with the purpose of playing - and, when your careless count turns out to be wrong, expect a ruling based on an assumption that you would count more carefully before actually playing it out. Jesper: >>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. David: > Of course - and then when you play it out you somethimes find you >miscounted! Yes indeed. But sometimes you find out too late. In Herman's example, he (as TD) allowed the claimer to keep a finesse position to the (late) point where the miscount would be detected, thus in effect ruling it irrational to trust the original trick count and take the presumed 13 (actually 12) top tricks in an order that would destroy the finesse position early and thus give only 12 tricks. (That is my understanding from Herman's description: we haven't seen the hand.) But see also the answer to Herman that I'm posting (almost) simultaneously with this one. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 2 03:59:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 03:59:51 +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 DAA07151 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 03:59:45 +1100 Received: from ip196.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.196]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990101165938.XQNE6075.fep4@ip196.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:59:38 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 17:59:37 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3690e600.3064236@post12.tele.dk> References: <01BE332D.B813C1C0@har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com> <3.0.1.32.19981229161004.006c8174@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981229161004.006c8174@pop.mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 16:10:04 -0500, "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: >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. I agree - unless it is clear that declarer's claim is based on a belief that there were only 3 trumps out. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 2 04:00:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 04:00:05 +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 DAA07165 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 03:59:59 +1100 Received: from ip196.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.196]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990101165952.XQNK6075.fep4@ip196.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:59:52 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 17:59:51 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36a0fe47.9279863@post12.tele.dk> References: <01BE33FE.AE2C4840@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com> <368BFEA9.4F6CDFD2@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 20:59:30 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > Declarer said "I play all the trumps". > > Now, there are two possibilities, so let me list them. > >[1] He thought three rounds would draw them, ie he thought he had ten. >What of his claim then? Probably it is reasonable that we would allow >it if he can get rid of his spade losers either on the clubs or the >diamonds, and also if the player with the last trump has no more spades: >but most of the time he loses another trick. Why? Because if he was >playing it out this is what he would do - and that is what L70A is all >about. [snip] > However, [1] is more interesting. One poster said that as declarer >had said "I will draw four rounds of trumps" that he should be made to >follow this line. Perhaps he should if he had said that, but since he >did not he does not have to! The problem is a simple one: after >declarer cashes three rounds and *assuming he now believes there to be >no trumps out* what normal lines are there? Would playing another trump >be normal? Cashing the diamonds rather than the clubs to discard the >spade loser - is that normal? > > I am less sure of this. My own feeling is that playing a fourth trump >is not normal [what would be the point? You don't check for lurkers in >a way that would take you off if you found one!]. But what would be the point of _not_ playing the rest of the trumps? At this point, he believes that he has the rest in top tricks. Surely it is "normal" to take the rest of the trumps first in that case? There is no difference between trump tricks and diamond tricks now - they are just tricks that need to be taken. So why not continue with the trump suit, as a natural continuation of drawing trumps? I would find it not only "normal" in the sense of "not irrational", but even "normal" in the sense of "what would typically happen". In addition to this, his stated line of play was explicitly to play all the trumps. Why should be deviate from that line when it can make no difference to the result, assuming his idea of only 3 trumps out is correct? >However, I believe >playing the diamonds first is normal. Yes, that would _also_ be normal. > So, my ruling is that [assuming the defender with the fourth trump has >a second spade] > >[3] If I believe that declarer knows there are four trumps out, then he >gets the slam unless the first club is ruffed Agreed. >[4] If I do not believe that declarer knows there are four trumps out, >then he gets the slam unless the first club or any of the diamonds are >ruffed. I rule that he plays the fourth trump and go down. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 2 04:00:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 04:00:10 +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 EAA07172 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 04:00:04 +1100 Received: from ip196.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.196]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990101165958.XQNP6075.fep4@ip196.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:59:58 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 17:59:57 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <369afa71.8298061@post12.tele.dk> References: <199812291407.JAA09170@freenet3.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199812291407.JAA09170@freenet3.carleton.ca> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:07:56 -0500 (EST), ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) wrote: >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=20 >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? I think that the basis in law for taking declarer's misunderstandings about the hand into consideration is primarily the word "equitably" in L70A: there is nothing equitable in allowing declarers to make contracts that we know that they would not have made by playing them out. In addition, L70C2 specifically says that it is relevant whether or not the claimer is aware of opponents' trumps. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 2 04:15:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 04:15:33 +1100 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA07299 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 04:15:27 +1100 Received: from [195.99.51.104] [195.99.51.104] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zw8AS-0007GJ-00; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:15:23 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:16:01 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > So, my ruling is that [assuming the defender with the fourth trump has = >a second spade] > >[3] If I believe that declarer knows there are four trumps out, then he = >gets the slam unless the first club is ruffed That is not unreasonable - if you grant (as I would not) that declarer is = permitted to refrain from playing the fourth trump. It is possible that his = original statement ("I play all the trumps") meant that he would play all = the high trumps before cashing side winners. > >[4] If I do not believe that declarer knows there are four trumps out, = >then he gets the slam unless the first club or any of the diamonds are = >ruffed. No, he does not. If he believes that after HAKQ he has drawn all the = outstanding trumps, then he has no reason to discard a spade in preference = to any of his other cards on the first available winner. It would certainly = not be irrational play for a declarer who believed that he had the rest of = the tricks to refrain from discarding a spade at his first opportunity - = or, indeed, to refrain from ruffing one of dummy's or his own winners. = People do that sort of thing, you know. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 2 09:23:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 09:23:06 +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 JAA07809 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 09:22:59 +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 AA291479358; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:22:39 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA177539675; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:27:55 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 17:27:45 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Revoke and claim Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all.....and happy New Year, This week in my club, E as defender won trick 10th and claim the rest. The declarer (S) called the director and said he revoked on last trick played (10th). He ask if he can correct his revoke and win 10th trick with the revoke card. =20 My ruling. According to Law 63, a revoke may no more be corrected if a member of offfender's side played to next trick or made/accepted a claim or concession. As E claimed, play must stop and N-S can not play to next trick. S clearly not accepted the claim (he wanted to take a trick). So the revoke is not established and may be corrected. Please comment. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 2 10:06:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 10:06:59 +1100 Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA07899 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 10:06:53 +1100 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (actually host elios.maths.bris.ac.uk) by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 23:06:47 +0000 Received: from maths-pc84.maths.bris.ac.uk (pc84 [137.222.80.126]) by elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA05357 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 23:02:27 GMT From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Times of posts In-Reply-To: <368CEB87.CA9C9CA5@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 23:00:38 +0000 (GMT) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.2 Build (32) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > While reading the last batch of blml messages, I noticed > that David S was writing at 23:30 on Dec 31, Grattan at > 23:14 and 03:10 on Jan 1, and David B at 03:54, 04:23 and > 04:54 on Jan 1. (their times) > > On behalf of over 200 other readers of blml, I wish to > distance myself from these sad excesses and I would like to > wish the three of you a good deal of something else than > blml in 1999. I quite agree about the first two, but in defence of David B, I've often felt (when I roll home blind drunk in the small hours of the morning) that the only thing that could sober me up sufficiently to lie on my bed without holding on is a dose of "De Wael on the Laws". Happy New Year to all, Jeremy. --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 2 12:39:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 12:39:12 +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 MAA08185 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 12:39:05 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zwG1q-0000Wq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 01:39:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 20:53:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >(As Herman said, this is much like the "Strange claim" >discussion, though the point seems even clearer here. If anybody >wants to read the "Strange claim" thread, please feel free to ask >me for a copy by e-mail - I still have it. But beware: it is >about 60 messages long.) The conclusions from it are in an article on my Laws page, specifically at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/str_clm.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 Sat Jan 2 15:30:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA08402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 15:30:39 +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 PAA08397 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 15:30:33 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zwIhl-0004rF-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 04:30:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 01:14:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Revoke and claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes >Hi all.....and happy New Year, > >This week in my club, E as defender won trick 10th and claim the rest. >The declarer (S) called the director and said he revoked on last trick >played (10th). He ask if he can correct his revoke and win 10th trick >with the revoke card. > >My ruling. > >According to Law 63, a revoke may no more be corrected if a member of >offfender's side played to next trick or made/accepted a claim or >concession. As E claimed, play must stop and N-S can not play to next >trick. S clearly not accepted the claim (he wanted to take a trick). So >the revoke is not established and may be corrected. > >Please comment. > Looks right to me. DWS caught me at the last TD training weekend with this one, so I must learn something from him. Happy New year one and all. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 00:04:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 00:04:48 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA09051 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 00:04:40 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-109.uunet.be [194.7.13.109]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA27368 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 14:04:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <368E1797.D088E246@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 13:56:55 +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: Revoke and claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > > Hi all.....and happy New Year, > > This week in my club, E as defender won trick 10th and claim the rest. > The declarer (S) called the director and said he revoked on last trick > played (10th). He ask if he can correct his revoke and win 10th trick > with the revoke card. > > My ruling. > > According to Law 63, a revoke may no more be corrected if a member of > offfender's side played to next trick or made/accepted a claim or > concession. As E claimed, play must stop and N-S can not play to next > trick. S clearly not accepted the claim (he wanted to take a trick). So > the revoke is not established and may be corrected. > > Please comment. > Absolutely correct. What happens afterwards though is usually a big shambles. The tenth trick is replayed, and then play stops, with one player having claimed and thus being on the "doubt" side when he has done absolutely nothing wrong; and another on the "benefit of the doubt" side, but resposible by his -not punishable- mistake for the bad claim. For the revoker, I can still use L64C to do equity, downwards. For claimer, L70A tells me to rule in his doubt, and I don't like that. This is one case in which I would like to see a small law change. L70X : if a claim is made after a revoke by the non-claiming side, but before it has become established, and the TD determines that the claimer would not have claimed without the revoke, the claim shall be ruled with any doubtful points to be resolved against the revoker. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 00:04:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 00:04:37 +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 AAA09041 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 00:04:31 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-109.uunet.be [194.7.13.109]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA27351 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 14:04:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <368E1454.29811497@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 13:43:00 +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> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk one more comment : Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > That would make claims very different from what they are today, > and would take some getting used to. I have some sympathy for > the idea, since I believe many claims without statements actually > result in the claimer getting more tricks than he would get by > playing it out. > And why not ? One of the reason for claiming is that you cannot make stupid mistakes afterwards - like revoking. Remember the Brugges case ? A declarer claims, opponents ask him to play on and in the resulting scramble he manages to revoke. The TD turned it back to the point of the claim, judged the claim to be correct and did not punish the revoke. > But I would prefer it to be simply made clear that a claimer gets > his tricks if and only if it is quite clear to the TD that he > would get them if he had played out the hand. Possibly combined > with a law that said that any outstanding trump is to be > considered forgotten if not mentioned. I prefer the actual way this is mentioned in the laws. It is irrational for someone claiming before playing to the first trick not to draw trumps. L70C2 : ..it is at all likely that claimer .. was unaware that .. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 00:04:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 00:04:44 +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 AAA09050 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 00:04:38 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-109.uunet.be [194.7.13.109]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA27364 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 14:04:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <368E1591.6B103757@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 13:48:17 +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> <369cfd20.8984318@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > Yes indeed. But sometimes you find out too late. > > In Herman's example, he (as TD) allowed the claimer to keep a > finesse position to the (late) point where the miscount would be > detected, thus in effect ruling it irrational to trust the > original trick count and take the presumed 13 (actually 12) top > tricks in an order that would destroy the finesse position early > and thus give only 12 tricks. (That is my understanding from > Herman's description: we haven't seen the hand.) > I carefully neglected to give the hand, because the actual example was indeed of this kind. There were some lines (careless ones, true) where my partner would kill the finesse before discovering the miscount. In effect, the correct ruling was +680, and I would have written it like that except that my opponents gratiously accepted the top at +710 in stead. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 00:04:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 00:04:28 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA09029 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 00:04:21 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-109.uunet.be [194.7.13.109]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA27324 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 14:04:15 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <368E11D3.623A4C14@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 13:32:19 +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: <01BE33FE.AE2C4840@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com> <368BFEA9.4F6CDFD2@freewwweb.com> <36a0fe47.9279863@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > But what would be the point of _not_ playing the rest of the > trumps? > > At this point, he believes that he has the rest in top tricks. No he doesn't. Before I go on, I want to make clear that I am inferring some things from the rather meagre facts we know about this case. I may be inferring wrongly. You may be inferring something else, in which case we may be talking side by side, not about the same case at all. What I am inferring is that upon first sight, declarer thinks he has 13 tricks. For a reason unknown to us, he wants to claim, perhaps thinking the claim to be iron solid. I would judge this claim exactly the same way with him saying "I play all the trumps", as with him saying nothing at all. After all, not drawing trumps at all would be irrational. Now back to my reaction to Jesper's statement : > At this point, he believes that he has the rest in top tricks. No he doesn't. He believes there are thirteen tricks, not necessarily top tricks. He has not even checked that ! I bow to your opinion that it is "rude" to claim without checking first, and you may well caution or even punish under some disciplinary heading, but the claim should be judged all the same. Which means that claimer gets the benefit of all "normal" lines (both within and out of the scope of his original statement) as set out in L70D. Remark that I am having simultaneous discussions with Jesper and Roger over two completely separate issues. Roger thinks L70D does not allow claimer to change to another line (wrong), whereas Jesper tries to infer from the claim and the way it is pronounced that claimer was in some way mistaken about the hand and would not find the correct line even when playing it out (which may or may not be true, and we will never know unless we can go back in time and question claimer more thoroughly). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 00:04:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 00:04:32 +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 AAA09033 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 00:04:25 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-109.uunet.be [194.7.13.109]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA27338 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 14:04:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <368E1320.AF9FCB01@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 13:37:52 +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: Claim References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > If he said (as he did) that he would play all the trumps, we need > to determine whether he thought there were only 3 trumps out. If > he knew that there were 4 outstanding trumps, but somehow > believed that they could not be 4-0, them I'd "allow" him to > change his plan, and go down 2 (or win the contract, if any "not > irrational" way of trying to get to dummy for the finesse > succeeds). Otherwise he'd go down 1. > I see that Jesper and I do not disagree upon the rules. We only have some different conception of this case. I agree with him that if I find claimer was thinking he had 10 trumps, he is not allowed to change his plan. Somehow I doubt that this was the case, but if it is, Jespers rulings are absolutely correct. > The determination of whether "he knew" is of course to be made > with the benefit of doubt going whichever way is advantageous to > the opponents, depending on the layout of their cards. > > I believe that the intention of the laws about claims is and > should be that the onus is on the claimer to present a statement > that convinces the TD that the claimer would actually have won > the claimed tricks if the hand had been played out. > Unfortunately, the laws do not say so in so many words. > > I'd really like the laws to say that after a contested claim the > claimer gets the minimum number of tricks that the TD is > convinced that the claimer would get if he had actually played > out the hand. I think that that is basically what the laws try > to say in a more specific way. > I think that is indeed the intention of the Laws. > In particular, I believe very strongly that if we sometimes allow > a claimer to detect a 4-0 split and modify his plan in cases > where the modification works to his advantage, then we must also > "allow" him to modify it in cases where the modification is even > worse than the original plan. Otherwise, we are effectively > allowing the claimer to follow the one of two possible plans that > will turn out to be most successful, depending on the opponents' > cards. If we do that, claiming with an incomplete statement can > become a better way to win than _any_ line of play! > Indeed !!!! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 04:40:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA14853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 04:40:59 +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 EAA14846 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 04:40:51 +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 MAA7988570 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 12:43:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <368E59CB.CFAEB4D4@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 11:39:23 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Strange Claim Revisited References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Strange Claim Revisited I needed a respite from my recent activity and DWS's posting of the url to Strange Claim was too much prodding to resist. Your comments and criticisms are asked for and will not be challenged by me! . >From you know where: > > > > >E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > > Jx > > Axx > > Jxxx > > 8642 > >AQTxx Kx > >xx KJxxx > >AKQ2 xx > >KQ AJ97 > > 9xxx > > Qxx > > xxx > > T53 > > > >Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of > >Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. > >North called for TD. >>What is the ruling? I think I worked on it at the time but could not find a post so I probably did not. If I remember correctly, my personal conclusion was to award 12 tricks because the only non irrational way to take 5 spades, 3 diamonds AND 4 clubs, given the blockage, was to overtake the club and because of the condition of the club ten it works. I now find that I was not thorough and I feel that I came to an incorrect conclusion, both in reasoning and result. I believe that the proper result is 10 tricks and here is how I came to that conclusion: There are three primary issues [doubtful points] [a] where the claim statement leads [b] which cards take tricks and [c] what order the suits are cashed. [a] the claim statement calls for executing 5 spade, 3 diamond, and 4 club tricks and is not clear as to the order that they may be cashed. Because it is physically impossible to have 14 tricks during a hand, using a heart as an entry will violate the claim statement of 5S, 3D and 4C. Why? Because 5 spades and 3 diamonds and 4 clubs and 1 heart [king or jack] is 13 tricks. If a heart is lead the defense takes the ace that makes 14 tricks. In other words to gain a dummy entry by a heart trick will necessarily cause one of the claimed tricks to be pitched which means that it would be impossible to take 5S, 3D and 4C as the claim statement dictates. We must test lines that do not make it impossible to take 5S, 3D, and 4C, if such lines exist. Adjudication of unstated lines begins after the point that execution of the claim statement stops and it is impossible to execute it [further]. Since claimer does not know the condition of the CT, the primary question is, 'how many normal ways are there to take 4 club tricks missing the ten, plus, 5S and 3D, and exactly zero hearts?'. [b] the precise cards that were to take tricks were not explicitly named and 70E adjudicates that irrational plays will not be imposed on this unstated point. Spades have been unblocked and it would be irrational to not play from the top down so they are. Diamonds are the same but since the heart ace is out it would be irrational to play a losing fourth round so a fourth round will not be played. The club ten is missing and the suit is blocked against a holding of Txxx. The 'standard' club tricks to take are the K,Q,A, then the J. so this must be considered for adjudication if [1] at least one class of hand exists that will permit the KQ be cashed, no heart trick to be won, and the AJ cashed later OR [2] there is no other line of play such as overtaking the club which could produce 4 clubs on a fortuitous fall of the cards. In this case there in fact two possible classes of defensive holdings that permit the claim statement to execute. Since this was unstated about the club condition these two lines must be tested for the least favorable line to claimer. Line [1] the club T drops on the first round, in front of the ace on the second round in which case it is irrational to not overtake; or fortuitously by the third round for the case when it is overtaken. There is also line [2] which is a stepping stone in the heart suit which the endplayed defender has to lead to the clubs at T12. Such a defensive holding contains at least two spades but not more than four; contains no more than 3 diamonds, and contains the stiff heart ace. It might be xxxx-A-xxx-Txxxx The line would be to cash all West's tops discarding hearts down to the stiff king [since it would be irrational for a play of this standard to discard a potentially useful king, it is kept]. At T11 a heart is lead and the ace must win if it has not been pitched in which case the king would be permitted to win [for 13 tricks]. Since this line may force three club discards this would provide the opportunity to get a count on the clubs and make the club overtake a certainty: The relevant condition is this. If the defense is forced to discard at least three clubs along the way because of being squeezed, claimer is guaranteed to be in the position to get a count on the club suit on the first round of clubs. If both follow or the ten is played, then there can be no more than two clubs out which cwould then be drawn by overtaking the second club. If such a 100% play at this standard were available, it would be irrational to not take it so it is included. [c] The order of play of the tricks was unstated and so doubtful points are resolved against the claimer. For the club over take, all orders are tested to find the least favorable. For the stepping stone line the counting play of clubs is available so clubs are to be played at T9 and T10; both orders for spades and diamonds are to be tested to find the least favorable line to claimer. Execution of the claim statement TEST Overtake Line Lead clubs over taking, pitching little diamond or hearts. 4 club tricks. Claim statement is still operating. Lead diamonds for three rounds, pitching a small heart. 3 diamond tricks. Claim statement is still operating. Lead the remaining 3 spades, pitching three small hearts. 5 spade tricks. Claim statement is still operating. Lead heart. Opponents get the heart ace. Result 12 tricks. Same result for any order of suits EXCEPT DWS's squeeze line where the order is spades, then clubs, then [a] cash the heart king if the ace was pitched or [b] cash FOUR diamonds results in 13 tricks. Since it is more than the 12 tricks from the other sequences, claimer may not receive the benefit. Good going David. TEST Stepping stone line Lead the last 3 spades, pitching 3 small hearts. Defenders continue to hold four diamonds, 2 clubs, and the doubleton heart ace; and the doubleton heart Q and three clubs. Claim statement is still operating. Lead 3 top diamonds, pitching 1 small heart. Defenders continue to hold diamond J, 2 clubs, and the doubleton heart ace; and the doubleton heart Q and three clubs. The defenders have kept 5 clubs, the T does not drop before dummy plays to the second round, so the overtake option is now gone. Claim statement is still operating. Lead the club K, then Q retaining the lead. Defenders continue to hold diamond J, and the doubleton heart ace; and the doubleton heart Q. Claim statement is still operating. Lead a heart. The ace wins. The diamond jack is cashed Claim statement fails. Defenders play their best. Claimer plays normal but not irrational. A heart is lead to the Q. Switching the order of spades and diamonds has no effect. Result: 10 tricks. RULING. The failure to state the order of the cards, more to the point, the cashing of the club tricks, yields two primary lines of 'normal' play that are unstated and still consistent with the claim statement. The Overtake and the Stepping Stone. The Stepping Stone line is the least favorable line consistent with the claim statement. RESULT- 10 tricks. Since it is obvious that declarer would be entitled to at least ten tricks on any line consistent with the claim statement, there is no need to seek out another possible 'normal' unstated line of play consistent with the claim that will yield fewer than 10 tricks. From a practical standpoint, perhaps the degree to which such searches are limited are the tenacity of the opponents and the officials to find the ultimate truth. Roger Pewick David Stevenson wrote: > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > >(As Herman said, this is much like the "Strange claim" > >discussion, though the point seems even clearer here. If anybody > >wants to read the "Strange claim" thread, please feel free to ask > >me for a copy by e-mail - I still have it. But beware: it is > >about 60 messages long.) > > The conclusions from it are in an article on my Laws page, > specifically at > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/str_clm.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 04:50:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 04:50:17 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA15024 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 04:50:11 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092ndb.san.rr.com [204.210.48.219]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA21622; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 09:50:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901021750.JAA21622@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: " CHYAH E BURGHARD" , Subject: Re: Rubber Bridge Laws Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 09:48:29 -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 Chyah Burghard wrote: ---------- > Marvin 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. :) > > 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? > Counts a lot, and glad to know it. I hoped Niels had permission and he did. Nice to see that the ACBL is cooperating with him to this extent. Rubber bridge is the first version of the game played by most, and the ACBL does well to help promote it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 05:00:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 05:00:25 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA15210 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 05:00:19 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092ndb.san.rr.com [204.210.48.219]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA22415; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 10:00:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901021800.KAA22415@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Rubber bridge laws. Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 09:58:04 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote concerning what may have slipped thru his filter: > 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. :) Written with "tongue in cheek," which the smiley was supposed to convey. > > 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. > The copyright notices are inappropriate for organizations that are supposed to be promoting bridge. Rather, the notice should read, "Copying of this document in any fashion is expressly permitted and even encouraged." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 05:12:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 05:12:16 +1100 Received: from smtp0.mindspring.com (smtp0.mindspring.com [207.69.200.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA15400 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 05:12:09 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka8h1.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.34.33]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA07253 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 13:10:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990101193348.006be75c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 19:33:48 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <368D512B.62C11F5B@freewwweb.com> References: <199812312308.SAA12658@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To Roger and David B: I think the point is not whether we should allow declarer's stated irrational line, but whether we should be lenient or strict when trying to divine declarer's intent. When declarer announces a precise and unambiguous line which is both ridiculous and unsuccessful, it should be allowed, IMO. Whether that is the case here is, perhaps, the real subject of the debate. There has been some discussion about the precise wording of the claim, and whether this declarer's grasp of English was completely sound. These points should be considered by the TD, or AC, as the case may be. I wasn't there, and have nothing useful to contribute as to the facts. But more often than not, the claim will suffer more from a lack of precision or a failure to have considered all possibilities (such as horrendous trump breaks) than from a complete delusion about basic bridge realities. If declarer had stated, for example, "drawing trumps, and the rest are mine", it seems more reasonable to guess that he simply failed to consider the possibility of a 4-0 break, or perhaps mis-counted trumps, than that he was suddenly overcome with the notion that tens beat jacks. And it seems contrary to the clear intent of the Laws to hold his feet to the fire in this situation. The Laws express a clear reluctance to punish declarer for a sloppy claim when normal play would be successful. Any doubtful points about what is "normal" should be resolved in favor of the defense, but not to the extent of imposing an irrational play upon the declarer. And in the present case, it would obviously be irrational for declarer to play 4 rounds of trumps. If as TD, you determine that declarer's actual intent was to do just that, then hold him to it. But if you judge that he was merely careless in the statement of the claim, then you should not penalize him by imposing the absurd consequences of his ill-considered or poorly worded statement. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 05:31:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 05:31:31 +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 FAA15759 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 05:31:23 +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 NAA8010920 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 13:33:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <368E65A5.68FEF049@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 12:29:57 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim References: <01BE33FE.AE2C4840@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com> <368BFEA9.4F6CDFD2@freewwweb.com> <36a0fe47.9279863@post12.tele.dk> <368E11D3.623A4C14@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx2.freewwweb.com id NAA8010920 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am now refreshed=85..Zzzzzzzzzzzzz=85zzzz..zz z z . . . Actually, claimer gets the benefit of the worst of "all "normal"=20 unstated lines that are consistent with the claim statement." If there are no unstated lines then we know from the statement the exact order that all the cards are played. We play the cards in that order and the tricks are scored up. The bone of contention is when there are things unstated. If there are both stated and unstated lines, we take what is certain. What is certain is found in the claim statement and we execute it.=20 When there is an unstated development we find the worst continuation that is [a] consistent with the original claim statement and [b] is not irrational. We adjudicate on that basis. When we run out of statement, we use the information discovered during the stated line if it would be irrational to not use it and adjudicate on that basis. In this case, claimer stated that they were playing all the trumps.=20 This is certain. The ace is played and it wins the trick. The lead is retained so the king is played. It wins the trick so a fourth round is played. It does not win the trick. This was unstated. On the next trick[s] claimer gets the benefit of the discovered 4-0 split so as to not be forced into an irrational continuation. Happy New Year's Day plus One Roger Pewick Herman De Wael wrote: >=20 > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > But what would be the point of _not_ playing the rest of the > > trumps? > > > > At this point, he believes that he has the rest in top tricks. >=20 > No he doesn't. >=20 > Before I go on, I want to make clear that I am inferring > some things from the rather meagre facts we know about this > case. I may be inferring wrongly. You may be inferring > something else, in which case we may be talking side by > side, not about the same case at all. >=20 > What I am inferring is that upon first sight, declarer > thinks he has 13 tricks. For a reason unknown to us, he > wants to claim, perhaps thinking the claim to be iron > solid. I would judge this claim exactly the same way with > him saying "I play all the trumps", as with him saying > nothing at all. After all, not drawing trumps at all would > be irrational. >=20 > Now back to my reaction to Jesper's statement : >=20 > > At this point, he believes that he has the rest in top tricks. >=20 > No he doesn't. >=20 > He believes there are thirteen tricks, not necessarily top > tricks. He has not even checked that ! >=20 > I bow to your opinion that it is "rude" to claim without > checking first, and you may well caution or even punish > under some disciplinary heading, but the claim should be > judged all the same. >=20 > Which means that claimer gets the benefit of all "normal" > lines (both within and out of the scope of his original > statement) as set out in L70D. >=20 > Remark that I am having simultaneous discussions with Jesper > and Roger over two completely separate issues. > Roger thinks L70D does not allow claimer to change to > another line (wrong), whereas Jesper tries to infer from the > claim and the way it is pronounced that claimer was in some > way mistaken about the hand and would not find the correct > line even when playing it out (which may or may not be true, > and we will never know unless we can go back in time and > question claimer more thoroughly). >=20 > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 07:54:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 07:54:31 +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 HAA18287 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 07:54:23 +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 PAA8258343 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 15:56:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <368E872B.97886E3C@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 14:52:59 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: <199812312308.SAA12658@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990101193348.006be75c@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have a perennial problem. I direct a weekly game at the bridge club. When I leave at night, I turn off the light, open the door, wait for it to close, put the key into the lock, turn it, remove the key, unlock my car, start it, and leave. So, what is the problem? I get a half mile from home and I ask myself, did I lock the club? I just don't remember. It would be a very poor reflection on my custodianship of other people's property to have not locked the club should some human caused disaster then ensue at the club. Invariably, week after week, I turn around and discover that in fact I had properly secured the club after all. But another half an hour wasted along with a half gallon of gasoline. So, what is the point? The point is that some things are such a habit that in the automation of doing them, there is no specific recollection of doing them. Many times I will read something and remember particulars about it only to discover that what I read and what I remember were not even close. Well, I think that we have been hearing so much of "The Laws express a clear reluctance to punish declarer for a sloppy claim when normal play would be successful." and other such things. So that that is what we remember the laws to say. So, out of habit, when we 'read' the law what we are reading is what we remember as opposed to the words on paper. I challenge you. Finish reading this post. Then go to the laws and read L70. Read this post again and then go back and read L70, this time, very carefully. And then, maybe, just maybe, read this post [AARGHHH] one more time: The law says that when the stated line is successful, that is what claimer gets. That if the stated line is unsuccessful, that is what claimer gets. L70A , B1,3. Further, if there are unstated lines. When a normal unstated line is successful, that is what claimer gets. But, ONLY if there is a normal unstated line that is not worse. L70A, B1,3 & D. Further, if by executing the stated line information comes to light. Once the stated line has been executed, the unstated line may include play that was proven by the stated line , but ONLY if it would be irrational to not include it. L70E. Happy New Year's Day plus One Roger Pewick Ps Every time I have been told I was wrong I have read L70 or its parts at least ten times . I reckon that I have been told I am wrong more than 20 times this week. Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > To Roger and David B: I think the point is not whether we should allow > declarer's stated irrational line, but whether we should be lenient or > strict when trying to divine declarer's intent. When declarer announces a > precise and unambiguous line which is both ridiculous and unsuccessful, it > should be allowed, IMO. > > Whether that is the case here is, perhaps, the real subject of the debate. > There has been some discussion about the precise wording of the claim, and > whether this declarer's grasp of English was completely sound. These points > should be considered by the TD, or AC, as the case may be. I wasn't there, > and have nothing useful to contribute as to the facts. > > But more often than not, the claim will suffer more from a lack of > precision or a failure to have considered all possibilities (such as > horrendous trump breaks) than from a complete delusion about basic bridge > realities. If declarer had stated, for example, "drawing trumps, and the > rest are mine", it seems more reasonable to guess that he simply failed to > consider the possibility of a 4-0 break, or perhaps mis-counted trumps, > than that he was suddenly overcome with the notion that tens beat jacks. > And it seems contrary to the clear intent of the Laws to hold his feet to > the fire in this situation. > > The Laws express a clear reluctance to punish declarer for a sloppy claim > when normal play would be successful. Any doubtful points about what is > "normal" should be resolved in favor of the defense, but not to the extent > of imposing an irrational play upon the declarer. And in the present case, > it would obviously be irrational for declarer to play 4 rounds of trumps. > If as TD, you determine that declarer's actual intent was to do just that, > then hold him to it. But if you judge that he was merely careless in the > statement of the claim, then you should not penalize him by imposing the > absurd consequences of his ill-considered or poorly worded statement. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 13:07:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 13:07:59 +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 NAA23959 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 13:07:51 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zwcxD-0004ZZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 02:07:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 22:35:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <01BE33FE.AE2C4840@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com> <368BFEA9.4F6CDFD2@freewwweb.com> <36a0fe47.9279863@post12.tele.dk> <368E11D3.623A4C14@village.uunet.be> <368E65A5.68FEF049@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: <368E65A5.68FEF049@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: >Actually, claimer gets the benefit of the worst of "all "normal" >unstated lines that are consistent with the claim statement." > >If there are no unstated lines then we know from the statement the exact >order that all the cards are played. We play the cards in that order >and the tricks are scored up. > >The bone of contention is when there are things unstated. > >If there are both stated and unstated lines, we take what is certain. >What is certain is found in the claim statement and we execute it. >When there is an unstated development we find the worst continuation >that is [a] consistent with the original claim statement and [b] is not >irrational. We adjudicate on that basis. When we run out of statement, >we use the information discovered during the stated line if it would be >irrational to not use it and adjudicate on that basis. > >In this case, claimer stated that they were playing all the trumps. >This is certain. The ace is played and it wins the trick. The lead is >retained so the king is played. It wins the trick so a fourth round is >played. It does not win the trick. This was unstated. On the next >trick[s] claimer gets the benefit of the discovered 4-0 split so as to >not be forced into an irrational continuation. How does all this square with L70A and custom and practice? -- 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 Jan 3 13:27:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 13:27:43 +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 NAA24327 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 13:27:36 +1100 Received: from modem26.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.154] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zwdGM-0007ti-00; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 02:27:30 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Revoke and claim Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 02:12:33 -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 ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ======================================= +++++ This has gone to my memory board, Grattan +++++ ---------- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Revoke and claim > Date: 02 January 1999 12:56 > > This is one case in which I would like to see a small law > change. > L70X : if a claim is made after a revoke by the non-claiming > side, but before it has become established, and the TD > determines that the claimer would not have claimed without > the revoke, the claim shall be ruled with any doubtful > points to be resolved against the revoker. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 13:27:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 13:27:41 +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 NAA24325 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 13:27:34 +1100 Received: from modem26.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.154] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zwdGI-0007ti-00; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 02:27:27 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Times of posts Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 01:19:49 -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 ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ======================================== ---------- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Times of posts > Date: 01 January 1999 15:36 > > While reading the last batch of blml messages, I noticed > that David S was writing at 23:30 on Dec 31, Grattan at > 23:14 and 03:10 on Jan 1, and David B at 03:54, 04:23 and > 04:54 on Jan 1. (their times) > > On behalf of over 200 other readers of blml, I wish to > distance myself from these sad excesses and I would like to > wish the three of you a good deal of something else than > blml in 1999. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- +++ Does it occur to you that we may have something more rewarding to do at more conventional times? But for the record I am typing this at 0114 GMT - prior to that I was asleep for about four hours and I shall get another three hours at least from about 3.30 onwards. Between 2330 and 0145 I had been out celebrating the arrival of the new year and liquidity. ~G~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 15:01:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA26051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 15:01:09 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA26044 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 15:01:02 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092ndb.san.rr.com [204.210.48.219]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA09905; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 20:00:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901030400.UAA09905@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Alerting Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 20:00:17 -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 Eric Landau wrote: Fred Flam wrote: > > >It seems to me that the emphasis is misplaced. If the use of Law 20(F) > >were stressed then a simple universal set of alert regulations would serve > >very well. Against unfamiliar opponents, or following a complicated > >auction, players should be encouraged to ask at the end of the auction: > >"All calls natural and without hidden meaning?" Complicated alert > >regulations seem to assume that Law 20(F) does not exist. > > Before the introduction of alerts (early 1970s in the ACBL) L20F was the > sole means of obtaining information about opponents' auctions, and didn't > serve very well at all. Indeed, alerts were invented specifically due to > problems with L20F: As folks became more sensitive to the strictures of > L16, and attempted to take steps to eliminate "that ol' black magic" from > the game, it became apparent that it was extremely difficult to exercise > one's rights under L20F without passing UI. Alerts were an attempt to > control, or at least reduce, the inevitable UI resulting from players' > attempts to use L20F to keep themselves informed -- not to mention, > perhaps, attempts by afficianados of black magic to use L20F improperly > *for the purpose* of passing UI, back in the days when one could usually > get away with doing so. Another attempt to control the passing of UI via L20F was a change in the wording of L20F1. 1975: During the auction and before the final pass, a full explanation of any call made by an opponent may be requested by any player... 1987: During the auction and before the final pass, any player...may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction. As is true of many little changes to the Laws, this one was generally ignored and the questioning of individual calls has continued to the present day. And now the WBFLC has said that violating this law is "a marginal infringement of the laws" that "should not normally attract a penalty..." The result is a continuing passing of UI in this manner, and one can "usually get away with doing so." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 15:25:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA26495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 15:25:38 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA26489 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 15:25:32 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092ndb.san.rr.com [204.210.48.219]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11722 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 20:25:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901030425.UAA11722@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Interpretation Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 20:23:39 -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: > >> From: "David Burn" > > >> The term "irrational" should be given a clear definition by the > >> lawmakers, so that it can be interpreted consistently; > > >One can hardly object to this! > This reminds me that Grattan has expressed the opinion (BLML 22 Sep 98) that a revoke is not an irrational act, and therefore is not the sort of action ("irrational, wild, or gambling") that might annull redress for an infraction. He wrote: "A revoke, for example, is not a considered action and does not therefore qualify to be irrational." Edgar Kaplan expressed the opposite opinion (*Bridge World* editorial, July 93): "When we think of mistakes that would cancel the usual protection, we think in terms of revokes, or other *gross* errors." That would include such things as LOOTs, I presume. It seems to me that a revoke is irrational for the very reason that it is not a "considered action," so I agree with Kaplan. What about you other BLMLers? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 15:58:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA27026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 15:58:23 +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 PAA27020 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 15:58:17 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zwfcA-0000WI-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 04:58:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 04:26:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: grosvenor again MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk so mamos is directing the Prem League playoffs for the Eoropean team Selectors and I've invited him to stay the night 'chez moi' and we've moaned about the movement, we've moaned about the selectors, and Diana has produced her epee, her foil and her sabre. Diana will play for GB women if she could be bothered. (The rubber bridge game cost me 32 points playing with the Canuck against Diana and mamos.) So Mamos & I explain to Diana about the Grosvenor (recent posting) and she misplays it rising with the K and she produces the line " A compound fracture of the self-esteem." And adds in her defence she would not have played it that way had her father not just explained the restricted choice rule. So the acorns landed under the tree, and also were carried by the crows to all ends of the Earth. And Diana (who could play for GB at Bridge but WILL play for GB at Fencing) points out it is easy to take 10pence points off her father at Bridge and she could beat him at fencing too. PS, while he was typing this, daddy was just slightly drunk. I think you should be told. Diana P. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 16:07:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 16:07:05 +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 QAA27189 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 16:06:59 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zwfkb-0000xL-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 05:06:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 05:05:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Interpretation In-Reply-To: <199901030425.UAA11722@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199901030425.UAA11722@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >> Steve Willner wrote: > >> >> From: "David Burn" >> >> >> The term "irrational" should be given a clear definition by >the >> >> lawmakers, so that it can be interpreted consistently; >> >> >One can hardly object to this! >> >This reminds me that Grattan has expressed the opinion (BLML 22 Sep >98) that a revoke is not an irrational act, and therefore is not >the sort of action ("irrational, wild, or gambling") that might >annull redress for an infraction. He wrote: "A revoke, for example, >is not a >considered action and does not therefore qualify to be irrational." > >Edgar Kaplan expressed the opposite opinion (*Bridge World* >editorial, July 93): "When we think of mistakes that would cancel >the usual protection, we think in terms of revokes, or other >*gross* errors." That would include such things as LOOTs, I >presume. > >It seems to me that a revoke is irrational for the very reason that >it is not a "considered action," so I agree with Kaplan. What about >you other BLMLers? > A revoke is not irrational IMO. Cheers John. Diana agrees -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 16:11:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 16:11:07 +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 QAA27274 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 16:11:00 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zwfoV-0001A0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 05:10:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 05:09:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Times of posts In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Grattan writes >Grattan >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > >".....yet happiest if ye seek >No happier state, and know to know no more." > - Paradise Lost >======================================== >---------- >> From: Herman De Wael >> To: Bridge Laws >> Subject: Times of posts >> Date: 01 January 1999 15:36 >> >> While reading the last batch of blml messages, I noticed >> that David S was writing at 23:30 on Dec 31, Grattan at >> 23:14 and 03:10 on Jan 1, and David B at 03:54, 04:23 and >> 04:54 on Jan 1. (their times) >> >> On behalf of over 200 other readers of blml, I wish to >> distance myself from these sad excesses and I would like to >> wish the three of you a good deal of something else than >> blml in 1999. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >--------- >+++ Does it occur to you that we may have something >more rewarding to do at more conventional times? But for >the record I am typing this at 0114 GMT - prior to that I >was asleep for about four hours and I shall get another >three hours at least from about 3.30 onwards. > Between 2330 and 0145 I had been out celebrating >the arrival of the new year and liquidity. ~G~ +++ I, of course, as with any bridge player in London, was at Christine Duckworth's NY party between 1130 and 0015 am. The New Year was celebrated. Even DB was there. Cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 21:29:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 21:29:44 +1100 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net ([194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA03025 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 21:29:36 +1100 Received: from modem49.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.49] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zwkmf-0003eN-00; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 10:29:22 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "axeman" , Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 10:27:04 -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 "against the grain I serve to produce events and do what is irrational because I am commanded to." - Dostoevsky ========================================------ > From: axeman > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Claim > Date: 02 January 1999 20:52 > > I have a perennial problem. -------------------- \x/ ----------------------- > > The law says that when the stated line is successful, that is what > claimer gets. That if the stated line is unsuccessful, that is what > claimer gets. L70A , B1,3. > > Further, if there are unstated lines. When a normal unstated line is > successful, that is what claimer gets. But, ONLY if there is a normal > unstated line that is not worse. L70A, B1,3 & D. > > Further, if by executing the stated line information comes to light. > Once the stated line has been executed, the unstated line may include > play that was proven by the stated line , but ONLY if it would be > irrational to not include it. L70E. > -------------------------- \x/ ----------------- ++++ Well, er, yes and no........................ Perhaps we should remind ourselves that it is up to claimer to to propose a new line of play and ask for it to be allowed. The Director's task is to evaluate that request against the criteria laid down in Law 70D. The Director is not to introduce and allow claimer a successful line that claimer has not proposed; the law does not give him that power. Law 70E applies to certain specified situations and I have not noticed that such are present here.(Situations where success depends on finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card). ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 22:00:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 22:00:13 +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 WAA03482 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 22:00:06 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-73.uunet.be [194.7.13.73]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04673 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 11:59:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <368F4671.BF90AA27@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 11:29:05 +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: <199812312308.SAA12658@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990101193348.006be75c@pop.mindspring.com> <368E872B.97886E3C@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Roger, axeman wrote: > I > challenge you. Finish reading this post. Then go to the laws and read > L70. Read this post again and then go back and read L70, this time, > very carefully. And then, maybe, just maybe, read this post [AARGHHH] > one more time: > > The law says that when the stated line is successful, that is what > claimer gets. That if the stated line is unsuccessful, that is what > claimer gets. L70A , B1,3. > > Further, if there are unstated lines. When a normal unstated line is > successful, that is what claimer gets. But, ONLY if there is a normal > unstated line that is not worse. L70A, B1,3 & D. > NO, ONLY if there is a normal line that is not worse (whether stated or unstated). > Further, if by executing the stated line information comes to light. > Once the stated line has been executed, the unstated line may include > play that was proven by the stated line , but ONLY if it would be > irrational to not include it. L70E. > Indeed. So what is the problem. Apparently you think that the unstated lines only come into play when the stated ones run out. But that is not the meaning of L70D and L70E. L70D applies to all lines, whether there are at the same time stated ones or not. All these lines should be checked against all alternatives (stated or not), and then the worst of all normal lines shall be taken. I have written a full example but will make a new post out of it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 22:00:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 22:00:24 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA03493 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 22:00:18 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-73.uunet.be [194.7.13.73]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA04747 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 12:00:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <368F46C2.B4A0286F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 11:30:26 +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: Claim - bigger example Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Say someone has given a claim statement which can be said to have two lines : A and B. If A is followed then a bad break is found early, so claimer says he will follow C. A (completely followed through) leads to 8 tricks. C leads to 11. B would lead to 10 tricks, but there is one other line D, which leads to 9. A is deemed irrational, since the bad break is found (L70E), B, C and D are considered normal. According to L70D, TD will not accept C, since there are normal lines (B and D) that lead to less tricks. Then the original statement is useful again, since B is a stated line, declarer need not take D. Of the two lines in the original statement, starting on A would lead to 11 tricks (switching to C), and B leads to 10 tricks. Declarer gets the worst of the included lines : B - 10 tricks. Seems clear to me. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 22:00:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 22:00:28 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA03498 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 22:00:21 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-73.uunet.be [194.7.13.73]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA04755 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 12:00:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <368F4B1A.FF1D840B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 11:48:58 +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: Strange Claim Revisited References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> <368E59CB.CFAEB4D4@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Oh no, he's dug it up ! axeman wrote: > > Strange Claim Revisited > > > >E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > > > Jx > > > Axx > > > Jxxx > > > 8642 > > >AQTxx Kx > > >xx KJxxx > > >AKQ2 xx > > >KQ AJ97 > > > 9xxx > > > Qxx > > > xxx > > > T53 > > > > > >Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of > > >Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. > > >North called for TD. > >>What is the ruling? > Let's recap once more : Stated line. Let's play in fact. Hey, this does not work - even before the play goes on, this is an "irrational line". We have discussed this but playing diamonds before noticing that clubs block was finally deemed irrational. So there is NO normal stated line. So we go to ALL lines (within AND out of the statement) : - overtake the clubs - stepping stone squeeze or whatever - heart to the jack - heart to the king I don't care to search if the second can be found at the table or not, since in fact one of the four lines leads to 11 tricks, and that is the ruling. Without the Jack of Hearts, the ruling would be 12 tricks. A stated line becomes irrational at the moment claimer cannot fail to notice it and claimer CAN NOT be held to it after that. It is as if there is no stated line from that moment on. In the strange claim, I (and many others) find that the stated line breaks down even before any further trick is played, since claimer cannot fail to notice the blockage the moment he thinks about which card to play next. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 3 22:34:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 22:34:13 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA03913 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 22:34:07 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zwlnD-0005WY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 11:34:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 02:48:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <199812312308.SAA12658@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990101193348.006be75c@pop.mindspring.com> <368E872B.97886E3C@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: <368E872B.97886E3C@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: >The law says that when the stated line is successful, that is what >claimer gets. That if the stated line is unsuccessful, that is what >claimer gets. L70A , B1,3. Not in my Law book. L70A: In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows. Not a single mention of what to do if the stated line is successful or unsuccessful, just adjudicating as equitably as possible. L70B1: The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim. Not a single mention of what to do if the stated line is successful or unsuccessful, just that the clarification statement should be repeated. L70B3: The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim. Not a single mention of what to do if the stated line is successful or unsuccessful, just that the opponents' objections are heard. ---------- Furthermore, ***nowhere*** in L70 does it say >that when the stated line is successful, that is what >claimer gets. That if the stated line is unsuccessful, that is what >claimer gets. ---------- >Ps Every time I have been told I was wrong I have read L70 or its >parts at least ten times . I reckon that I have been told I am wrong >more than 20 times this week. Indeed. Well, I am telling you that you are wrong, and asking you to read L70 again. This time please read the words as they are, noting especially the absence of anything telling the TD that the player gets the stated line. ---------- In one way I do agree with Roger. I think there is a danger to assume we know what is in common Laws, however, I do what Roger suggests, and I advise it to you: re-read the Law book rather than assume. ---------- Gordon Bower: I have sent you two emails over the last couple of weeks to three different email addresses. All bounce. Could you let me have an e-ddress to which I can send you emails please? -- 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 Jan 4 01:21:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 01:21:47 +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 BAA07921 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 01:21:40 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA01700 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 09:21:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990103092324.00709d34@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 09:23:24 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <368E1320.AF9FCB01@village.uunet.be> References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:37 PM 1/2/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >> If he said (as he did) that he would play all the trumps, we need >> to determine whether he thought there were only 3 trumps out. If >> he knew that there were 4 outstanding trumps, but somehow >> believed that they could not be 4-0, them I'd "allow" him to >> change his plan, and go down 2 (or win the contract, if any "not >> irrational" way of trying to get to dummy for the finesse >> succeeds). Otherwise he'd go down 1. > >I see that Jesper and I do not disagree upon the rules. >We only have some different conception of this case. >I agree with him that if I find claimer was thinking he had >10 trumps, he is not allowed to change his plan. >Somehow I doubt that this was the case, but if it is, >Jespers rulings are absolutely correct. What if the trump suit were AKQxx opposite 10xxx, and declarer admitted that at the time of the claim he thought that there were only three trumps out? Would we allow him to change his line after playing A, K, Q, on the grounds that it would be irrational not to notice that the J had not yet fallen? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 02:32:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 02:32:34 +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 CAA08900 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 02:32:28 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-106.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.106]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA8920927; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 10:35:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <368F8D39.46597447@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 09:31:05 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws CC: Herman De Wael Subject: Re: Claim References: <199812312308.SAA12658@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990101193348.006be75c@pop.mindspring.com> <368E872B.97886E3C@freewwweb.com> <368F4671.BF90AA27@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman, Could you give a tiny clarification? See below. And thank you. May the new year be bountiful! Roger Pewick Herman De Wael wrote: > > Hi Roger, > > axeman wrote: > > > I > > challenge you. Finish reading this post. Then go to the laws and read > > L70. Read this post again and then go back and read L70, this time, > > very carefully. And then, maybe, just maybe, read this post [AARGHHH] > > one more time: > > > > The law says that when the stated line is successful, that is what > > claimer gets. That if the stated line is unsuccessful, that is what > > claimer gets. L70A , B1,3. Here it is. Since you have no comment here, is it because you feel I have accurately stated the law. And if not, > > > > Further, if there are unstated lines. When a normal unstated line is > > successful, that is what claimer gets. But, ONLY if there is a normal > > unstated line that is not worse. L70A, B1,3 & D. > > > > NO, ONLY if there is a normal line that is not worse > (whether stated or unstated). > > > Further, if by executing the stated line information comes to light. > > Once the stated line has been executed, the unstated line may include > > play that was proven by the stated line , but ONLY if it would be > > irrational to not include it. L70E. > > > > Indeed. So what is the problem. > Apparently you think that the unstated lines only come into > play when the stated ones run out. But that is not the > meaning of L70D and L70E. > > L70D applies to all lines, whether there are at the same > time stated ones or not. All these lines should be checked > against all alternatives (stated or not), and then the worst > of all normal lines shall be taken. > > I have written a full example but will make a new post out > of it. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 03:56:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 03:56:31 +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 DAA09829 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 03:56:22 +1100 Received: from ip33.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.33]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990103165615.RTF6075.fep4@ip33.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 17:56:15 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 17:56:15 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36a09d40.5203982@post12.tele.dk> References: <01BE33FE.AE2C4840@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com> <368BFEA9.4F6CDFD2@freewwweb.com> <36a0fe47.9279863@post12.tele.dk> <368E11D3.623A4C14@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <368E11D3.623A4C14@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, 02 Jan 1999 13:32:19 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>=20 >> But what would be the point of _not_ playing the rest of the >> trumps? >>=20 >> At this point, he believes that he has the rest in top tricks. > >No he doesn't. Let me just make sure that we agree on precisely what situation I was talking about above: the situation was: (a) The original hand: Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x (b) Declarer has claimed with the words " I play all the trumps". (c) The TD has established that declarer claimed because he thought there were only 3 trumps out. (d) According to the claim, trick one was taken by the SA and the next three tricks by the HAKQ. Under these circumstances, it seems obvious to me that declarer intended to take 1 spade, 5 hearts, 5 diamonds, and 2 clubs, all from the top. What else could his claim mean? So IMO he clearly does believe he has the rest in top tricks. >He believes there are thirteen tricks, not necessarily top >tricks. He has not even checked that ! Which tricks other than top tricks are he claiming? Under the misunderstanding that there are only 3 trumps out, he _has_ the rest in top tricks. He has not specified any line of play other than taking top tricks. Is it then "irrational" to try to take the top tricks? It is not the TD's job to guess which tricks a claimer is claiming: it is the claimer's job to know that and to make it clear. If the claimer does not do so, any doubt is to be resolved against him (L70A). It seems that many contributors find it more natural for declarer to have claimed ignoring a possible 4-0 break than for declarer to have believed that there were only 3 trumps out. I find that interesting: if I had made that claim, it would be almost certain that I had miscounted my trumps, while the risk that I would forget to consider that 4 trumps could be 4-0 is extremely small. Am I very atypical in the kind of errors I make? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 03:56:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 03:56:37 +1100 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA09842 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 03:56:31 +1100 Received: from ip33.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.33]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990103165623.RTN6075.fep4@ip33.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 17:56:23 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 17:56:23 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36a29d80.5268085@post12.tele.dk> References: <199812312308.SAA12658@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990101193348.006be75c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990101193348.006be75c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 01 Jan 1999 19:33:48 -0500, "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: >The Laws express a clear reluctance to punish declarer for a sloppy = claim >when normal play would be successful. Any doubtful points about what is >"normal" should be resolved in favor of the defense, but not to the = extent >of imposing an irrational play upon the declarer. And in the present = case, >it would obviously be irrational for declarer to play 4 rounds of = trumps. He believes that he has 13 top tricks. Why is it irrational to take those top tricks who happen to be in the trump suit before those who happen to be in other suits? (I.e., assuming that the TD believes him to have miscounted so that he believes that there are only 3 trumps out.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 03:56:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 03:56:26 +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 DAA09822 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 03:56:17 +1100 Received: from ip33.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.33]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990103165609.RSX6075.fep4@ip33.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 17:56:09 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 17:56:09 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <369d9c52.4966781@post12.tele.dk> References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> <368E1454.29811497@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <368E1454.29811497@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, 02 Jan 1999 13:43:00 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> That would make claims very different from what they are today, >> and would take some getting used to. I have some sympathy for >> the idea, since I believe many claims without statements actually >> result in the claimer getting more tricks than he would get by >> playing it out. > >And why not ? > >One of the reason for claiming is that you cannot make >stupid mistakes afterwards - like revoking. Correct. I should have said something like "getting more tricks than he would get by playing it out, assuming that when he plays it out he follows his intended/stated line of play and does not discover any misunderstandings that the line of play is based on before he unavoidably will discover them, but otherwise playing a normal, not irrational game". The short version: it is important that he pays the price for mistakes made _before_ the claim, but he will be assumed to not make new stupid mistakes during the play. >Remember the Brugges case ? A declarer claims, opponents >ask him to play on and in the resulting scramble he manages >to revoke. The TD turned it back to the point of the claim, >judged the claim to be correct and did not punish the >revoke. I agree with that. >> But I would prefer it to be simply made clear that a claimer gets >> his tricks if and only if it is quite clear to the TD that he >> would get them if he had played out the hand. Possibly combined >> with a law that said that any outstanding trump is to be >> considered forgotten if not mentioned. > >I prefer the actual way this is mentioned in the laws. It >is irrational for someone claiming before playing to the >first trick not to draw trumps. >L70C2 : ..it is at all likely that claimer .. was unaware >that .. You're right - when no trump tricks have been played yet, in particular at trick one, the outstanding trumps are generally not forgotten. But later in the play it is sometimes much too easy to not tell anybody that you actually had forgotten a trump. The current wording is good enough - I think I probably just want it interpreted a little harder than it often is. I'd like it to be normal procedure for defenders who have trumps not mentioned in the claim to _always_ specifically ask declarer whether he had forgotten the outstanding trump(s). That might (a) make more declarers admit they had forgotten it, and (b) teach claimers that they may just as well get used to mentioning the outstanding trumps in the claim. But that is not a problem with the laws, but with the way we do things in practice - and not easy to change. The possibilities for serious disagreement with Herman in this thread seem to become smaller and smaller :-) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 08:00:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:00:48 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12631 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:00:42 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092ndb.san.rr.com [204.210.48.219]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA15048 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 13:00:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901032100.NAA15048@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Subsequent/Consequent Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 12:59:37 -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 thought I mailed the below article a month ago, and was ticked at seeing no comments. However, I can't find it among my "sent" items so it must have got trashed somehow. I'll try to recreate it. What I want to know is whether the given adjustments are correct per L12C2. With both sides vulnerable, a pair bids 6NT instead of 4NT thru illegal use of UI, and: 1. Slam is cold for 12 tricks and therefore makes. Score +690/-690. 2. Slam is unmakeable, but makes due to a gross (irrational) play by the NOS. Score +690/-1440, even though +690 is a top. (But is that the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for the NOS?) 3. Slam is down one with any defense or line of play, but the NOS bids a wild gambling 7S, which goes for 1700. Score -100/-1700. 4. Slam is cold for 12 tricks, but the NOS bids a wild, gambling 7S, which goes for 1700. Score +690/-690. The NOS had no way to avoid damage, so they get redress no matter what they do. 5. Slam is cold for 12 tricks, but the NOS bids a wild, gambling 7S, and the offenders bid 7NT down one. Score -100/+100 (There is no law against a double shot that works). I am under the impression that the scoring given for 4. and 5. is not in accordance with current ACBL AC practice, which seems to be denial of redress or success after any double shot attempt by the NOS. Not sure of that, just an impression. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 08:16:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:16:50 +1100 Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12822 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:16:25 +1100 Received: from s_foxy (foxy.p2p [194.190.176.114]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with SMTP id AAA07504 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 00:11:42 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <000001be375d$81557460$72b0bec2@s_foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Another Claim Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 20:45:05 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Q2x1YiB0b3VybmFtZW50LiBQYWlycw0KICAgIEtKOTgNCiAgICBLeA0KICAgIDEweHh4DQogICAg QXh4DQoNCiAgICBBUTEweA0KICAgIEF4eA0KICAgIHgNCiAgICBLUXh4eA0KDQpTb3V0aCBpcyBk ZWNsYXJlciBpbiA0IHNwYWRlcy4gV2VzdCBsZWFkcyBzbWFsbCB0cnVtcCBhbmQgZHVtbXkgcHV0 IGNhcmRzIG9uIHRoZSB0YWJsZS4NCkFmdGVyIDIwIHNlY29uZHMgZGVjbGFyZXIgc2hvdyBoaXMg Y2FyZHMgYW5kIHNheXM6ICJJZiBjbHVicyBhcmUgMy0yIEkgaGF2ZSAxMiB0cmlja3MiLiANCkl0 IGhhcHBlbnMgdGhhdCBzcGFkZXMgYXJlIDQtMS4gVEQhIQ0KDQpTZXJnZWkgTGl0dmFrLg0KQ2hp ZWYgVEQgb2YgUkJMLg0K From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 11:33:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA15723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:33:08 +1100 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA15716 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:33:00 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.204] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zwxws-0007bO-00; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 00:32:47 +0000 Message-ID: <199901040032480850.1CE70E1D@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <369d9c52.4966781@post12.tele.dk> References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> <368E1454.29811497@village.uunet.be> <369d9c52.4966781@post12.tele.dk> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 00:32:48 +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 Jesper wrote: >>> That [enforcing a precise statement at the time of a claim as to which= cards will win tricks, and the order in which they will be played] would= make claims very different from what they are today, and would take some= getting used to. I don't actually think that this is so -and to the extent that it is so, I= think that the difference would be a significant improvement to the game.= Most careful claims made by careful claimants are along the lines of: "I= will ruff your next lead high, draw the remaining trumps, and I then have= the following winners...". More casual, but still careful, claims go= something like: "I will continue to play side-suit winners until you take= your trump trick, whereupon I will ruff the next lead and..." Claims which= are more careless than this do not, in my view, deserve to succeed if the= cards lie sufficiently unfavourably for them to fail. Lest people should= class me as a dyed in the wool Bridge Lawyer, this position came up in a= recent pairs tournament when these cards remained: Dummy QJx AKx x 8 Declarer AKx Qxx x 9 Declarer in 3NT had lost one trick, the AKQJ of clubs all having appeared= (declarer had begun with a 4-4 fit in the suit). He faced his cards,= saying: "I have a club, three spades and three hearts - I will give you a= diamond at the end." I, who had the ten of clubs and three winning= diamonds, thought about this thread for a few moments and offered him plus= 430. Comments on a postcard. >>> I have some sympathy for >>> the idea, since I believe many claims without statements actually >>> result in the claimer getting more tricks than he would get by >>> playing it out. Quite so. Herman then wrote: >> >>And why not ? >> >>One of the reason for claiming is that you cannot make >>stupid mistakes afterwards - like revoking. That is not, and should never be, a reason for claiming. You should claim= tricks, and state exactly which tricks you are claiming, as a courtesy to= the table and in an attempt to save valuable thinking time which might be= needed by you or your opponents in order to finish the current set of= boards within the time limit. You should never claim in order to save= yourself from making an error, nor should you make a slapdash claim and= hope to recover when it proves faulty by asserting that the position you= overlooked when claiming is not one that you would "rationally" have= overlooked in actual play. I am aware that this position is (perhaps) not= borne out by the letter of the Law; it just seems to me (and to Jesper) to= be simple politeness, while its antithesis is, as Jesper put it, simply= "rude". >Correct. I should have said something like "getting more tricks >than he would get by playing it out, assuming that when he plays >it out he follows his intended/stated line of play and does not >discover any misunderstandings that the line of play is based on >before he unavoidably will discover them, but otherwise playing a >normal, not irrational game". I don't think you need to go that far; to do so would fail to eliminate the= degree of subjectivity that is at the core of the current debate. It is= not really possible to decide when declarer would "discover" that his= intended line of play is based on a misunderstanding, nor should he be= allowed any benefit of doubt. Suppose the hands are like this (a= crystallization of the actual case): x xx AKQJ1098 xxx Ax AKQxxxx x AKQ Declarer in 6H wins the opening lead of SK and claims, announcing that he= will draw trumps. West has all four missing trumps and a diamond void. Of= course, once East shows out on the first trump, it is "irrational" (or is= it?) for declarer not to ruff a spade in dummy and make his contract. I= would not allow declarer's claim - would you? >The short version: it is important that he pays the price for >mistakes made _before_ the claim, but he will be assumed to not >make new stupid mistakes during the play. That may be helpful in the general case, but does not resolve the actual= problem, where it might become apparent to declarer as soon as he "plays"= the first card of his intended line that his claim was based on a faulty= premise. Herman drew a distinction in an earlier post between an= irrational claim and an irrational line of play following that claim,= saying [in effect] that declarer was permitted to make the former but= should not be assumed to follow the latter. This is, presumably, based on= what he believes the purpose of a claim to be, and my objection to it is= based on my disagreement with his view. I guess that this is arguable in= the present climate, but I reiterate my position: claims are a laudable= attempt to speed up the play, but a declarer who claims carelessly= (because he does not believe that he can have a loser in suit X) should be= assumed to carry his belief to its logical conclusion, however illogical= that belief may have been in the first place. >>Remember the Brugges case ? A declarer claims, opponents >>ask him to play on and in the resulting scramble he manages >>to revoke. The TD turned it back to the point of the claim, >>judged the claim to be correct and did not punish the >>revoke. > >I agree with that. Seems an OK interpretation of 68D to me, though the position is an unusual= one. I trust that both sides were fined 200% of a top for continuing to= play after a claim? >The possibilities for serious disagreement with Herman in this >thread seem to become smaller and smaller :-) I haven't even started yet. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 11:56:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:56:29 +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 LAA16157 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:56:22 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.204] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zwyK1-0005AN-00; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 00:56:42 +0000 Message-ID: <199901040056120260.1CFC78ED@mail.btinternet.com> References: <368F46C2.B4A0286F@village.uunet.be> <199901040054430500.1CFB1E40@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 00:56:12 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >Say someone has given a claim statement which can be said to >have two lines : A and B. If A is followed then a bad break >is found early, so claimer says he will follow C. A >(completely followed through) leads to 8 tricks. C leads to >11. B would lead to 10 tricks, but there is one other line >D, which leads to 9. > >A is deemed irrational, since the bad break is found (L70E), >B, C and D are considered normal. [snip] >Seems clear to me. Seems very far from clear to me. The "short version" (as Jesper put it): if= declarer does not notice a bad break at trick 0, why should he notice it= at trick 1? If declarer starts with the belief that with AKQxx facing xxxx= he can draw trumps without having a loser in the suit, he might be assumed= to play the AKQ without noticing what cards his opponents play (since he= thinks those cards do not matter). Then, with (as he thinks) the rest on= top, why should he cash them in any particular order? To crystallize: suppose declarer at 7NT has these cards: A 5432 AKJ109 KQx xxx AKQ76 Q A10xx A club is led, declarer plays low from dummy and wins the jack with the= ace. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will take five hearts, three= clubs, five diamonds and a spade for 14 tricks. Hearts are 4-0. Would you= allow his claim? (I would not.) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 14:26:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:26:35 +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 OAA18214 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:26:28 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zx0er-0007IP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 03:26:22 +0000 Message-ID: <+Y1+nWAFE2j2Ewft@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 12:22:29 +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 Grattan wrote: >++++ Well, er, yes and no........................ > Perhaps we should remind ourselves that it is up to claimer to >to propose a new line of play and ask for it to be allowed. The Director's >task is to evaluate that request against the criteria laid down in Law 70D. >The Director is not to introduce and allow claimer a successful line >that claimer has not proposed; the law does not give him that power. Are you sure? L70A is written [deliberately, I hope] in a very vague fashion. While later bits of that Law do contain specific instructions for specific situations there is no actual instruction for what the TD should do in situations not covered by such instructions, and then we have to fall back on L70A. > Law 70E applies to certain specified situations and I have not >noticed that such are present here.(Situations where success depends >on finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card). Exactly. If L70E does not apply, don't apply it - but we still have to do something. It seems to me that the possibilities are for [a] the TD to decide alternative lines for himself if he thinks the stated line has broken down - as agreed in "A Strange Claim" or [b] to give claimer a chance to offer more lines. [a] is what we do: IMO [a] is what we should do: IMO [a] is what L70A requires us to do. You seem to be suggesting [b]. -- 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 Jan 4 23:35:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:35:34 +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 XAA18987 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:35:27 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-101.uunet.be [194.7.13.101]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01749 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:35:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3690A2C8.A2B1284@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 12:15:20 +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: Fifth Friday - January 1999 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just to inform you that I have set the wheels in motion on the new series of Fifth Friday tournaments, the first being at the end of this month. If your club wants to join in this regular event, do mail me ! More info about the tournament can be found at my pages : http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/bridge/ffriday.html -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 23:35:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:35:59 +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 XAA18995 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:35:52 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-101.uunet.be [194.7.13.101]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01826 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:35:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3690A99E.4DF76ED7@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 12:44:30 +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: <199812312308.SAA12658@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990101193348.006be75c@pop.mindspring.com> <368E872B.97886E3C@freewwweb.com> <368F4671.BF90AA27@village.uunet.be> <368F8D39.46597447@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: > > Herman, > > Could you give a tiny clarification? See below. And thank you. > > > > > > > The law says that when the stated line is successful, that is what > > > claimer gets. That if the stated line is unsuccessful, that is what > > > claimer gets. L70A , B1,3. > > Here it is. Since you have no comment here, is it because you feel I > have accurately stated the law. And if not, > > > I think David has answered this one completely. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 23:36:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:36:06 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19003 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:35:56 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-101.uunet.be [194.7.13.101]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01832 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:35:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3690AA3F.491BD180@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 12:47:11 +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: Claim References: <01BE33FE.AE2C4840@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com> <368BFEA9.4F6CDFD2@freewwweb.com> <36a0fe47.9279863@post12.tele.dk> <368E11D3.623A4C14@village.uunet.be> <36a09d40.5203982@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > It seems that many contributors find it more natural for declarer > to have claimed ignoring a possible 4-0 break than for declarer > to have believed that there were only 3 trumps out. > > I find that interesting: if I had made that claim, it would be > almost certain that I had miscounted my trumps, while the risk > that I would forget to consider that 4 trumps could be 4-0 is > extremely small. Am I very atypical in the kind of errors I make? I don't know if you are atypical, but if this happens to me, it is most certainly because I neglected the 4-0 break rather than that I miscounted. So the main job of the TD in this case seems to have been to try and find out why claimer was mistaken ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 23:36:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:36:06 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19001 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:35:56 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-101.uunet.be [194.7.13.101]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01814 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:35:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3690A901.F4B0BC37@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 12:41:53 +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: Another Claim References: <000001be375d$81557460$72b0bec2@s_foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvak wrote: > > Club tournament. Pairs > KJ98 > Kx > 10xxx > Axx > > AQ10x > Axx > x > KQxxx > > South is declarer in 4 spades. West leads small trump and dummy put cards on the table. > After 20 seconds declarer show his cards and says: "If clubs are 3-2 I have 12 tricks". > It happens that spades are 4-1. TD!! > First step : how will play start ? The claim statement indicates that claimer will play to make his contract, then cash clubs from the top and take two extra tricks. Second step : when does this line break down ? The presumed play will be : two top spades, after which the bad break shows. I am not one to not allow claimer to now notice this and think again. Third step : what are the possible solutions ? Has he got more than one line ? One line is to play to ruff a heart for ten tricks so king and ace of hearts, heart ruff, club to hand, last trump, club ace, club to queen. If anything happens in the meanwhile (a heart or club ruff) that's too bad - his contract fails. But another line is to play clubs 3-2, and this is also a normal line (inferior perhaps, but not irrational). So if clubs are 4-1, I judge him to have played 4 spades, 3 clubs (hearts first would I think be irrational), and (in teams) exiting with the club hoping they cannot cash enough diamonds. If they can't, he gets his contract anyway. If they can, I may even award down two. Fourth step : number of tricks given : Line 1 = 10,12 or 9 tricks, depending on the lie Line 2 = 12,10,9 or 8 tricks Given : least of both. Do note that starting from step 3, the actual statement does no more enter the frame. Claimer has not tried, in his original statement, to make 11 tricks by giving away the club before cashing hearts (whyever not ?). But that should not deter him from, when thinking about it, try this line in a desparate attempt to reach ten after starting on the (inferior?) line of cashing trumps. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 23:36:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:36:15 +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 XAA19022 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:36:07 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-101.uunet.be [194.7.13.101]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01855 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:35:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3690B24B.987868E9@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 13:21:31 +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> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> <368E1454.29811497@village.uunet.be> <369d9c52.4966781@post12.tele.dk> <199901040032480850.1CE70E1D@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Lawyer, this position came up in a recent pairs tournament when these cards remained: > > Dummy > QJx > AKx > x > 8 > > Declarer > AKx > Qxx > x > 9 > > Declarer in 3NT had lost one trick, the AKQJ of clubs all having appeared (declarer had begun with a 4-4 fit in the suit). He faced his cards, saying: "I have a club, three spades and three hearts - I will give you a diamond at the end." I, who had the ten of clubs and three winning diamonds, thought about this thread for a few moments and offered him plus 430. Comments on a postcard. Very gracious of you, although perhaps you would not rule the same way if someone asked you to be the director - would you ? > > >>> I have some sympathy for > >>> the idea, since I believe many claims without statements actually > >>> result in the claimer getting more tricks than he would get by > >>> playing it out. > > Quite so. Herman then wrote: > > >> > >>And why not ? > >> > >>One of the reason for claiming is that you cannot make > >>stupid mistakes afterwards - like revoking. > > That is not, and should never be, a reason for claiming. You should claim tricks, and state exactly which tricks you are claiming, as a courtesy to the table and in an attempt to save valuable thinking time which might be needed by you or your opponents in order to finish the current set of boards within the time limit. You should never claim in order to save yourself from making an error, nor should you make a slapdash claim and hope to recover when it proves faulty by asserting that the position you overlooked when claiming is not one that you would "rationally" have overlooked in actual play. I am aware that this position is (perhaps) not borne out by the letter of the Law; it just seems to me (and to Jesper) to be simple politeness, while its antithesis is, as Jesper put it, simply "rude". I agree with this. But being "rude" to opponents is something punishable by quite other means. If some pair complains to me that some declarer has claimed three times in a "rude" manner, whatever that may mean, I will investigate and perhaps punish the man in some manner. That has nothing to do with the validity of his claims. Perhaps if his third claim were faulty, I would rule very harshly, but we are not dealing here with that kind of problem. We are dealing here with a claimer who was a little careless in claiming, nothing else. > > >Correct. I should have said something like "getting more tricks > >than he would get by playing it out, assuming that when he plays > >it out he follows his intended/stated line of play and does not > >discover any misunderstandings that the line of play is based on > >before he unavoidably will discover them, but otherwise playing a > >normal, not irrational game". > > I don't think you need to go that far; to do so would fail to eliminate the degree of subjectivity that is at the core of the current debate. It is not really possible to decide when declarer would "discover" that his intended line of play is based on a misunderstanding, nor should he be allowed any benefit of doubt. Suppose the hands are like this (a crystallization of the actual case): > > x > xx > AKQJ1098 > xxx > > Ax > AKQxxxx > x > AKQ > > Declarer in 6H wins the opening lead of SK and claims, announcing that he will draw trumps. West has all four missing trumps and a diamond void. Of course, once East shows out on the first trump, it is "irrational" (or is it?) for declarer not to ruff a spade in dummy and make his contract. I would not allow declarer's claim - would you? Of course not. The alternative line of throwing the spade on the diamonds is certainly "normal". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 23:36:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:36:09 +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 XAA19009 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:36:00 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-101.uunet.be [194.7.13.101]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01839 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:35:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3690AAAC.E86EA970@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 12:49:00 +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> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> <368E1454.29811497@village.uunet.be> <369d9c52.4966781@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > The possibilities for serious disagreement with Herman in this > thread seem to become smaller and smaller :-) You are saying this as if you regret it ! Is there a special smiley for regret ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 4 23:36:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:36:18 +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 XAA19027 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:36:11 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-101.uunet.be [194.7.13.101]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01868; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:36:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3690B29C.87402275@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 13:22:52 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dburn@btinternet.com, Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <368F46C2.B4A0286F@village.uunet.be> <199901040054430500.1CFB1E40@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, nice to see that you can still get worked up about something which should have been settled long ago. David Burn wrote: > > > Seems very far from clear to me. The "short version" (as Jesper put it): if declarer does not notice a bad break at trick 0, why should he notice it at trick 1? If declarer starts with the belief that with AKQxx facing xxxx he can draw trumps without having a loser in the suit, he might be assumed to play the AKQ without noticing what cards his opponents play (since he thinks those cards do not matter). Then, with (as he thinks) the rest on top, why should he cash them in any particular order? Because you should realise that it is possible to claim before having worked it out completely (rude, as Jesper puts it, but possible). Thus I allow claimer, when starting on the 'presumed' play I will impose on him, to think before playing the first trick. I firmly believe that it is possible to claim without having started to look for troubles (I have often done so). That does not mean in all cases that claimer would also play the first trick of his presumed play without looking for (some) troubles. I realise it is up to the TD and AC to determine which "troubles" are easily foreseen and which are not. I would allow unblocking but no safety plays unless declarer is known to know all safety plays by heart. But a careless claim is not in itself proof enough to warrant careless play. > > To crystallize: suppose declarer at 7NT has these cards: > > A > 5432 > AKJ109 > KQx > > xxx > AKQ76 > Q > A10xx > > A club is led, declarer plays low from dummy and wins the jack with the ace. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will take five hearts, three clubs, five diamonds and a spade for 14 tricks. Hearts are 4-0. Would you allow his claim? (I would not.) First of all, I have every sympathy for the claim. It seems like 14 tricks. Claiming is careless but not irrational. Secondly, I would not hold it against claimer to not give a detailed claiming statement, including a sequence in which he takes his tricks. We should punish bad claims, not bad claiming statements. Thirdly, I will not conclude from the bad statement that declarer will miscount the heart suit once he starts on it. When he first plays on hearts, he is allowed to notice them and modify his plan. Fourthly, we know that a statement about the number of tricks in each suit is not a definite statement about the order in which they are played (works both ways - if claimer is lucky to have named them in the right order it may not help him). So we should see what may happen if the hand is actually played. Suppose you ask claimer to plan the play. What will he do ? He will (only now) start upon the determination of the order in which they will be played. Is it likely he will at this time notice that hearts are not solid ? So that he will obviously start by the Ace to see if they are 4-0? If you determine it likely that he will notice (which equates to determining how much time he took for actual claiming) then you shuld allow him to change his plan and if all "normal" plans work, allow the claim. If you determine that he had taken already quite some time, and he should have noticed by now, and you interpret his long wait as "well, if he hasn't seen it by now, he may never see this", then you may be right in disallowing the claim. Do you understand what I am saying ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 00:53:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 00:53:57 +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 AAA21483 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 00:53:47 +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 IAA16106 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:53:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990104085541.0070520c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 08:55:41 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Interpretation In-Reply-To: <199901030425.UAA11722@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:23 PM 1/2/99 -0800, mlfrench wrote: >It seems to me that a revoke is irrational for the very reason that >it is not a "considered action," so I agree with Kaplan. What about >you other BLMLers? I'll vote with Grattan. I think we must interpret "irrational" in a bridge context. A revoke should normally be considered an accidental action, which gives no presumption of irrationality. If I'm to play second in hand with A2 of a suit, and wish to win the trick, I might play the A (rational), or I might play the 2 thinking it's a higher card than the A (irrational), or I might intend to play the A but accidentally pull the 2 from my hand (accidental, clearly not irrational). Of course if the player revoked because he thought, for example, that he wasn't required to follow suit to trick 7 on Tuesdays, then it would be an irrational action, but the presumption should be that he knew he was required to follow suit and had an accident. I also feel strongly that when an NO has an accident subsequent to an opponent's infraction, he will already have been punished by the outcome of the accident (the normal revoke penalty in the case of a revoke), and should not be punished further by loss of rights to equity, but that's a bit away from the point. 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 Jan 5 01:41:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 01:41:42 +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 BAA21623 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 01:41:34 +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 OAA29595; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:41:24 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 OAA03158; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:41:21 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19730; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:41:20 GMT Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:41:20 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199901041441.OAA19730@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: Revoke and claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > What happens afterwards though is usually a big shambles. > Agreed > The tenth trick is replayed, and then play stops, with one > player having claimed and thus being on the "doubt" side > when he has done absolutely nothing wrong; and another on > the "benefit of the doubt" side, but resposible by his -not > punishable- mistake for the bad claim. > > For the revoker, I can still use L64C to do equity, > downwards. No. L64C "When, after any established revoke, ...", the revoke is not established so we can not do equity. > For claimer, L70A tells me to rule in his doubt, and I don't > like that. > This is one case in which I would like to see a small law > change. > L70X : if a claim is made after a revoke by the non-claiming > side, but before it has become established, and the TD > determines that the claimer would not have claimed without > the revoke, the claim shall be ruled with any doubtful > points to be resolved against the revoker. Why not simply remove "established" from L64C: it says to assign an adjusted score, which will apply to both sides. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 01:56:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 01:56:29 +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 BAA21671 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 01:56:22 +1100 Received: from mmsinet1.mms-inc.com ([207.227.69.130] helo=pcmjn) by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zxBQd-0005tU-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:56:23 -0500 X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 09:56:11 +0000 To: From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Subsequent/Consequent In-Reply-To: <199901032100.NAA15048@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_2306486==_.ALT" Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_2306486==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:59 PM 1/3/99 , Marvin L. French wrote: >I thought I mailed the below article a month ago, and was ticked at >seeing no comments. However, I can't find it among my "sent" items >so it must have got trashed somehow. I'll try to recreate it. What >I want to know is whether the given adjustments are correct per >L12C2. > >With both sides vulnerable, a pair bids 6NT instead of 4NT thru >illegal use of UI, and: > >1. Slam is cold for 12 tricks and therefore makes. Score +690/-690. > >2. Slam is unmakeable, but makes due to a gross (irrational) play >by the NOS. Score +690/-1440, even though +690 is a top. (But is >that the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for the >NOS?) > >3. Slam is down one with any defense or line of play, but the NOS >bids a wild gambling 7S, which goes for 1700. Score -100/-1700. > >4. Slam is cold for 12 tricks, but the NOS bids a wild, gambling >7S, which goes for 1700. Score +690/-690. The NOS had no way to >avoid damage, so they get redress no matter what they do. > >5. Slam is cold for 12 tricks, but the NOS bids a wild, gambling >7S, and the offenders bid 7NT down one. Score -100/+100 (There is >no law against a double shot that works). > >I am under the impression that the scoring given for 4. and 5. is >not in accordance with current ACBL AC practice, which seems to be >denial of redress or success after any double shot attempt by the >NOS. Not sure of that, just an impression. How does an AC get involved in #5? What is there to appeal? The NOS suffered no damage--Are they going to ask that the bidding be rolled back to 4NT making 6? Or was 7S makeable here? The OS have nothing to appeal. John S. Nichols --=====================_2306486==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 08:59 PM 1/3/99 , Marvin L. French wrote:
>I thought I mailed the below article a month ago, and was ticked at
>seeing no comments. However, I can't find it among my "sent" items
>so it must have got trashed somehow. I'll try to recreate it. What
>I want to know is whether the given adjustments are correct per
>L12C2.
>
>With both sides vulnerable, a pair bids 6NT instead of 4NT thru
>illegal use of UI, and:
>
>1. Slam is cold for 12 tricks and therefore makes. Score +690/-690.
>
>2. Slam is unmakeable, but makes due to a gross (irrational) play
>by the NOS. Score +690/-1440, even though +690 is a top. (But is
>that the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for the
>NOS?)
>
>3. Slam is down one with any defense or line of play, but the NOS
>bids a wild gambling 7S, which goes for 1700. Score -100/-1700.
>
>4. Slam is cold for 12 tricks, but the NOS bids a wild, gambling
>7S, which goes for 1700. Score +690/-690. The NOS had no way to
>avoid damage, so they get redress no matter what they do.
>
>5. Slam is cold for 12 tricks, but the NOS bids a wild, gambling
>7S, and the offenders bid 7NT down one. Score -100/+100 (There is
>no law against a double shot that works).
>
>I am under the impression that the scoring given for 4. and 5. is
>not in accordance with current ACBL AC practice, which seems to be
>denial of redress or success after any double shot attempt by the
>NOS. Not sure of that, just an impression.

How does an AC get involved in #5?  What is there to appeal?  The NOS suffered no damage--Are they going to ask that the bidding be rolled back to 4NT making 6? Or was 7S makeable here?  The OS have nothing to appeal. 



John S. Nichols
--=====================_2306486==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 02:05:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:05:03 +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 CAA21854 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:04:53 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.22] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zxBZ8-0000vP-00; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:05:11 +0000 Message-ID: <199901041504390510.20055F78@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <3690B29C.87402275@village.uunet.be> References: <368F46C2.B4A0286F@village.uunet.be> <199901040054430500.1CFB1E40@mail.btinternet.com> <3690B29C.87402275@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 15:04:39 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >Hi David, > >nice to see that you can still get worked up about something >which should have been settled long ago. I am far too old to get worked up about anything. I agree that it should= have been settled long ago, but the way in which you would like it settled= and the way in which I would like it settled are completely opposed to one= another. That, perhaps, is why it was not settled long ago, and why we are= trying to settle it now. >David Burn wrote: >> >> >> Seems very far from clear to me. The "short version" (as Jesper put it):= if declarer does not notice a bad break at trick 0, why should he notice= it at trick 1? If declarer starts with the belief that with AKQxx facing= xxxx he can draw trumps without having a loser in the suit, he might be= assumed to play the AKQ without noticing what cards his opponents play= (since he thinks those cards do not matter). Then, with (as he thinks) the= rest on top, why should he cash them in any particular order? >Because you should realise that it is possible to claim >before having worked it out completely (rude, as Jesper puts >it, but possible). Why should I realise this? On what basis do the Laws mandate me to accept a= claim of tricks from a player who has not worked out which tricks he is= claiming? >Thus I allow claimer, when starting on the 'presumed' play I >will impose on him, to think before playing the first trick. Why? Presumably, he has already thought before making a claim (a claim is,= of course, a play to the first - or next - trick, since a claim may be= sufficient to establish a revoke by the claiming side, just as a play= suffices in the normal course of events). I cannot see any legal, logical= or moral reason why a player should be permitted to claim without thinking= when he would suffer the consequences if he played without thinking. >I firmly believe that it is possible to claim without having >started to look for troubles (I have often done so). Then your claims should have been disallowed. I have played cards without= catering for bad breaks, and when bad breaks have occurred, I have gone= down. A claim is, to all intents and purposes, a play of several cards at= once - if you make this play without catering for bad breaks, then you= will suffer when bad breaks occur. You keep telling us all that this= should not happen, but you have provided me with no shred of a reason why= it should not happen other than a notion of equity which I believe to be= (a) not in accordance with the Laws and (b) misguided in terms of= establishing what ought to happen to the opponents of an erring claimant. >That >does not mean in all cases that claimer would also play the >first trick of his presumed play without looking for (some) >troubles. Of course it does. Whatever else a claim is, it is in Law a play to the= trick in progress (if there is one) or to the next trick (if there is no= current trick). That is why, as I have said earlier, a claim establishes a= revoke - it constitutes a play by the claimant. >I realise it is up to the TD and AC to determine which >"troubles" are easily foreseen and which are not. I would >allow unblocking but no safety plays unless declarer is >known to know all safety plays by heart. No, it is not. It is up to the TD to rule on the number of tricks that= declarer would make if he followed his statement of claim, and not to= accept any...line of play not embraced in the original...statement if= there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. >But a careless claim is not in itself proof enough to >warrant careless play. Then what, in Heaven's name, is it? What better evidence could you have= that a man is about to play the hand carelessly than the fact that he has= just made a careless claim? >> To crystallize: suppose declarer at 7NT has these cards: >> >> A >> 5432 >> AKJ109 >> KQx >> >> xxx >> AKQ76 >> Q >> A10xx >> >> A club is led, declarer plays low from dummy and wins the jack with the= ace. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will take five hearts, three= clubs, five diamonds and a spade for 14 tricks. Hearts are 4-0. Would you= allow his claim? (I would not.) > >First of all, I have every sympathy for the claim. It seems >like 14 tricks. Claiming is careless but not irrational. I suppose that is the point of difference between us, and I do not suppose= from the sound of what you say that we will be able to resolve this= difference. I will make one more attempt, and then have done. If a man= claims five tricks with that heart holding before playing a card, because= he is a careless player, why should he suddenly become a more careful= player after he has played a round of the suit? I am, perhaps, not as= sympathetic a person as you are, since I would have no sympathy with the= claim at all. Would you really feel sorry for a man who, in a grand slam= contract, could not work out that hearts might be 4-0 before making a= claim (which, as I have suggested, equates to playing at least one card)? >Secondly, I would not hold it against claimer to not give a >detailed claiming statement, including a sequence in which >he takes his tricks. We should punish bad claims, not bad >claiming statements. A claim is a statement. Almost the whole of Law 68 says that this is what= it is. There is no difference between a claim and a claiming statement. I= do not understand this point at all; no doubt through my own folly.= Perhaps you could explain to me, with reference to the Laws, what the= difference is between a claim and a claiming statement, since this appears= to be the cornerstone of your argument. >Thirdly, I will not conclude from the bad statement that >declarer will miscount the heart suit once he starts on it. Why not? He has miscounted it before he starts on it; what more evidence do= you require that he will continue to act as carelessly as he has begun? >When he first plays on hearts, he is allowed to notice them >and modify his plan. Why should this be? Presumably, when he made his claim, he had a reason for= saying (in effect)that he had five tricks in hearts regardless of what= might happen. Thus, to play the hand as if he had five tricks in hearts= regardless of what does happen is not "irrational" in the sense that it= accords with the claimer's own process of reasoning. That you or I find= his reasons unsound has nothing to do with the case. >Fourthly, we know that a statement about the number of >tricks in each suit is not a definite statement about the >order in which they are played (works both ways - if claimer >is lucky to have named them in the right order it may not >help him). True. But so what? >So we should see what may happen if the hand is actually >played. Why? What passage in the Laws requires us to do this? We are required to= adjudicate the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides.= This does not mean that we are required to play the hand better than= declarer claimed it - if there is evidence from declarer's claim that he= is a careless player, he should in equity to his opponents be required to= play carelessly in accordance with his statement of claim. We are= emphatically not supposed to work out what would have happened if we= played the hand ourselves. >Suppose you ask claimer to plan the play. What will he do ? I do not know, and I do not care, for it would not occur to me to ask him.= He has already planned the play. His plan is implicit in his statement of= claim. Why should he be permitted to replan the play sensibly in the light= of information that has been discovered solely by virtue of his having= planned it foolishly when he made his claim? Where lies the equity in= that? >He will (only now) start upon the determination of the order >in which they will be played. Too late - he has claimed certain tricks in the belief that they are his,= and he must continue to play as if they were his until an opponent= demonstrates that they are not by winning one of them. >Is it likely he will at this time notice that hearts are not >solid ? No. He did not notice it when he made his claim. Of course, he will know by= now that the hearts are not solid, because his claim is being contested,= but that is by no means the same thing as his noticing that the hearts are= not solid in actual play. >So that he will obviously start by the Ace to see if they >are 4-0? Oh, I do not suggest that he be compelled to play hearts from the bottom= (though I suppose I could logically make such a suggestion). He will start= with the ace, that I grant. But that he will "see that they are 4-0" I= will not grant - he carelessly did not see that they might be before he= started, and the possibility of a 4-0 break should not be allowed to enter= his consciousness just because he has claimed. All the evidence from his= statement suggests that left to his own devices, he would have led out= five - or at any rate four - rounds of hearts. We have no right at all to= decide that because our powers of reason are superior to his, the reasons= which prompted his claim were not "reasons" at all - in other words, that= his claim was not rational. >If you determine it likely that he will notice (which >equates to determining how much time he took for actual >claiming) then you should allow him to change his plan and if >all "normal" plans work, allow the claim. Why? Regardless of how much time he took to make his claim, he has made it,= and it is evidence of his powers of reason. Again, you tell me that I= should do this and I should do that, but nothing in the Laws appears to me= to justify your assertions. >If you determine that he had taken already quite some time, >and he should have noticed by now, and you interpret his >long wait as "well, if he hasn't seen it by now, he may >never see this", then you may be right in disallowing the >claim. I would determine that as soon as he made his claim, he ought to be deemed= incapable of adjusting for a 4-0 heart break, since the evidence from his= claim is that he does not believe that such a thing can exist. >>Do you understand what I am saying ? Yes. But I think that I also understand what the Laws say, and I am firmly= of the opinion that they do not support your position. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 02:20:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:20:10 +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 CAA21872 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:19:48 +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 KAA20402 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:19:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990104102136.007044a8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 10:21:36 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Subsequent/Consequent In-Reply-To: <199901032100.NAA15048@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv's example illustrates the trouble we buy for ourselves by attempting to make equity rulings in conformity with the "Kaplan doctrine". To really see this, we need a few more cases. At 12:59 PM 1/3/99 -0800, mlfrench wrote: >With both sides vulnerable, a pair bids 6NT instead of 4NT thru >illegal use of UI, and: > >1. Slam is cold for 12 tricks and therefore makes. Score +690/-690. > >2. Slam is unmakeable, but makes due to a gross (irrational) play >by the NOS. Score +690/-1440, even though +690 is a top. (But is >that the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for the >NOS?) 2a. Slam is unmakeable, but makes due to a very bad play by the NOS, which we judge to be "careless or inferior... but not irrational". Score +690/-690. >3. Slam is down one with any defense or line of play, but the NOS >bids a wild gambling 7S, which goes for 1700. Score -100/-1700. 3a. Slam is down one with any defense or line of play, but an NO makes a very poor but (at least in his mind) defensible decision to save at 7S, which could have worked on a much luckier day. Score -100/-660. >4. Slam is cold for 12 tricks, but the NOS bids a wild, gambling >7S, which goes for 1700. Score +690/-690. The NOS had no way to >avoid damage, so they get redress no matter what they do. Incorrect. According to Kaplan, the 7S bid "breaks the connection" between the infraction and the (in this case unavoidable) damage, so the NOS gets no redress for the OS's infraction; score +690/-1700. Unless, of course, (4a) we decide that the 7S bid didn't quite meet the "wild, gambling" test (as in 3a), in which case +690/-690. >5. Slam is cold for 12 tricks, but the NOS bids a wild, gambling >7S, and the offenders bid 7NT down one. Score -100/+100 (There is >no law against a double shot that works). Notice the huge difference in the NOS's "equity" between 2 and 2a, 3 and 3a, and 4 and 4a, based on a totally subjective judgment as to whether or not their action was "wild, gambling or irrational". This is the fundamental problem with the Kaplan doctrine: It generates huge score swings based on very fine close judgments. Here one vote on a five-man committee trying to reach agreement on a very close "bridge judgment" can make a difference between a pair scoring -690 and -1440 or -1700 on the same hand and same set of facts. IMO this is quite clearly undesirable. If, OTOH, we reject the notion of requiring ourselves to make such fine judgments, and simply interpret equity as the NOS being entitled to the score they would have obtained had the OS not committed the infraction, the problem goes away and the ruling in every case is easy, straightforward, relatively objective, and gives the benefit of the doubt to the NOS, where it belongs: 1. Score +690/-690, the result that would have been obtained had there been no infraction. 2/2a. Score +690/-690, the result that would have been obtained had there been no infraction (or +660/-660 if the NOS can make a reasonable case that they would not have made the defensive error against a 4NT contract). 3/3a. Score -100/-660. For the OS "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable"; for the NOS the result that would have been obtained ("the most favorable result that was likely") had there been no infraction ("had the irregularity not occurred"). 4/4a. Score +690/-690, the result that would have been obtained had there been no infraction. 5. Score -100/+100. The infraction did not damage the NOS; no adjustment. L12C2 says that the NOs are entitled to "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." I read that to mean "the most favorable result likely to have been obtained had there not been an irregularity." I see no reason to read it as "the most favorable result likely to have been obtained had there been neither an irregularity nor a subsequent action by the non-offending side which is judged to have been wild, gambling or irrational." 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 Jan 5 02:28:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:28:57 +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 CAA21887 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:28:51 +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 KAA20824 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:28:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990104103039.00706ba4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 10:30:39 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Another Claim In-Reply-To: <000001be375d$81557460$72b0bec2@s_foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:45 PM 1/2/99 +0300, Sergei wrote: > KJ98 > Kx > 10xxx > Axx > > AQ10x > Axx > x > KQxxx > >South is declarer in 4 spades. West leads small trump and dummy put cards on the table. >After 20 seconds declarer show his cards and says: "If clubs are 3-2 I have 12 tricks". >It happens that spades are 4-1. TD!! Declarer has 11 tops (assuming clubs are 3-2, otherwise it gets much more complicated), and obviously plans to get the 12th via a ruff. He has several possible "normal" lines: (a) diamond at trick 2, later ruffing a diamond high, (b) HK, HA, H ruff, (c,d) draw one more trump and proceed as in (a) or (b). If all of these lines would succeed against best defense, he gets 12 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 Jan 5 02:34:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:34:40 +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 CAA21905 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:34:34 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxC1S-00005B-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:34:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:07:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <199812312308.SAA12658@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990101193348.006be75c@pop.mindspring.com> <368E872B.97886E3C@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Gordon Bower: I have sent you two emails over the last couple of weeks >to three different email addresses. All bounce. Could you let me have >an e-ddress to which I can send you emails please? -------- This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to all of its recipients. The following address(es) failed: siegmund@mosquitonet.com: SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM: : host bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]: 550 Access denied -- 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 Jan 5 03:01:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:01:39 +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 DAA21947 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:01:32 +1100 Received: from hlyxzurz (dialup-004.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.196]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA24661 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:01:16 GMT Message-ID: <000201be37fb$e9f1a7c0$c4307dc2@hlyxzurz> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Claim-bigger Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:46:49 -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 David Burn wrote: > To crystallize: suppose declarer at 7NT has these cards: > > A > 5432 > AKJ109 > KQx > > xxx > AKQ76 > Q > A10xx > > A club is led, declarer plays low from dummy and wins the jack with the ace. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will take five hearts, three clubs, five diamonds and a spade for 14 tricks. Hearts are 4-0. Would you allow his claim? (I would not.) Again declarer has my sympathy - but we again have a possible 9 trumps / 10 trumps scenario. When he cashes the Ace of Hearts and discovers the 3-0 break (as he thinks) he won't even blink. He still thinks he has 14 tricks! If I was sure that declarer knew there were 4 missing Hearts I would have no problem letting him re-group on learning of the 4-0 break.... but can I be sure? No..maybe at the table.. Regards, Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 03:20:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:20:46 +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 DAA21999 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:20:34 +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 QAA13567 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:20:13 GMT Received: by nlxrtd1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:19:50 +0100 Message-ID: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B27@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> From: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" To: Bridge Laws Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:19:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote > 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. Two problems here. 1) L54C seems to condone the "acceptance" of the lead by dummy when he exposes his cards. This he is allowed (required) to do by L41D (if he doesn't do so then is he drawing attention to the irregularity?) 2) L54 as written doesn't cover the case under discussion. The text of the law begins with: "When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following sections apply." In the case in question only one defender (RHO) has faced a card out of turn and LHO hasn't done anything yet. So it's difficult to justify applying L54 in a legal sense. Of course this is probably just another case of the laws being written badly. Presumably it should have started: "When an opening lead is faced out of turn, the following sections apply. A. If offender's partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted. B. If offender's partner leads face up, either L58A or L60C applies. C. (old A) etc. This is what I understood to be the function of the BLML, to discuss the shortcomings of the current laws and with the view to making improvements which allow normal bridge players and TDs (wherever they play) to understand them and the decisions made by TDs and ACs. Regards, Geoff. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 03:22:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:22:14 +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 DAA22014 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:22:05 +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 QAA13561; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:20:09 GMT Received: by nlxrtd1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:19:47 +0100 Message-ID: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B26@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> From: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: When does dummy become dummy? Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:19:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Herman, > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Sent: Tuesday, 22 December, 1998 17:45 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: When does dummy become dummy? > > > "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" wrote: > > Hello Geoff, Welcome > > Your name does not suggest dutch to me, maar toch ook > Welkom. No, not Dutch, actually English but I have lived and worked (and bridged) in Holland for over 20 years. I have only become interested in the laws over the past few years after realising that I didn't understand the basis for decisions made by TDs when things went wrong. Although I'm beginning to understand a bit more, I think it is also necessary to get the message over to normal bridge players: a) that there is a correct procedure b) when anything happens which is not according to this procedure, call the TD, and c) resolving the problem is the task of the TD but should be understandable. > > > 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. The common problem that I meant was the OLOOT. Most "presumed" dummies will notice the lead from his left and either realise that there has been a mistake has been made (and then wait for someone to make a remark or (illegally) do so himself) or think that in fact he is dummy so wait for his partner to face his cards. But the dummy who is asleep, or thinking perhaps about the possible mistakes he made during the bidding, or only sees a card somewhere near the centre of the table (not everyone places the lead card neatly in front of himself, leaders out of turn commonly are brash types who throw the card on the table, often on top of the card board) may well automatically face his cards. > > I would rule as harshly as possible. What sort of harsh measures to you propose? > I would suspect it is someone trying to get a message accross to partner. The only message I can imagine is "this lead is good for us". But it's irrelevant what the message actually is since L54C states that declarer must accept the lead. > I would therefor rule that the lead is accepted without any penalties. Yes, as specified in L54C. Regards, Geoff From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 03:24:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:24:40 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA22033 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:24:31 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA24192 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:23:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990104112628.0070d5f0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 11:26:28 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <199901040032480850.1CE70E1D@mail.btinternet.com> References: <369d9c52.4966781@post12.tele.dk> <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> <368E1454.29811497@village.uunet.be> <369d9c52.4966781@post12.tele.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:32 AM 1/4/99 +0000, dburn wrote: >x >xx >AKQJ1098 >xxx > >Ax >AKQxxxx >x >AKQ > >Declarer in 6H wins the opening lead of SK and claims, announcing that he will draw trumps. West has all four missing trumps and a diamond void. Of course, once East shows out on the first trump, it is "irrational" (or is it?) for declarer not to ruff a spade in dummy and make his contract. I would not allow declarer's claim - would you? [I assume that by "allow declarer's claim" David means award 12 tricks, notwithstanding that declarer actually attempted to claim 13.] No. I would not rule that it was "irrational" not to ruff a spade at trick 3. It *would* be irrational to play four rounds of trumps, giving up for down 1. But it would be merely "careless or inferior... but not irrational" to draw 3 rounds of trumps and switch to diamonds for a spade pitch, making 6H unless the first diamond got ruffed. So if W had had a diamond, I would allow 12 tricks, but, since he didn't, I rule down 1. 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 Jan 5 03:29:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:29:14 +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 DAA22053 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:29:00 +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 QAA15011 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:28:43 GMT Received: by nlxrtd1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:28:18 +0100 Message-ID: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B28@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> From: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: When does dummy become dummy? Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:28:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) > Sent: Monday, 04 January, 1999 17:18 > To: 'Bridge Laws' > Subject: > > DWS wrote > > 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. > > Two problems here. > 1) L54C seems to condone the "acceptance" of the lead by > dummy when he exposes his cards. This he is allowed > (required) to do by L41D (if he doesn't do so then is he > drawing attention to the irregularity?) > > 2) L54 as written doesn't cover the case under discussion. > The text of the law begins with: > > "When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and > offender's partner leads face down, the director > requires the face down lead to be retracted, > and the following sections apply." > > In the case in question only one defender (RHO) has faced a > card out of turn and LHO hasn't done anything yet. So it's > difficult to justify applying L54 in a legal sense. Of > course this is probably just another case of the laws being > written badly. Presumably it should have started: > > "When an opening lead is faced out of turn, > the following sections apply. > > A. If offender's partner leads face down, the > director requires the face down lead to be retracted. > B. If offender's partner leads face up, either > L58A or L60C applies. > C. (old A) > etc. > > This is what I understood to be the function of the BLML, to > discuss the shortcomings of the current laws and with the > view to making improvements which allow normal bridge players > and TDs (wherever they play) to understand them and the > decisions made by TDs and ACs. > > Regards, > > > Geoff. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 03:35:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:35:41 +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 DAA22084 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:35:29 +1100 Received: from pb2s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.179] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zxCyI-0006ae-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:35:15 +0000 Message-ID: <002301be37ff$cd482c80$3e8993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Interpretation Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:25:02 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: 04 January 1999 14:38 Subject: Re: Interpretation >At 08:23 PM 1/2/99 -0800, mlfrench wrote: Eric wrote > ----------------------------------- \x/ ------------------------------------- >>It seems to me that a revoke is irrational for the very reason that >>it is not a "considered action," so I agree with Kaplan. What about >>you other BLMLers? > >I'll vote with Grattan. I think we must interpret "irrational" in a bridge >context. A revoke should normally be considered an accidental action, >which gives no presumption of irrationality. -------------------- \x/ ----------------------------- > ++++ Well, of course, that settles it !! When I came into the office today I decided I should look at my dictionaries here; David Burn does Chambers a slight injustice - true it says only "not rational" but when you go to 'rational' (a logical procedure to discover what it is not) you find that 'rational' means - of the reason - endowed with reason - agreeable to reason - sane - intelligent or, in the case of dress modes, knickerbockers for women instead of skirts. I would say you have a fair selection of things that it is not in this list. And again, Collins Dictionary ("The authority on current English" -sic) says irrational means: "inconsistent with reason or logic; illogical; absurd." I am not persuaded that 'irrational' needs any further definition in thew laws. ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 03:51:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:51:05 +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 DAA22127 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:50:58 +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 LAA26779 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:50:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990104115249.0070c768@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 11:52:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example In-Reply-To: <199901040056120260.1CFC78ED@mail.btinternet.com> References: <368F46C2.B4A0286F@village.uunet.be> <199901040054430500.1CFB1E40@mail.btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:56 AM 1/4/99 +0000, dburn wrote: >Seems very far from clear to me. The "short version" (as Jesper put it): if declarer does not notice a bad break at trick 0, why should he notice it at trick 1? If declarer starts with the belief that with AKQxx facing xxxx he can draw trumps without having a loser in the suit, he might be assumed to play the AKQ without noticing what cards his opponents play (since he thinks those cards do not matter). Then, with (as he thinks) the rest on top, why should he cash them in any particular order? I agree with the ACBL view that the claimer should get the benefit of the presumption that he would cash tricks in the "natural" order, which I would take to mean top-card winners before yet-to-be-established winners. >To crystallize: suppose declarer at 7NT has these cards: > >A >5432 >AKJ109 >KQx > >xxx >AKQ76 >Q >A10xx > >A club is led, declarer plays low from dummy and wins the jack with the ace. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will take five hearts, three clubs, five diamonds and a spade for 14 tricks. Hearts are 4-0. Would you allow his claim? (I would not.) No. But, in conformity with the above-stated principle, I would allow him to cash his announced one spade, 3 heart, 5 diamond and 3 club tricks before losing the lead with the fourth round of hearts, and award down 1. I would not force him to play SA at trick 2, then HAKQ7, which would produce down 5 or more, any more than I would force him to play H6 at trick 2. The key point in this case, though, is that declarer's claim unfortunately "embraced" (L70D) only lines on which he takes 3 club tricks. More relevant to the original point at issue, had declarer announced that he would take a spade, 5 hearts, 5 diamonds and 4 clubs for 15 tricks, I'd allow the claim. 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 Jan 5 04:37:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 04:37:16 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA22263 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 04:37:09 +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 MAA26288 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:37:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA14555 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:37:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:37:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901041737.MAA14555@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: When does dummy become dummy? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" > The only message I can imagine is "this lead is good for us". But it's > irrelevant what the message actually is since L54C states that declarer must > accept the lead. Yes, there's no doubt that the LOOT is accepted, and declarer will play next. There is also a question of whether spreading the dummy before the TD has ruled is an irregularity. It seems not to be a violation of L9B1a, because attention has not been drawn, but seems to me it violates L9B2. If spreading the dummy is an irregularity, then L72B1 must be considered! In particular, if dummy "could have known," the score should be adjusted on the basis of declarer choosing a less favorable LOOT option. (Use "at all probable" and "likely" in L12C2 to decide which option declarer chooses.) Helping one's side by prematurely spreading a dummy seems exactly the sort of thing L72B1 was intended to address, and I think we should not hesitate to apply it. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 05:16:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 05:16:27 +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 FAA22385 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 05:16:20 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxDFJ-0002WL-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:52:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:51:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <36a09d40.5203982@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <36a09d40.5203982@post12.tele.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes > >(a) The original hand: > Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx > Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x >(b) Declarer has claimed with the words " I play all the trumps". snip > >I find that interesting: if I had made that claim, it would be >almost certain that I had miscounted my trumps, while the risk >that I would forget to consider that 4 trumps could be 4-0 is >extremely small. Am I very atypical in the kind of errors I make? "I play all the trumps" is a careless claim. It's not irrational because the claimer made the statement "I play all the trumps". It was careless. It is irrational to think otherwise. Had he said I play all the trumps and paused for a moment and said "oh hang on they could be 4-0 in which case ....." I'd allow that. *But he didn't* I'm sticking to Jesper's, Burn's and my lone furrow here. This contract is now down. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 05:28:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 05:28:39 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA22424 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 05:28:33 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092ndb.san.rr.com [204.210.48.219]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA00028; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:28:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901041828.KAA00028@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Interpretation Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:26:05 -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 So, Grattan, is a revoke irrational or not? Isn't it rather "absurd"? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Grattan Endicott wrote: > When I came into the office today I decided I should look > at my dictionaries here; David Burn does Chambers a slight injustice > - true it says only "not rational" but when you go to 'rational' (a logical > procedure to discover what it is not) you find that 'rational' means > - of the reason > - endowed with reason > - agreeable to reason > - sane > - intelligent > or, in the case of dress modes, knickerbockers for women instead > of skirts. > I would say you have a fair selection of things that it is not in this list. > And again, Collins Dictionary ("The authority on current English" -sic) says > irrational means: "inconsistent with reason or logic; illogical; absurd." I am > not persuaded that 'irrational' needs any further definition in the laws. > ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 05:34:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 05:34:50 +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 FAA22442 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 05:34:44 +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 NAA02774 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:34:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990104133639.0070a840@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 13:36:39 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example In-Reply-To: <199901041504390510.20055F78@mail.btinternet.com> References: <3690B29C.87402275@village.uunet.be> <368F46C2.B4A0286F@village.uunet.be> <199901040054430500.1CFB1E40@mail.btinternet.com> <3690B29C.87402275@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:04 PM 1/4/99 +0000, dburn wrote: >A claim is a statement. Almost the whole of Law 68 says that this is what it is. There is no difference between a claim and a claiming statement. I do not understand this point at all; no doubt through my own folly. Perhaps you could explain to me, with reference to the Laws, what the difference is between a claim and a claiming statement, since this appears to be the cornerstone of your argument. The "statement" that constitutes a "claim" per L68A is merely an assertion "that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks". There is a very clear distinction in the laws (most immediately obvious in the wording of L68C) between that statement and the "statement of clarification", which is the statement by the claimer as to how he proposes to go about doing so. Of course, we have been using the word "claim" here (admittedly loosely, but with its common meaning) to encompass both of the above. But, beyond that, we can easily distinguish between a "claim" (the "meaning" of which depends on the intent the player is attempting to express) and a "claiming statement" (the meaning of which depends, literally, on the precise wording of the player's attempt to express his intent). David S.'s point, with which I agree, is that the law requires us, when we are in a position to know that these are not the same, to base our rulings on the former rather than the latter. 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 Jan 5 05:49:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 05:49:17 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA22469 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 05:49:11 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092ndb.san.rr.com [204.210.48.219]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA03067; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:48:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901041848.KAA03067@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Subsequent/Consequent Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:47:55 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John S. Nichols wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > >5. Slam is cold for 12 tricks, but the NOS bids a wild, gambling >7S, and the offenders bid 7NT down one. Score -100/+100 (There is >no law against a double shot that works). > How does an AC get involved in #5? What is there to appeal? The NOS suffered no damage--Are they going to ask that the bidding be rolled back to 4NT making 6? Or was 7S makeable here? The OS have nothing to appeal. Did I mention an AC? TD was called at the time the offenders bid 6NT. He notices that 7S is an obvious double shot attempt. He sees 7NT go down one trick. Does he walk away, saying no damage, or does he think the double shot is illegal and must be penalized in some fashion? I think he walks away, because double shots are not illegal, nor even unethical. However, The OS does not think there was an infraction by them, and feel that the obvious double shot that pushed them to 7NT was an illegal action, trying to take advantage of a perceived infraction. They appeal the non-ruling, feeling that they should get +690. The AC rules that the UI infraction possibility is moot, result stands. Double shots are not illegal. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 07:19:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 07:19:31 +1100 Received: from spartacus (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA22606 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 07:19:26 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by spartacus with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 0zxGT5-0005WC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 21:19:15 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990104211255.00818760@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 21:12:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: References: <36a09d40.5203982@post12.tele.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:51 04-01-99 +0000, you wrote: >In article <36a09d40.5203982@post12.tele.dk>, Jesper Dybdal > writes >> >>(a) The original hand: >> Dummy: AQx, xxxx, Q, AKxxx >> Hand: xx, AKQxx, AKJ109, x >>(b) Declarer has claimed with the words " I play all the trumps". > >snip >> >>I find that interesting: if I had made that claim, it would be >>almost certain that I had miscounted my trumps, while the risk >>that I would forget to consider that 4 trumps could be 4-0 is >>extremely small. Am I very atypical in the kind of errors I make? > >"I play all the trumps" is a careless claim. It's not irrational because >the claimer made the statement "I play all the trumps". It was careless. > >It is irrational to think otherwise. Had he said I play all the trumps >and paused for a moment and said "oh hang on they could be 4-0 in which >case ....." I'd allow that. *But he didn't* > >I'm sticking to Jesper's, Burn's and my lone furrow here. This contract >is now down. Cheers John >-- count me in too please :) regards, anton >John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 >451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk >+44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 08:09:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:09:55 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA22770 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:09:49 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA23901 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:09:11 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.57) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma023873; Mon Jan 4 15:08:41 1999 Received: by har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE37FC.AA7911E0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:09:54 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE37FC.AA7911E0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Interpretation Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:56:44 -0500 Encoding: 35 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] wrote: Many people think that to eliminate differences between peoples is desirable: I think it will make for a very boring world. Differences in Bridge-Law interpretations is a very small part of a bigger problem: the assumption that everyone is the same and/or should be treated the same which is not necessarily a good idea. ### This rather excellent point is being lost as this thread diverges into the irrationality of revokes. Artificially induced homogeneity of thought and behaviour smacks of Huxley or Orwell. It is anathema both in bridge and in life. The totalitarian approach to stifling thought, individuality, innovation and resourcefulness is abhorrent. It is also not good law. Much of the law takes into account the calibre of player involved. The inferences drawn from opponents' bidding and play through legitimate bridge knowledge will differ according to location and the typical system and style employed. It is as silly to say you should play the same on the continent as in the Americas (or the antipodes) as to say you should make no adjustment between MP and IMPs. Why then should we rule in areas requiring judgement on a one size fits all basis? If we can have Laws and interpretations thereof that can better serve us by allowing for the diversity inherent in the game so much the better. Even if it does force those who administer the Laws to be intelligent beings rather than robots, it is not a bad thing. By the way Marv, I don't think a revoke (save for an intentional one) is irrational either...put me down in the accidental or non-rational camp. I really wonder if EK meant what he said in this case, or whether somehow the comment has shifted meaning absent context. Would that he were here to set us straight, and Selassie isn't talking. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 08:41:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:41:26 +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 IAA22814 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:41:18 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA01127; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:40:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.57) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma000996; Mon Jan 4 15:39:43 1999 Received: by har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE3801.00B90200@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:40:57 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3801.00B90200@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk" Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Claim Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:11:10 -0500 Encoding: 20 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] The point I was trying to make is that "reason is in the eye of the beholder"; if a man with AKQxx facing xxxx has reason to believe before he starts to play this suit that he has no loser therein, why ("rationally") should he be assumed after the first round to believe otherwise? ##### Because he was imprecise in his language, perhaps, not allowing for the highly unlikely case of a 4-0 split? When you say I'll meet you in the city in two hours do you always add unless there's an accident on the motorway? That he did not spell out the details of his approach to the unlikely contingency does not mean he cannot change his route when it becomes obvious the original plan is not going to work. We allow a finesse upon showing out in a defective claim; this is akin to it. The discard is a wake up call. Failing to claim because there is a less than 3% chance that the claim could be defective is not a way to speed up the game. Allowing the least successful of rational alternatives when it is irrational to continue with the incompletely worded line of play is in accord with both the rules and equity. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 08:42:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:42:09 +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 IAA22828 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:42:04 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxHl7-0006YP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 21:41:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 18:27:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Interpretation References: <199901030425.UAA11722@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990104085541.0070520c@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990104085541.0070520c@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >If I'm to play second in hand with A2 of a suit, and wish to win the trick, >I might play the A (rational), or I might play the 2 thinking it's a higher >card than the A (irrational), or I might intend to play the A but >accidentally pull the 2 from my hand (accidental, clearly not irrational). I use the word clearly myself when I am trying to shore up a mediocre argument. :) Is it fair to assume that all actions are either rational or irrational? If so, which is a revoke? Are you suggesting that, holding A2 of a suit, a *rational* way to attempt to win the trick is to revoke? Quango says if that is rational then so is the DOG next door! -- 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 Jan 5 08:49:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:49:49 +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 IAA22850 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:49:43 +1100 Received: from modem21.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.149] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zxHsW-0005va-00; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 21:49:37 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Alerting Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 00:13:09 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ======================================== ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List ; Eric Landau > Subject: Re: Alerting > Date: 03 January 1999 04:00 > > Eric Landau wrote: > > Fred Flam wrote: > > > > >It seems to me that the emphasis is misplaced. > > > > 1975: During the auction and before the final pass, a full > explanation of any call made by an opponent may be requested by any > player... > > 1987: During the auction and before the final pass, any > player...may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction. > > As is true of many little changes to the Laws, this one was > generally ignored > ++++ Attention was drawn to it over here. Kaplan proposed the change precisely because he believed too much UI was passing by asking about specific calls. He said so in terms to the 1985-7 drafting committee. I read the present situation as being one in which the WBFLC is bowing to the practice; my personal opinion is that Kaplan was right and made a valiant attempt to remedy the ill, but maybe it is untreatable and Law 16 is the only recourse. ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 08:54:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:54:30 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA22868 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:54:24 +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 QAA11876 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:53:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990104165622.00711514@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:56:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Subsequent/Consequent In-Reply-To: <199901041941.LAA11123@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:39 AM 1/4/99 -0800, mlfrench wrote: >Eric, > >A comment on this one thing you wrote: > >> >4. Slam is cold for 12 tricks, but the NOS bids a wild, gambling >> >7S, which goes for 1700. Score +690/-690. The NOS had no way to >> >avoid damage, so they get redress no matter what they do. >> >> Incorrect. According to Kaplan, the 7S bid "breaks the >connection" between >> the infraction and the (in this case unavoidable) damage, so the >NOS gets >> no redress for the OS's infraction; score +690/-1700. Unless, of >course, >> (4a) we decide that the 7S bid didn't quite meet the "wild, >gambling" test >> (as in 3a), in which case +690/-690. >> >Ton Kooijman wrote last year: > >"If damage occurs because a player chooses to deviate from normal >bridge and normal bridge would have given him a good score in case >of an infraction by an opponent, we do not redress the score." > >Since normal bridge in this case would not have yielded a good >score, I infer from Ton's statement that redress would be given. > >Am I misinterpreting something, or do you disagree with the >chairman of the WBFLC? > >I put it this way: If damage is irreparable, anything that follows >is a consequence of the infraction, the connection cannot be >broken. I am almost certain Kaplan wrote this somewhere, but I >can't find it. I think I'll ask Jeff Rubens. I believe that the >"broken connection" Kaplan mentioned had reference only to >avoidable damage, not unavoidable damage. Do you have the quote? The definitive source for Kaplan's views on the subject is his Editorial in TBW of August 1973. It contains no single passage I can quote directly; Kaplan's views are set forth in the context of a variety of individual cases. But Marv (and Ton) may be in agreement with Kaplan, if you read Marv's case #4 as analogous to my #6 rather than my #5 (these are cases discussed in the editorial), notwithstanding Kaplan's reservations as to whether the NOS's action in case #5 qualifies as an "abnormal error". Which merely reinforces my point, that we would be better off without being forced to make distinctions about the "quality" of the NO's error. Without the Kaplan doctrine, there would be no distinction between cases #5 and #6 in Kaplan's article, or between #4 and #4a in my reply to Marv, and everyone would award +690/-690, which we seem to agree is the desired result. Neither the Kaplan doctrine as Kaplan explains it nor as it is being applied in real life these days yields objective, unambiguous results, so I'm prepared to "[agree] with the chairman of the WBFLC" as to the appropriate result under the doctrine, while continuing to disagree about the desirability of interpreting the laws as requiring that the doctrine be applied. 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 Jan 5 09:06:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:06:04 +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 JAA22893 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:05:56 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA12410 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:05:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990104170753.00711514@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 17:07:53 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Interpretation In-Reply-To: <01BE37FC.AA7911E0@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:56 PM 1/4/99 -0500, Craig wrote: > By the way Marv, I don't think a revoke (save for an intentional one) >is irrational either...put me down in the accidental or non-rational camp. >I really wonder if EK meant what he said in this case, or whether somehow >the comment has shifted meaning absent context. Would that he were here to >set us straight, and Selassie isn't talking. I agree with Craig here, but readily admit that in doing so we are disagreeing with EK. This is quite clear in the 1973 article, which provides the needed context. Kaplan wrote, discussing his "Case C", that "The damage... was a direct consequence not of the infraction... but of the revoke... It was subsequent, not consequent. E-W should be penalized for their infraction, and N-S should keep the zero they have earned." 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 Jan 5 09:24:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:24:21 +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 JAA22982 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:24:14 +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 RAA13082 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:23:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990104172604.0071341c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 17:26:04 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Interpretation In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990104085541.0070520c@pop.cais.com> <199901030425.UAA11722@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990104085541.0070520c@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:27 PM 1/4/99 +0000, David wrote: > Is it fair to assume that all actions are either rational or >irrational? If so, which is a revoke? Are you suggesting that, holding >A2 of a suit, a *rational* way to attempt to win the trick is to revoke? Literally speaking, it is meaningless to denote an action as being either rational or irrational; the terms describe thoughts, not actions. Loosely speaking, when we call an action either rational or irrational, we mean that the thinking which led the person to take that action was either rational or irrational. If there was no (rational or irrational) thinking behind the action, the terms are inapplicable and the distinction meaningless. (In my earlier message, I used the term "accidental" to describe actions in this category.) I would argue that whether or not it is "fair to assume that all actions are either rational or irrational", it is wrong. 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 Jan 5 10:28:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:28:12 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA23146 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:28:06 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxJPj-0007GB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:28:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:46:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example In-Reply-To: <199901040056120260.1CFC78ED@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199901040056120260.1CFC78ED@mail.btinternet.com>, David Burn writes > >To crystallize: suppose declarer at 7NT has these cards: > >A >5432 >AKJ109 >KQx > >xxx >AKQ76 >Q >A10xx > >A club is led, declarer plays low from dummy and wins the jack with the ace. He >spreads his hand, announcing that he will take five hearts, three clubs, five >diamonds and a spade for 14 tricks. Hearts are 4-0. Would you allow his claim? >(I would not.) > Down 1. Pity a spade wan't lead, it'd be down 4 or 5 then :) Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 10:39:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:39:55 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA23170 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:39:45 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h59.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id CAA21262; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:39:37 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <3691FA88.6D39@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 03:42:00 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) and Happy New Year:) I tryed to keep silent becuase of being at hollydays - but I can't... Very pity for me... I am fully with David (Burn), Jesper: irrational claim should be allowed to progress to its logical finish. "Card named is card played" (The Legend, DWS called it "Urban Legend"). Bridge mistake had been made before claim was made - in the claimer's mind. As he did no immediate attempts to correct the claim - it was his mistake, not accidental miswording. If we allow him to change his mind - it will be second try to play the same board. So - he said "I play all trump" and he should pay... I'd like to remind discussion on threads "Claim" (started by Anne Jones) and "Dummy play" (started by John Kuchenbrod). That time I tryed to defend the same position ("Named - Played") but was in deep minority... Might be - because of bad (or even wrong) arguments?:) Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 11:09:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:09:17 +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 LAA23265 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:09:10 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa02364; 4 Jan 99 16:08 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 04 Jan 1999 15:04:39 PST." <199901041504390510.20055F78@mail.btinternet.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:08:34 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901041608.aa02364@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [David Burn:] > >> To crystallize: suppose declarer at 7NT has these cards: > >> > >> A > >> 5432 > >> AKJ109 > >> KQx > >> > >> xxx > >> AKQ76 > >> Q > >> A10xx > >> > >> A club is led, declarer plays low from dummy and wins the jack with the= > ace. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will take five hearts, three= > clubs, five diamonds and a spade for 14 tricks. Hearts are 4-0. Would you= > allow his claim? (I would not.) > [Herman de Wael:] > >Thirdly, I will not conclude from the bad statement that > >declarer will miscount the heart suit once he starts on it. > [David:] > Why not? He has miscounted it before he starts on it; what more evidence do= > you require that he will continue to act as carelessly as he has begun? > [Herman:] > >When he first plays on hearts, he is allowed to notice them > >and modify his plan. > [David:] > Why should this be? Presumably, when he made his claim, he had a reason for= > saying (in effect)that he had five tricks in hearts regardless of what= > might happen. I see no reason to presume this. In my experience, it's at least as likely that declarer has just forgotten about the possibility of a bad break. I've seen this sort of thing happen quite often when less-experienced players claim. So I think we might need to get more information about what declarer was thinking when he said he would take 5 heart tricks. If he thought there were only 3 hearts outstanding, I would accept David's logic. But if he knew there were 4 hearts out, and the possibility of a bad break simply slipped his mind, I'd accept Herman's argument. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 11:43:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:43:37 +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 LAA23314 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:43:27 +1100 Received: from modem54.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.182] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zxKae-0007sp-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 00:43:21 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Strange Claim Revisited Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 00:06:21 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ========================================---------- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Strange Claim Revisited > Date: 03 January 1999 10:48 > > Oh no, he's dug it up ! > ++++ claimer has made his claim at a time when there is no unexposed feature of the hand that will cause him to wish to follow a new line? he is not allowed to learn of a flaw in his claim from opponents' protest, so when would he find out about it? Only when he begins to play the clubs? The question of irrationality only arises in 70C3, 70D and 70E, not in 70A or 70B. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 11:43:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:43:35 +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 LAA23311 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:43:26 +1100 Received: from modem54.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.182] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zxKac-0007sp-00; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 00:43:18 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Interpretation Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 22:29:46 -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 ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ========================================---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: Grattan Endicott ; Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Interpretation > Date: 04 January 1999 18:26 > > So, Grattan, is a revoke irrational or not? Isn't it rather > "absurd"? +++++ A purposeful revoke is a breach of Law 72B2. An inadvertent revoke is not the outcome of deliberation by the player and the words 'rational' and 'irrational' are not appropriately applied to it. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 11:43:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:43:38 +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 LAA23313 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:43:27 +1100 Received: from modem54.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.182] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zxKad-0007sp-00; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 00:43:20 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Claim Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:25:32 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ======================================== ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Claim > Date: 03 January 1999 12:22 > > Grattan wrote: > > >++++ Well, er, yes and no........................ > > Perhaps we should remind ourselves that it is up to claimer to > >to propose a new line of play and ask for it to be allowed. The Director's > >task is to evaluate that request against the criteria laid down in Law 70D. > >The Director is not to introduce and allow claimer a successful line > >that claimer has not proposed; the law does not give him that power. > > Are you sure? L70A is written [deliberately, I hope] in a very vague > fashion. While later bits of that Law do contain specific instructions > for specific situations there is no actual instruction for what the TD > should do in situations not covered by such instructions, and then we > have to fall back on L70A. > ---------------------------------- \x/ ------------------------------------ > > It seems to me that the possibilities are for [a] the TD to decide > alternative lines for himself if he thinks the stated line has broken > down - as agreed in "A Strange Claim" or [b] to give claimer a chance to > offer more lines. > > [a] is what we do: IMO [a] is what we should do: IMO [a] is what L70A > requires us to do. You seem to be suggesting [b]. > ++++ Oh? I don't think I am arguing either (a) or (b). Law 70A deals with adjudication of the claim as it is stated. There is no authorisation for alternative new lines of play that go outside of the statement.. The Director is adjudicating between the claim of the one side and the protest of the other. The wording is clear: "in ruling on a contested claim", and I do not find this vague. Laws 70B and 70C refer to aspects of the process by which the Director fulfils his duty in 70A. It is Law 70D that deals with the introduction of a line of play that is "new", i.e. is not referable to the original statement of claim. The words it uses are "shall not accept from the claimer"; the Director may introduce a less successful alternative normal line when dealing with such a revised claim.When 70E is not applicable it is to 70D that you go; if neither 70D nor 70E assist, you are ruling on the original claim under 70A not on some fresh claim that you have invented. What you do under 70A has to be by reference to the statement of claim and the protest, as 70B provides; the Director may of course say to claimer that if he goes down that path the end result will be (whatever) but he has no grounds in the laws for moving the claimer from his stated line without claimer seeking, in the course of the discussion, a change of line (whereupon the Director's first decision is whether it is a 'new' line). IMO (no H, of course). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 12:36:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:36:16 +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 MAA23445 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:36:00 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990105013553.OZCC6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:35:53 -0800 Message-ID: <36916D4C.A26E7B4A@home.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 17:39:24 -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: Claim References: <386AC6C6.4A171CDE@freewwweb.com> <368B795F.FF641601@internet-zahav.net> <386B8AF3.518787F3@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: > Is it correct to say that claimer's statement establishes what cards he > is to play [and ostensibly when]? > > Your post indicates that this is incorrect. However, presuming it is > correct anyway: Why presume that, when L68D states "After any claim......play ceases" and "All play subsequent.........shall be voided", upon which L70 states *precisely* what shall happen? L70D clearly implies that claimer can propose alternative lines once the stated line becomes irrational, which is as soon as the 4-0 break is discovered. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 12:53:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:53:07 +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 MAA23470 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:53:00 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxLfy-00069K-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 01:52:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 01:35:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <01BE3801.00B90200@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01BE3801.00B90200@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com>, Craig Senior writes >From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] > The point I was trying to make is that "reason is in the eye of the >beholder"; if a man with AKQxx facing xxxx has reason to believe before he >starts to play this suit that he has no loser therein, why ("rationally") >should he be assumed after the first round to believe otherwise? > >##### Because he was imprecise in his language, perhaps, not allowing for >the highly unlikely case of a 4-0 split? When you say I'll meet you in the >city in two hours do you always add unless there's an accident on the >motorway? That he did not spell out the details of his approach to the >unlikely contingency does not mean he cannot change his route when it >becomes obvious the original plan is not going to work. We allow a finesse >upon showing out in a defective claim; this is akin to it. The discard is a >wake up call. Failing to claim because there is a less than 3% chance that >the claim could be defective is not a way to speed up the game. Allowing >the least successful of rational alternatives when it is irrational to >continue with the incompletely worded line of play is in accord with both >the rules and equity. > >Craig > why didn't he cash the HA and claim "trumps now breaking" -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 12:58:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:58:19 +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 MAA23493 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:58:12 +1100 Received: from modem65.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.193] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zxLkz-0008Vz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 01:58:06 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Claim Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 01:53:35 -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 ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ======================================== ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Claim > Date: 03 January 1999 12:22 > > Grattan wrote: > > >++++ Well, er, yes and no........................ DWS:- > ----------------------- \x/ ------------------------------- > It seems to me that the possibilities are for [a] the TD to decide > alternative lines for himself if he thinks the stated line has broken > down - as agreed in "A Strange Claim" or [b] to give claimer a chance to > offer more lines. ----------------------- \x/ --------------------------------------- ++++ "as agreed"? what was agreed ? had not declarer cut himself off from dummy except for a club entry and were not all the cards that were relevant to the 'flaw' in the claim exposed? and in these circumstances had he not nominated his play, including four rounds of clubs? there was no breaking down of his elected line of play at all. This is a 70A ruling, normality and rationality are not an issue, we just do what claimer has said; the laws do not require his proposed play to be 'normal' (if that can be identified) at the time he states it, and nothing has emerged that was not previously in evidence, since he nominated his play, to raise an issue under 70D. (I do not think claimer proposed a new line of play? and in this case the question of irrationality would only arise if declarer were seeking to adopt a new line of play and the Director were considering alternatives under 70D). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 13:26:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:26:14 +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 NAA23522 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:26:08 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa09393; 4 Jan 99 18:25 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 05 Jan 1999 01:35:46 PST." Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 18:25:34 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901041825.aa09393@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John MadDog Probst wrote: > In article <01BE3801.00B90200@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com>, Craig Senior > writes > >From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] > > The point I was trying to make is that "reason is in the eye of the > >beholder"; if a man with AKQxx facing xxxx has reason to believe before he > >starts to play this suit that he has no loser therein, why ("rationally") > >should he be assumed after the first round to believe otherwise? > > > >##### Because he was imprecise in his language, perhaps, not allowing for > >the highly unlikely case of a 4-0 split? When you say I'll meet you in the > >city in two hours do you always add unless there's an accident on the > >motorway? That he did not spell out the details of his approach to the > >unlikely contingency does not mean he cannot change his route when it > >becomes obvious the original plan is not going to work. We allow a finesse > >upon showing out in a defective claim; this is akin to it. The discard is a > >wake up call. Failing to claim because there is a less than 3% chance that > >the claim could be defective is not a way to speed up the game. Allowing > >the least successful of rational alternatives when it is irrational to > >continue with the incompletely worded line of play is in accord with both > >the rules and equity. > > > >Craig > > > why didn't he cash the HA and claim "trumps now breaking" Possibly because the contract was no trumps? :) But even supposing you meant "hearts now breaking": If you're assuming that declarer would have cashed the HA first had he counted the suit correctly (and that this is therefore proof that declarer thought he had 10 hearts), your assumption is wrong. I've seen lots of claims against me where players claim without bothering to check if the suit breaks the way it needs to. I'm amazed at how often it happens, but it does. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 13:46:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:46:46 +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 NAA23563 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:46:40 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa10532; 4 Jan 99 18:46 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 04 Jan 1999 23:25:32 PST." Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 18:45:58 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901041846.aa10532@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan writes: > Law 70A deals with adjudication of the claim as it is stated. > There > is no authorisation for alternative new lines of play that go outside of the > statement.. Then when exactly does 70D apply at all? The way you seem to have stated it, it would appear that a Director may not accept from a claimer any line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement, EVER, PERIOD. But Law 70D states: 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. This appears to imply that the Lawmakers intended there would be *some* times when a successful line of play embraced in the original clarification statement *would* be accepted(*). But you seem to have cut off this possibility by the way you phrased the part I've quoted above. I probably don't quite understand your meaning---could you clarify? Thanks. -- Adam (*) This may get me into another war about how words are supposed to be interpreted. If we have a logical proposition "Whenever A is true, B is true", this does *not* imply that B must be false some of the time. B could always be true. But I don't believe the rules of algebraic logic apply strictly to the Laws or other similar prose; so that when lawmakers write "Whenever A is true, B is true", it's their intent that B would be false at least some of the time when A is false, or else the lawmakers wouldn't have included the redundant "whenever" part. Here, B would be "a successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement is not accepted." From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 17:37:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA23829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 17:37:33 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA23823 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 17:37:27 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092ndb.san.rr.com [204.210.48.219]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA22718 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 22:37:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901050637.WAA22718@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Interpretation Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 22:36:29 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > At 06:27 PM 1/4/99 +0000, David wrote: > > > Is it fair to assume that all actions are either rational or > >irrational? If so, which is a revoke? Are you suggesting that, holding > >A2 of a suit, a *rational* way to attempt to win the trick is to revoke? > > Literally speaking, it is meaningless to denote an action as being either > rational or irrational; the terms describe thoughts, not actions. Loosely > speaking, when we call an action either rational or irrational, we mean > that the thinking which led the person to take that action was either > rational or irrational. If there was no (rational or irrational) thinking > behind the action, the terms are inapplicable and the distinction > meaningless. (In my earlier message, I used the term "accidental" to > describe actions in this category.) I would argue that whether or not it > is "fair to assume that all actions are either rational or irrational", it > is wrong. > A wise man once said that when there is ambiguity in regard to the Laws, the true meaning resides in the mind of whoever was responsible for the words, not in the words themselves. All we have to do is ask the chairman of the WBFLC what the Committee intended when it used the word "irrational" in Excerpt 3 of the WBFLC Lille minutes when characterizing actions that could annull redress. If the word embraces revokes, LOOTs, and such, in the Committee's opinion, then other opinions don't matter. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 17:42:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA23847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 17:42:46 +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 RAA23842 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 17:42:38 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-103.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.103]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA10532788; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 01:45:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3691B403.3BA158E@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 00:41:07 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Senior CC: "hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Claim References: <01BE3801.00B90200@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I do not think the issue is that it is good to claim when it is 97% likely that the claim will succeed. Try this out: Claiming when it is more than Zero Percent that the claim can fail will slow down the game much more often than not. I have played against a person of high abilities who can be looking at 8 solid tricks in dummy from T1 on after strong bidding by declarer. declarer claims explicitly 9 tricks and this person will always spend at least two minutes looking at declarer's hand for nine tricks. I will never claim against this person again. Roger Pewick Craig Senior wrote: > > From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] > The point I was trying to make is that "reason is in the eye of the > beholder"; if a man with AKQxx facing xxxx has reason to believe before he > starts to play this suit that he has no loser therein, why ("rationally") > should he be assumed after the first round to believe otherwise? > > ##### Because he was imprecise in his language, perhaps, not allowing for > the highly unlikely case of a 4-0 split? When you say I'll meet you in the > city in two hours do you always add unless there's an accident on the > motorway? That he did not spell out the details of his approach to the > unlikely contingency does not mean he cannot change his route when it > becomes obvious the original plan is not going to work. We allow a finesse > upon showing out in a defective claim; this is akin to it. The discard is a > wake up call. Failing to claim because there is a less than 3% chance that > the claim could be defective is not a way to speed up the game. Allowing > the least successful of rational alternatives when it is irrational to > continue with the incompletely worded line of play is in accord with both > the rules and equity. > > Craig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 18:24:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA23883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:24:10 +1100 Received: from fep6.mail.ozemail.net (fep6.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA23878 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:24:06 +1100 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri5p32.ozemail.com.au [203.108.233.48]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA08585 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:23:19 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990105140756.00760a44@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:07:56 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: TD's duties and powers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk North is dealer, but South makes an opening bid OOT. TD is called. West is relatively inexperienced. TD to West: Your first option is to accept the BOOT.... West: I'll accept the bid. TD: The Laws require me to explain all your options, and I won't accept a decision from you until you are fully informed about all your options. TD then explains all West's options and their consequences. West now decides not to accept the BOOT, North is barred and NS get a rotten score. NS appeal to the CTD, claiming that West made a decision knowing that he hadn't heard all his options, and that the TD did not have the power to refuse to accept his initial decision, ill-informed though it may have been. This imaginary scenario is prompted by a director's communication to me that she always adopts this policy of refusing to accept a 'premature' decision until the player has heard all his options. Despite its good intentions, I doubt its legality. Opinions? Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 19:12:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA23954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 19:12:49 +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 TAA23949 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 19:12:42 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990105081236.RUXC6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 00:12:36 -0800 Message-ID: <3691CA47.A444242D@home.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 00:16:07 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim References: <+Y1+nWAFE2j2Ewft@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > It seems to me that the possibilities are for [a] the TD to decide > alternative lines for himself if he thinks the stated line has broken > down - as agreed in "A Strange Claim" or [b] to give claimer a chance to > offer more lines. > > [a] is what we do: IMO [a] is what we should do: IMO [a] is what L70A > requires us to do. You seem to be suggesting [b]. I'll dare a guess that Grattan suggests this because L70D clearly tells us to do so. For only the 2nd time in a long time I disagree with DS. I find that the combination of L70C and D provides sufficient basis for the case at hand. **At the time of the claim**, there are outstanding trumps so 70C applies. Claimer did mention trumps, so C.1 is out. He was clearly aware that some were outstanding, so C.2 is out. With Jxxx outstanding, a trick could clearly be lost by normal play in trumps, so "Director *shall* (my emphasis) award a trick or tricks to the opponents". So far, the law seems pretty clear. To determine how many, TD now moves to L70D. Is it so far-fetched to assume that if the law-makers intended that anyone other than the claimer could suggest alternative lines, they wouldn't have been so specific in talking about how TD should react to "claimer's" suggestions? Alternatively, wouldn't there have been 70E,F,G etc dealing with how to handle alternative lines proposed by others?? Finally, isn't it logical that the burden of finding lines of play should rest solely on declarer/claimer? Otherwise, as someone else suggested, a mediocre declarer would always claim something early, hoping someone else would find a normal line to justify the claim. Maybe we should all simply RTFLB a bit more carefully b4 judging - maybe it isn't so bad afterall? :-)) And while realizing the wording of many Laws is less than perfect and that we can't get it corrected b4 2007, would it really be so bad to resolve any ambiguity in the wordings in favour of **common bridge sense**? In other words, lacking clear evidence to the contrary, let's give the law-makers the benefit of the doubt as to intent! :-) By the way, I find Herman way out in left field on this when he asserts that the law gives claimer some kind of option to state a line and order of play when claiming. He should just reread L68C 100 times. Nowhere does it say that such a statement is "optional", and the danger in using it as such is demonstrated by Herman himself when he basically claims it is better to not make such a statement in case a better line will be found by someone else in the post-mortem. Just apply the law, particularly when it is for once *not* ambiguous, instead of constantly (see the discussion on correcting pard's ME) trying to second-guess it! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 19:47:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA23969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 19:47:09 +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 TAA23964 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 19:47:05 +1100 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA23044 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:47:03 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:47:02 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: TD's duties and powers In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990105140756.00760a44@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurie finds himself disagreeing with a fellow Australian. On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Reg Busch wrote: > North is dealer, but South makes an opening bid OOT. TD is called. > West is relatively inexperienced. > > TD to West: Your first option is to accept the BOOT.... > West: I'll accept the bid. > TD: The Laws require me to explain all your options, and I won't accept a > decision from you until you are fully informed about all your options. Law 10C1 makes it clear that it is the directors duty to explain all the options available. > TD then explains all West's options and their consequences. West now > decides not to accept the BOOT, North is barred and NS get a rotten score. > > NS appeal to the CTD, claiming that West made a decision knowing that he > hadn't heard all his options, and that the TD did not have the power to > refuse to accept his initial decision, ill-informed though it may have been. I think such an appeal is frivolous. The director had every right to refuse to accept West's premature attempt. Law 9B2 forbids West from selecting an option until the Director has explained all relevant matters. > This imaginary scenario is prompted by a director's communication to me > that she always adopts this policy of refusing to accept a 'premature' > decision until the player has heard all his options. Despite its good > intentions, I doubt its legality. Opinions? As you can see from above I think this Directors actions are legal. This scenario is quite common in the events I direct. I also insist on explaining all the options before accepting any selection. I only consider Law 11A relevant for those situations where the Director is not summoned. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 20:06:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 20:06:21 +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 UAA24004 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 20:06:13 +1100 Received: from modem76.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.76] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zxSRB-0003m8-00; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:06:06 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Claim Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:41:11 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ======================================== ---------- > From: Adam Beneschan > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com > Subject: Re: Claim > Date: 05 January 1999 02:45 > > > Grattan writes: > > > Law 70A deals with adjudication of the claim as it is stated. > > There > > is no authorisation for alternative new lines of play that go outside of the > > statement.. > ++++ Claimer may (and often does) suggest a new line of play not referable to his original clarification of claim; Law 70D specifies the criteria for accepting such a line. When a feature of the hand only becomes known after the claim has been made (and this will render the claim invalid) it is highly likely claimer will seek to introduce some new element to his line of play, but not inevitable. The law authorizes the Director to deal with the claim made and the protest where claimer does not propose a new line, and it is not the Director's role to propose a new line of play not thought of by claimer except as 70C3,70D or 70E may allow in specified circumstances. I repeat also what I said in an earlier post; claimer's line of play in his clarification does not have to be 'normal'; this issue only applies to any line to be considered by the Director under 70C3,70D or 70E, when ruling on claimer's proposals. [Note that I have not expressed a view whether in this particular case 70D comes into play; I did not read the earliest detail of it, so I do not know whether claimer upon learning of the bad break put it to the TD that it would now be absurd for him to pursue his original stated line and wished to introduce a new line of play. It is not for the TD to initiate that question - although skilled Directors do sometimes "lead" claimer by the way in which they elicit detail about the claim as stated.] ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 20:06:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 20:06:24 +1100 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA24005 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 20:06:15 +1100 Received: from modem76.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.76] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zxSRE-0003m8-00; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:06:08 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Claim Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:44:48 -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 ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ======================================= ---------- > From: Adam Beneschan > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com > Subject: Re: Claim > Date: 05 January 1999 02:25 > > > > > why didn't he cash the HA and claim "trumps now breaking" > > Possibly because the contract was no trumps? :) > ++++ Or because he might have denied himself fame/notoriety had he done so? :-))) ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 20:06:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 20:06:25 +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 UAA24006 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 20:06:16 +1100 Received: from modem76.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.76] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zxSRF-0003m8-00; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:06:09 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Interpretation Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:00:54 -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 ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ======================================== ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Interpretation > Date: 05 January 1999 06:36 > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > At 06:27 PM 1/4/99 +0000, David wrote: > > > > > Is it fair to assume that all actions are either rational or > > >irrational? If so, which is a revoke? --------------------------- \x/ ------------------------------------------ > A wise man once said that when there is ambiguity in regard to the > Laws, the true meaning resides in the mind of whoever was > responsible for the words, not in the words themselves. > > All we have to do is ask the chairman of the WBFLC what the > Committee intended when it used the word "irrational" in Excerpt 3 > of the WBFLC Lille minutes when characterizing actions that could > annull redress. If the word embraces revokes, LOOTs, and such, in > the Committee's opinion, then other opinions don't matter. ----------------------------------- \x/ ------------------------------------ > ++++ The Committee made no reference to this in its discussion; it assumed that everyone knew what 'irrational' means, but did not find out whether it meant the same thing to all its members present. "Our language quite frequently begs A meaning to hang on its pegs, But every fool knows A 'chairperson' grows A back, two arms and four legs." ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 21:49:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 21:49:50 +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 VAA24219 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 21:49:42 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxU3K-0002yl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:49:35 +0000 Message-ID: <3ZisXjBHQXk2Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:08:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Interpretation References: <3.0.1.32.19990104085541.0070520c@pop.cais.com> <199901030425.UAA11722@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990104085541.0070520c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990104172604.0071341c@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990104172604.0071341c@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 06:27 PM 1/4/99 +0000, David wrote: > >> Is it fair to assume that all actions are either rational or >>irrational? If so, which is a revoke? Are you suggesting that, holding >>A2 of a suit, a *rational* way to attempt to win the trick is to revoke? > >Literally speaking, it is meaningless to denote an action as being either >rational or irrational; the terms describe thoughts, not actions. Loosely >speaking, when we call an action either rational or irrational, we mean >that the thinking which led the person to take that action was either >rational or irrational. If there was no (rational or irrational) thinking >behind the action, the terms are inapplicable and the distinction >meaningless. (In my earlier message, I used the term "accidental" to >describe actions in this category.) I would argue that whether or not it >is "fair to assume that all actions are either rational or irrational", it >is wrong. Strangely, you seem to have argued one way and concluded the other. I agree that it is the thoughts that are rational or irrational - and the thought that produced a revoke card was "clearly" not a rational one! -- 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 Jan 5 21:49:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 21:49:51 +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 VAA24220 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 21:49:44 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxU3N-0002ym-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:49:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:45:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: When does dummy become dummy? References: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B28@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> In-Reply-To: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B28@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: >> DWS wrote >> > 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. >> Two problems here. I would say three! >> 1) L54C seems to condone the "acceptance" of the lead by >> dummy when he exposes his cards. This he is allowed >> (required) to do by L41D (if he doesn't do so then is he >> drawing attention to the irregularity?) No, L41 deals with correct procedure, and it follows from reading all of L41 that the opening lead referred to in L41D is a correct opening lead. The way you have read it dummy should always start laying his cards down as soon as an OLOOT is faced. I do not read L41 this way, and it is difficult to believe that is the intention. It is certainly not the normal interpretation. >> 2) L54 as written doesn't cover the case under discussion. >> The text of the law begins with: >> >> "When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and >> offender's partner leads face down, the director >> requires the face down lead to be retracted, >> and the following sections apply." >> >> In the case in question only one defender (RHO) has faced a >> card out of turn and LHO hasn't done anything yet. So it's >> difficult to justify applying L54 in a legal sense. Of >> course this is probably just another case of the laws being >> written badly. Rather more than that: this is *the* famous one in 1997 [better than the 1987 Laws, which banned Duplicate Bridge, if you know where to look!]. The wording of this Law actually means that a FOLOOT is not covered by the Laws unless it is accompanied by a correct lead face- down. However, it is an accepted interpretation that the wording is slightly flawed, and L54 is applied to any FOLOOT. > Presumably it should have started: >> >> "When an opening lead is faced out of turn, >> the following sections apply. >> >> A. If offender's partner leads face down, the >> director requires the face down lead to be retracted. >> B. If offender's partner leads face up, either >> L58A or L60C applies. >> C. (old A) >> etc. Well, something better than the current wording, anyway! >> This is what I understood to be the function of the BLML, to >> discuss the shortcomings of the current laws and with the >> view to making improvements which allow normal bridge players >> and TDs (wherever they play) to understand them and the >> decisions made by TDs and ACs. Absolutely. I am happy to do so. The reason for my first answer was not flippancy but a real feeling that a difficult question was completely irrelevant, and unless we can prove a need for it to be answered we could well do to avoid it. Now I see what you are driving at, my first answer stands. If there is a FOLOOT then there is no Law giving dummy the right to accept it. If he puts his cards down unintentionally because he has not noticed it is on the wrong side [I can believe that easily, even if Herman cannot] then the lead stands per L54C, but I presumed from the use of the word "accept" in your original question that you were asking about dummy doing it deliberately. If dummy does "accept" it, ie by putting his cards down deliberately, then he has committed an infraction for which there is no specific penalty, but we could adjust the score under L72B1. -- 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 Jan 5 21:49:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 21:49:51 +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 VAA24218 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 21:49:42 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxU3K-0002ym-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:49:35 +0000 Message-ID: <+5zuPnBBYXk2Ew1p@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:16:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Interpretation References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > An inadvertent revoke is not the outcome of >deliberation by the player and the words 'rational' and >'irrational' are not appropriately applied to it. I don't see this. You think deeply, then produce a card. I find it difficult to believe the card is unconnected with the thought process in any way. It turns out that the card is a stupid card to play, whether because it obviously gives a vital trick away or because it is a revoke [which may amount to the same thing]. In both cases it seems to me that the play is irrational. Putting it another way, if the player had thought differently, he may not have revoked: it is an outcome of the deliberation in some part. -- 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 Jan 5 22:12:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:12:57 +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 WAA24396 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:12:50 +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 CAA10065 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:01:53 -0900 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:01:53 -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 > In article <01BE3801.00B90200@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com>, Craig Senior > writes > >From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] > > The point I was trying to make is that "reason is in the eye of the > >beholder"; if a man with AKQxx facing xxxx has reason to believe before he > >starts to play this suit that he has no loser therein, why ("rationally") > >should he be assumed after the first round to believe otherwise? > > > >##### Because he was imprecise in his language, perhaps, not allowing for > >the highly unlikely case of a 4-0 split? When you say I'll meet you in the > >city in two hours do you always add unless there's an accident on the > >motorway? That he did not spell out the details of his approach to the > >unlikely contingency does not mean he cannot change his route when it > >becomes obvious the original plan is not going to work. We allow a finesse > >upon showing out in a defective claim; this is akin to it. The discard is a > >wake up call. Failing to claim because there is a less than 3% chance that > >the claim could be defective is not a way to speed up the game. Allowing > >the least successful of rational alternatives when it is irrational to > >continue with the incompletely worded line of play is in accord with both > >the rules and equity. > > > >Craig I am more than a little concerned about the turn this thread is taking. First off, a 4-0 break is hardly a rare event: something like 12% if we know nothing about the rest of the distribution. I am not certain I correctly understand Craig's sentence "failing to calim because there is <3% chance the claim is defective is not a way to speed up the game." This sounds like he believes that it is a good thing that people make 97% claims and every so often get a trick taken away. Can't we at least alll agree that it is only proper to claim if you believe you have a 100% line? Mind you, lots of poor claims get made, and we still have to find a way of dealing with them. And the more of these threads I think about the more I find myself thinking it is good to be as strict as possible to discourage these 88% and 97% (and 99.8%) claims. I'm not nearly so willing as before to let declarer make his contract in our original 6H question, and I do think it should matter whether declarer says something like "oooooh, you mean trumps are 4-0" as soon as the opps object. If he can't offer any additional clarificatory statement with minimal prodding we make him suffer. :) For what it's worth, I support the proposal that a claim always be accompanied by a statemtn of what winners and in what order declarer intends to take them. (of course somtimes I do face my hand and say 'everything is good' or some such - sloppy, I suppose, and if I am ever wrong I would expect to be forced to lose anything I possibly could.) And I also think a new thread or two about something other than a bad claim would be a nice change of pace. Gordon Bower PS: A solitaire list I subscribe to has been taking up the question of random computer-generated deals recently. Those of you here who took part in that discussion - would you send me an email if you would be willing to reiterate your thoughts on the matter in another forum? [DWS has had trouble with my email address but I don't know why. Please try siegmund@mosquitonet.com first, but you can use gordon@giseis.alaska.edu if that doesn't work.] From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 5 22:57:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:57:37 +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 WAA24507 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:57:30 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxV6x-0003FM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:57:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:31:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <+Y1+nWAFE2j2Ewft@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3691CA47.A444242D@home.com> In-Reply-To: <3691CA47.A444242D@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> It seems to me that the possibilities are for [a] the TD to decide >> alternative lines for himself if he thinks the stated line has broken >> down - as agreed in "A Strange Claim" or [b] to give claimer a chance to >> offer more lines. >> >> [a] is what we do: IMO [a] is what we should do: IMO [a] is what L70A >> requires us to do. You seem to be suggesting [b]. >I'll dare a guess that Grattan suggests this because L70D clearly tells >us to do so. But it does not. If the law-makers meant that a claim must be accompanied by a statement, and if that statement is successfully challenged, the claimer can go on making other new statements until one is found that is acceptable to the TD then I strongly believe the Laws would say so explicitly. I do not believe there is any such inference available from L70D. I also believe such an approach to be flawed in intent, totally unjust, and against the wording of L70A. Moreover, it is not the way TDs rule over here, and I would be very surprised if TDs anywhere rule by giving claimer a second and third and fourth chance to come up with new lines. >To determine how many, TD now moves to L70D. Is it so far-fetched to >assume that if the law-makers intended that anyone other than the >claimer could suggest alternative lines, they wouldn't have been so >specific in talking about how TD should react to "claimer's" >suggestions? It is far-fetched to assume that there is a procedure of this sort to be applied which the lawmakers assume will be applied without saying so and is against the wording of L70A [... the Director adjudicates ...]. > Alternatively, wouldn't there have been 70E,F,G etc dealing >with how to handle alternative lines proposed by others?? Finally, isn't >it logical that the burden of finding lines of play should rest solely >on declarer/claimer? Otherwise, as someone else suggested, a mediocre >declarer would always claim something early, hoping someone else would >find a normal line to justify the claim. Oh, please! >Maybe we should all simply RTFLB a bit more carefully b4 judging - maybe >it isn't so bad afterall? :-)) I would agree. >And while realizing the wording of many Laws is less than perfect and >that we can't get it corrected b4 2007, would it really be so bad to >resolve any ambiguity in the wordings in favour of **common bridge >sense**? In other words, lacking clear evidence to the contrary, let's >give the law-makers the benefit of the doubt as to intent! :-) Common bridge sense is that you make "a" statement of clarification, not half a dozen. >Just apply the law, particularly when it is for once *not* ambiguous, >instead of constantly (see the discussion on correcting pard's ME) >trying to second-guess it! If it is not ambiguous, how have you managed to come up with a part of the process that does not exist? -- 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 Jan 5 22:57:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:57:29 +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 WAA24500 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:57:23 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxV6o-0003Ev-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:57:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:38:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: TD's duties and powers References: <3.0.1.32.19990105140756.00760a44@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990105140756.00760a44@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: >North is dealer, but South makes an opening bid OOT. TD is called. >West is relatively inexperienced. > >TD to West: Your first option is to accept the BOOT.... >West: I'll accept the bid. >TD: The Laws require me to explain all your options, and I won't accept a >decision from you until you are fully informed about all your options. > >TD then explains all West's options and their consequences. West now >decides not to accept the BOOT, North is barred and NS get a rotten score. > >NS appeal to the CTD, claiming that West made a decision knowing that he >hadn't heard all his options, and that the TD did not have the power to >refuse to accept his initial decision, ill-informed though it may have been. > >This imaginary scenario is prompted by a director's communication to me >that she always adopts this policy of refusing to accept a 'premature' >decision until the player has heard all his options. Despite its good >intentions, I doubt its legality. Opinions? All TDs in the EBU/WBU are trained that they *must* refuse a 'premature' decision. This is a requirement of the Law [L10C1]. -- 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 Jan 6 00:57:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:57:50 +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 AAA27039 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:57:43 +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 IAA29677 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:56:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990105085925.00704b00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 08:59:25 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Interpretation In-Reply-To: <3ZisXjBHQXk2Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990104172604.0071341c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990104085541.0070520c@pop.cais.com> <199901030425.UAA11722@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990104085541.0070520c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990104172604.0071341c@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:08 AM 1/5/99 +0000, David wrote: > Strangely, you seem to have argued one way and concluded the other. I >agree that it is the thoughts that are rational or irrational - and the >thought that produced a revoke card was "clearly" not a rational one! My point was that it might not have been an irrational one either -- it simply may not have existed. If I decide to play a card to the current trick, reach into my hand, accidentally pull the wrong card, and play it, was my *play* "rational" or "irrational"? I don't believe it can be categorized as either; it was in a third category, "accidental". Whether revoking is in the same category as pulling a wrong card is arguable, but I'm inclined to think it is. In the language of L70E, I would say that just because "failure to adopt [a] line of play would be irrational" doesn't necessarily mean that failure to actually take that line would be irrational; it might be purely accidental, the result of playing the wrong card, or revoking. "Normal" and "irrational" don't cover all possible cases. When we seek "alternative normal line[s] of play" [L70D], we must exclude not only the irrational, but the accidental as well. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 01:21:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:21:28 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA27123 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:21:17 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-190.uunet.be [194.7.13.190]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06077 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:21:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36920973.5145366B@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 13:45:39 +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: <3691FA88.6D39@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > Hi all:) and Happy New Year:) > > I tryed to keep silent becuase of being at hollydays - but I can't... > Very pity for me... > > I am fully with David (Burn), Jesper: irrational claim should be That's 5 (JD,DB,JP,AW,V) against - 2 (CS,HDW) for . -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 01:21:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:21:29 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA27121 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:21:16 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-190.uunet.be [194.7.13.190]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06068 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:21:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <369208E4.C1698C1F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 13:43:16 +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: <01BE3801.00B90200@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: > > > ##### Because he was imprecise in his language, perhaps, not allowing for > the highly unlikely case of a 4-0 split? When you say I'll meet you in the > city in two hours do you always add unless there's an accident on the > motorway? That he did not spell out the details of his approach to the > unlikely contingency does not mean he cannot change his route when it > becomes obvious the original plan is not going to work. We allow a finesse > upon showing out in a defective claim; this is akin to it. The discard is a > wake up call. Failing to claim because there is a less than 3% chance that > the claim could be defective is not a way to speed up the game. Allowing > the least successful of rational alternatives when it is irrational to > continue with the incompletely worded line of play is in accord with both > the rules and equity. > > Craig Craig is absolutely correct. Suppose the play was not over yet. Declarer sees all his top tricks but the last one. He decides to play it out, simply because he wants defenders to be able to go wrong in the discard. He starts on trumps. He plays the Ace. Hey, they are 4-0. Now he thinks again. All completely normal. Careless, perhaps (there may be a better line to deal with 4-0), but absolutely NOT irrational to first play the ace and then only deal with the 4-0. In the same manner, it is careless to claim without checking what to do about the 4-0, but not irrational, and certainly not a proof that claimer cannot count to 13. I allow the claim. There have been voiced 4 votes against, by now, can someone tally the votes for ? Craig and me make 2. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 01:21:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:21:36 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA27138 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:21:24 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-190.uunet.be [194.7.13.190]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06091 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:21:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36920FF6.A2507583@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:13:26 +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 - bigger example References: <368F46C2.B4A0286F@village.uunet.be> <199901040054430500.1CFB1E40@mail.btinternet.com> <3690B29C.87402275@village.uunet.be> <199901041504390510.20055F78@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > >Hi David, > > > >nice to see that you can still get worked up about something > >which should have been settled long ago. > > I am far too old to get worked up about anything. I agree that it should have been settled long ago, but the way in which you would like it settled and the way in which I would like it settled are completely opposed to one another. That, perhaps, is why it was not settled long ago, and why we are trying to settle it now. > > >David Burn wrote: > >> > >> > >> Seems very far from clear to me. The "short version" (as Jesper put it): if declarer does not notice a bad break at trick 0, why should he notice it at trick 1? If declarer starts with the belief that with AKQxx facing xxxx he can draw trumps without having a loser in the suit, he might be assumed to play the AKQ without noticing what cards his opponents play (since he thinks those cards do not matter). Then, with (as he thinks) the rest on top, why should he cash them in any particular order? > > >Because you should realise that it is possible to claim > >before having worked it out completely (rude, as Jesper puts > >it, but possible). > > Why should I realise this? On what basis do the Laws mandate me to accept a claim of tricks from a player who has not worked out which tricks he is claiming? I would say L70A. I find it equitable - you disagree. OK ! > > >Thus I allow claimer, when starting on the 'presumed' play I > >will impose on him, to think before playing the first trick. > > Why? Presumably, he has already thought before making a claim (a claim is, of course, a play to the first - or next - trick, since a claim may be sufficient to establish a revoke by the claiming side, just as a play suffices in the normal course of events). I cannot see any legal, logical or moral reason why a player should be permitted to claim without thinking when he would suffer the consequences if he played without thinking. Good argument. Legal reason : I see no legal reason why not Logical reason : I shall give you one Moral reason : to speed up the game ? Logical reason : Suppose the bad breaking suit is not the first one player will attack, but (for some reason clearly) the second one. L70E specifically allows claimer to change his plan if a particular break becomes evident. If this is possible after the nth trick, then why not after the zeroeth? Suppose claiming is not allowed. It is clear there can be a time between the "clear perception" of declarer that all tricks are his, and the moment at which he has worked out what his first trick (and subsequent tricks) will be. But claiming is allowed. Now why should claiming be disallowed at this first moment ("clear perception") and only be allowed at the second one ("plan worked out"). If claiming is allowed at the first moment, then too should you allow claimer to change his original plan upon realisation that it will not work, even if this is between the moment of "realisation" and of "working out". So "claiming without thinking" may bring about a bad result, since it may not be clear what the action should be, but it should not be equated with "playing without thinking". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 01:21:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:21:32 +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 BAA27128 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:21:20 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-190.uunet.be [194.7.13.190]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06085 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:21:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36920CD3.3FC25A01@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:00:03 +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: <+Y1+nWAFE2j2Ewft@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3691CA47.A444242D@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > > By the way, I find Herman way out in left field on this when he asserts > that the law gives claimer some kind of option to state a line and order > of play when claiming. He should just reread L68C 100 times. Nowhere > does it say that such a statement is "optional", and the danger in using > it as such is demonstrated by Herman himself when he basically claims it > is better to not make such a statement in case a better line will be > found by someone else in the post-mortem. > Just apply the law, particularly when it is for once *not* ambiguous, > instead of constantly (see the discussion on correcting pard's ME) > trying to second-guess it! L68C : "A claim SHOULD be accompanied ..." Preface : "When a player "should" do something (example : L68C!), his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom." No left field at all ! BTW, I do not believe it is better not to say anything, in case the TD comes up with a better line. As for the wording of L70D, some have suggested that the claimer should suggest the new line, not anyone else. However, when the alternative lines are so clear, I will not wait for claimer to tell me his line. After all, I should be looking at alternative "normal" lines, and these are sometimes harder to find than the winning line. Besides, we are always trying to keep the table silent, aren't we ? Should we then punish a claimer for his silence by telling him afterwards, "you did not say you would play for the obvious finesse". While we would allow the claim from someone shouting all over the room? Surely not ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 01:21:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:21:40 +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 BAA27145 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:21:28 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-190.uunet.be [194.7.13.190]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06100 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:21:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <369211E9.80812DBE@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:21:45 +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 - bigger example References: <368F46C2.B4A0286F@village.uunet.be> <199901040054430500.1CFB1E40@mail.btinternet.com> <3690B29C.87402275@village.uunet.be> <199901041504390510.20055F78@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > >I firmly believe that it is possible to claim without having > >started to look for troubles (I have often done so). > > Then your claims should have been disallowed. I have played cards without catering for bad breaks, and when bad breaks have occurred, I have gone down. A claim is, to all intents and purposes, a play of several cards at once - if you make this play without catering for bad breaks, then you will suffer when bad breaks occur. You keep telling us all that this should not happen, but you have provided me with no shred of a reason why it should not happen other than a notion of equity which I believe to be (a) not in accordance with the Laws and (b) misguided in terms of establishing what ought to happen to the opponents of an erring claimant. The two things are NOT the same. If you play without catering for bad breaks, you may or may not go down. Three things may happen : A) Sometimes, you can rescue yourself after you notice the bad break, because the other cards are well placed B) Sometimes you could not rescue yourself C) Sometimes you have played a card too many, and you have now failed to play the safety play. Suppose you claim at the same time, without catering for the bad break, then : if C), you will be judged to have played the suit and you will also not be able to go back and you will also fail your contract if B), having claimed or not will not help you if A), having claimed should not bring you more bad things. If all normal lines lead to the contract, you should get it. By claiming you may have made your situation worse : if the case is indeed A, then by playing it out you may find the correct line, while by claiming you should suffer ALL normal lines, and you will get the contract only if all normal lines succeed. So please realise that in all cases claiming is still worse than playing on. But when all normal lines lead to the contract, then by claiming you should not go down. A careless claim is NOT a proof of overcareless play afterwards. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 01:21:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:21:43 +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 BAA27153 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:21:32 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-190.uunet.be [194.7.13.190]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA06108 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:21:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <369216DA.A22C8A29@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:42:50 +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 - bigger example References: <368F46C2.B4A0286F@village.uunet.be> <199901040054430500.1CFB1E40@mail.btinternet.com> <3690B29C.87402275@village.uunet.be> <199901041504390510.20055F78@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote a great deal - this is alreasy my third reply to part of his post. Sorry > > >> To crystallize: suppose declarer at 7NT has these cards: > >> > >> A > >> 5432 > >> AKJ109 > >> KQx > >> > >> xxx > >> AKQ76 > >> Q > >> A10xx > >> > >> A club is led, declarer plays low from dummy and wins the jack with the ace. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will take five hearts, three clubs, five diamonds and a spade for 14 tricks. Hearts are 4-0. Would you allow his claim? (I would not.) > > > >First of all, I have every sympathy for the claim. It seems > >like 14 tricks. Claiming is careless but not irrational. > > I suppose that is the point of difference between us, and I do not suppose from the sound of what you say that we will be able to resolve this difference. I will make one more attempt, and then have done. If a man claims five tricks with that heart holding before playing a card, because he is a careless player, why should he suddenly become a more careful player after he has played a round of the suit? I am, perhaps, not as sympathetic a person as you are, since I would have no sympathy with the claim at all. Would you really feel sorry for a man who, in a grand slam contract, could not work out that hearts might be 4-0 before making a claim (which, as I have suggested, equates to playing at least one card)? Perhaps we are not directing the same tournaments, or the same players. Perhaps in some high level tournaments, I may well do away with the sympathy and punish this bad claim. Let's go on from my point of sympathy. > > >Secondly, I would not hold it against claimer to not give a > >detailed claiming statement, including a sequence in which > >he takes his tricks. We should punish bad claims, not bad > >claiming statements. > > A claim is a statement. Almost the whole of Law 68 says that this is what it is. There is no difference between a claim and a claiming statement. I do not understand this point at all; no doubt through my own folly. Perhaps you could explain to me, with reference to the Laws, what the difference is between a claim and a claiming statement, since this appears to be the cornerstone of your argument. A claim should be accompanied by a statement. Is that enough of a difference ? > > >Thirdly, I will not conclude from the bad statement that > >declarer will miscount the heart suit once he starts on it. > > Why not? He has miscounted it before he starts on it; what more evidence do you require that he will continue to act as carelessly as he has begun? How can you conclude that he WILL continue to miscount ? I am not concluding that he won't, but I say that it is quite possible that he will. As in any case, only the TD at the table can determine why he miscounted the hearts. If the TD finds that it is a true miscount, he may well leave the bad claim in. But it is surely possible that claimer did not miscount but rather did not count at all. If that is the case, then the claim should not be dismissed of hand. Let's assume this is the case. > > >When he first plays on hearts, he is allowed to notice them > >and modify his plan. > > Why should this be? Presumably, when he made his claim, he had a reason for saying (in effect)that he had five tricks in hearts regardless of what might happen. Thus, to play the hand as if he had five tricks in hearts regardless of what does happen is not "irrational" in the sense that it accords with the claimer's own process of reasoning. That you or I find his reasons unsound has nothing to do with the case. Same answer - if he did not make a plan at all, then you cannot prove that he will miscount them in real play. You are assuming exactly the reverse from me, and neither of us have a clear notion of what went on in claimer's head. That should determine the true ruling, not our discussion. > > >Fourthly, we know that a statement about the number of > >tricks in each suit is not a definite statement about the > >order in which they are played (works both ways - if claimer > >is lucky to have named them in the right order it may not > >help him). > > True. But so what? > > >So we should see what may happen if the hand is actually > >played. > > Why? What passage in the Laws requires us to do this? We are required to adjudicate the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides. How will you do that except by playing out the hand in at least one line, and then in some other, and a third and fourth. Call this "fictitious play" if you want, but play out the hand is what we must do. This does not mean that we are required to play the hand better than declarer claimed it - if there is evidence from declarer's claim that he is a careless player, he should in equity to his opponents be required to play carelessly in accordance with his statement of claim. YES, but careless plays, not irrational ones ! If at the moment of claiming there is a line starting from the top, and a safety play starting somewhere else, then playing from the top is a careless play and should be included. But playing from the bottom, or failing to count the suit and play a round too many, is and will always remain in the "irrational" category. > We are emphatically not supposed to work out what would have happened if we played the hand ourselves. Not at all what I am suggesting. Claimer has claimed carelessly, not mentioning, or not thinking of 4-0 breaks. Claimer will play carelessly, that is, from the top (not now finding the supreme safety play) But claimer will not now play irrationally, that is not notice the 4-0 break. > > >Suppose you ask claimer to plan the play. What will he do ? > > I do not know, and I do not care, for it would not occur to me to ask him. He has already planned the play. No he HASNT ! > His plan is implicit in his statement of claim. Why should he be permitted to replan the play sensibly in the light of information that has been discovered solely by virtue of his having planned it foolishly when he made his claim? Where lies the equity in that? The equity lies in the fact that I believe that in 100% of the cases, any declarer will make this contract. So should the declarer who has claimed without mentioning the 4-0 break. If I believe that only 95% of players (or this player in 95% of the time) would make this contract, I will not let this contract make. > > >He will (only now) start upon the determination of the order > >in which they will be played. > > Too late - he has claimed certain tricks in the belief that they are his, and he must continue to play as if they were his until an opponent demonstrates that they are not by winning one of them. You are still in the minority in thinking that the line breaks down when it does, not when someone shows out. The Laws specifically mention the fact that one defender has showed out in the suit. (they do not, for instance, mention the fact that claimer could have a perfect count of the hand when one (or both) defender has shown out in all four suits.) > > >Is it likely he will at this time notice that hearts are not > >solid ? > > No. He did not notice it when he made his claim. Of course, he will know by now that the hearts are not solid, because his claim is being contested, but that is by no means the same thing as his noticing that the hearts are not solid in actual play. Minority view, I'm afraid. > > >So that he will obviously start by the Ace to see if they > >are 4-0? > > Oh, I do not suggest that he be compelled to play hearts from the bottom (though I suppose I could logically make such a suggestion). He will start with the ace, that I grant. But that he will "see that they are 4-0" I will not grant - he carelessly did not see that they might be before he started, and the possibility of a 4-0 break should not be allowed to enter his consciousness just because he has claimed. All the evidence from his statement suggests that left to his own devices, he would have led out five - or at any rate four - rounds of hearts. We have no right at all to decide that because our powers of reason are superior to his, the reasons which prompted his claim were not "reasons" at all - in other words, that his claim was not rational. The rationality of not catering for 4-0 before you begin is several orders of magnitude different from the rationality of noticing a bad break when it happens. > > >If you determine it likely that he will notice (which > >equates to determining how much time he took for actual > >claiming) then you should allow him to change his plan and if > >all "normal" plans work, allow the claim. > > Why? Regardless of how much time he took to make his claim, he has made it, and it is evidence of his powers of reason. Again, you tell me that I should do this and I should do that, but nothing in the Laws appears to me to justify your assertions. Equity does. (IMO) > > >If you determine that he had taken already quite some time, > >and he should have noticed by now, and you interpret his > >long wait as "well, if he hasn't seen it by now, he may > >never see this", then you may be right in disallowing the > >claim. > > I would determine that as soon as he made his claim, he ought to be deemed incapable of adjusting for a 4-0 heart break, since the evidence from his claim is that he does not believe that such a thing can exist. No it isn't. He has forgotten to cater for it, and may not now suggest another line, but he should not be deemed not noticing it. > > >>Do you understand what I am saying ? > > Yes. But I think that I also understand what the Laws say, and I am firmly of the opinion that they do not support your position. I surely hop you are in a minority. You have a dim view of the rationality of some players. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 01:22:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:22:39 +1100 Received: from spartacus (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA27206 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:22:31 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by spartacus with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 0zxXNK-00027u-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:22:26 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990105151602.00a2c8e0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 15:16:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: TD's duties and powers In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990105140756.00760a44@ozemail.com.au> <3.0.1.32.19990105140756.00760a44@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:38 05-01-99 +0000, you wrote: >Reg Busch wrote: >>North is dealer, but South makes an opening bid OOT. TD is called. >>West is relatively inexperienced. >> >>TD to West: Your first option is to accept the BOOT.... >>West: I'll accept the bid. >>TD: The Laws require me to explain all your options, and I won't accept a >>decision from you until you are fully informed about all your options. >> >>TD then explains all West's options and their consequences. West now >>decides not to accept the BOOT, North is barred and NS get a rotten score. >> >>NS appeal to the CTD, claiming that West made a decision knowing that he >>hadn't heard all his options, and that the TD did not have the power to >>refuse to accept his initial decision, ill-informed though it may have been. this behaviour of NS is really not tolerable. I hope the CTD gives them with the lash some good slugs this screams for a harsh DP regards anton >> >>This imaginary scenario is prompted by a director's communication to me >>that she always adopts this policy of refusing to accept a 'premature' >>decision until the player has heard all his options. Despite its good >>intentions, I doubt its legality. Opinions? > > All TDs in the EBU/WBU are trained that they *must* refuse a >'premature' decision. This is a requirement of the Law [L10C1]. > >-- >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 ~ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 01:42:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:42:06 +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 BAA27252 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:41:57 +1100 Received: from p2bs13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.44] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zxXg4-0003W5-00; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 14:41:49 +0000 Message-ID: <000601be38b9$1db41940$2c8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Interpretation Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:44:15 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 05 January 1999 11:15 Subject: Re: Interpretation >Eric Landau wrote: >>At 06:27 PM 1/4/99 +0000, David wrote: >>------------------ \x/ ----------------------- > Strangely, you seem to have argued one way and concluded the other. I >agree that it is the thoughts that are rational or irrational - and the >thought that produced a revoke card was "clearly" not a rational one! > >-- +++ If the action was inadvertent it was by definition not the product of any thought process. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 01:42:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:42:08 +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 BAA27254 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:41:59 +1100 Received: from p2bs13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.44] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zxXg6-0003W5-00; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 14:41:50 +0000 Message-ID: <000701be38b9$1ed91140$2c8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: Claim Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:50:10 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Jan Kamras To: blml Date: 05 January 1999 08:34 Subject: Re: Claim >David Stevenson wrote: > .Jan says:- >Maybe we should all simply RTFLB a bit more carefully b4 judging - maybe >it isn't so bad afterall? :-)) > +++ Oh, I wouldn't go that far! What is happening here is that David is pursuing his perceived duty of stirring the pot. He is far too sensible really to think as perversely as he argues. ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 01:42:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:42:08 +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 BAA27253 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:41:57 +1100 Received: from p2bs13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.44] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zxXg7-0003W5-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 14:41:51 +0000 Message-ID: <000801be38b9$1f77c240$2c8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: TD's duties and powers Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:52:40 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 05 January 1999 09:28 Subject: Re: TD's duties and powers --------------------- \x/ -------------------------------- > >As you can see from above I think this Directors actions are legal. This >scenario is quite common in the events I direct. I also insist on >explaining all the options before accepting any selection. I only consider >Law 11A relevant for those situations where the Director is not summoned. > ++++ I also support the action of the Director. L11A could not apply here because we are well past the point in time when the Director was summoned. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 02:04:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 02:04:09 +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 CAA27493 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 02:04:01 +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 PAA24301 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:03:44 GMT Received: by nlxrtd1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:03:24 +0100 Message-ID: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B2F@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> From: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Wish List Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:03:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Over the past few months I have seen a number of threads which illustrate that the current laws are open to interpretation and the opinions are often divided and irreconcilable. In particular the more than 100 on the issue of "Claim" (including the meaning of the word irrational), a few on the topic "Revoke and Claim" and, a while ago, the quite a lot on the "LOOT / Revoke ?" thread. For the 'Claim" thread, I propose that the appropriate laws be amended so that any contested claim which is incorrect is then adjudicated to give the worst possible result to the claimer for all items not mentioned in the claim. This can be achieved by letting the NOS play the hand double dummy and make all decisions with regards to cards played by the OS. This would deter frivolous claims and make the TD's decision easy. Of course it may not lead to "equity" but then neither do the laws for revokes. For the "Revoke and Claim" and the "LOOT / Revoke ?" threads, I propose the following: 1) Add to L65A, "When all 4 cards have been placed face down, the trick is complete." 2) Begin L44G with "When the trick is complete (see L65A), ..." These two changes mean that any 5th card played to a trick is: a) covered by L45E (when one or more of the original 4 is still visible) b) is treated as the correct lead c) is a lead out of turn A third change is concerned with establishment of a revoke. I propose that as a replacement to L63A2 and L63A3: 2. When player's card is turned face down when a player turns his card face down on completion of the trick (see L65A). 3. Member of Either Side Makes a Claim or Concession when a member of the either side makes or acquiesces in a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand (or in any other fashion). This means that a player (as in the "Revoke and Claim" thread) can no longer be woken up by a claim and still correct the revoke without punishment. Fourthly, I propose a change to L66A (and deletion of 66B): "So long no card has been played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may require that all cards just played to the current trick be faced. Note that if the trick was complete (see L65A), the trick remains complete and any revoke established by turning a card face down is still established." I can see no real reason why this shouldn't be allowed. Finally, revise L64A to be: A. Penalty Assessed 1. Offending Side Won Revoke Trick When a revoke is established, if the offending side won the trick on which the revoke occurred then (penalty) after play ceases, the trick on which the revoke occurred is transferred to the non-offending side. 2. Subsequent tricks If any trick subsequent to the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending side, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side. This makes it (a bit) simpler for players and TDs to understand. Thus always the same: revoked trick if won plus one more after the revoke. I guess these changes will provoke some discussion but hopefully in some form or other could be incorporated in Grattan's list of changes to the laws, to be implemented whenever that may be. Geoff. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 02:15:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 02:15:30 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA27521 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 02:15:21 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA04276; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:14:03 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-28.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.60) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma003581; Tue Jan 5 09:11:22 1999 Received: by har-pa1-28.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE3893.E71036A0@har-pa1-28.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:12:30 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3893.E71036A0@har-pa1-28.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'axeman'" , Bridge Laws Subject: RE: Claim Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:42:21 -0500 Encoding: 40 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: In this case, claimer stated that they were playing all the trumps. This is certain. ###Actually this is wrong, as has been pointed out to you several times. The only thing certain is that this is NOT what claimer stated.### The ace is played and it wins the trick. The lead is retained so the king is played. ### This is irrational. The ace is played AND one opponent shows out of trumps, revealing the 4-0 break. This makes continuing the implied stated line of play irrational, since information unavoidably discovered during the play must be taken into consideration AT THIS POINT, as it would be when playing the hand out. It wins the trick so a fourth round is played. ###You forgot the third round :-) But then we never should have arrived here anyway. It does not win the trick. This was unstated. On the next trick[s] claimer gets the benefit of the discovered 4-0 split so as to not be forced into an irrational continuation. ###No, claimer gets the benefit of the discovered 4-0 split when it would unavoidably have been discovered following the defectively stated line of play. The continuation you propose at trick 2 (and presumably at tricks 3 and 4 as well) would be forced irrationality. No sane player would ever continue in that fashion (unless as Jesper opined he thought only 3 trumps were out...and even HE would stop after 3 rounds. There is nothing to suggest that this player had miscounted his trumps though. Applying Occam's razor makes it far more likely that the language of his claim was imprecise in failing to state all contingencies than that he made a gross error in counting his trumps. I would like some evidence to override the more logical presumption before I would infer such an error over the far more likely case of wording the claim poorly and incompletely.)### From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 02:22:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 02:22:40 +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 CAA27552 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 02:22:34 +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 KAA19182 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:22:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA15309 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:22:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:22:37 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901051522.KAA15309@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: TD's duties and powers X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Laurie Kelso > Law 9B2 forbids West from selecting an option until the Director has > explained all relevant matters. This seems clear enough. Also note that any premature selection by West is an infraction. In fact, the Preface uses this specific example to tell us that this violation should be penalized more often than not. (I was surprised, but that's what the FLB says.) Of course we should be lenient with an inexperienced player. Even if West is inexperienced, the premature selection and the fact that it was made is UI for East, AI for NS. At least I think so. L16C refers to withdrawn "action," and I think selecting a penalty counts as action, but I suppose the contrary position could be argued. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 02:35:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 02:35:10 +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 CAA27590 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 02:35:01 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-92.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.92]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA10750939 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:37:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <369230D1.62395B96@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 09:33:37 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: TD's duties and powers References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In light of what Laurie says, L10 says some mighty curious things. For instance: 10B: The Director may allow or cancel any payment or waiver of penalties made by the players without his instructions. In the case presented, the TD was giving instructions and the player acted without waiting for the TD to finish. Does this really really require the TD to void the player's waiver to penalty which the player made of their own will while usurping the counsel of the TD? Or does it really give the TD the authority if he belives that it appropriate? How about, it is not appropriate to void [such] a waiver when a player had the opportunity to hear all the options before selecting one, yet did not wait? And let's not forget, is it appropriate to appeal if the other side is damaged by the rescinding of the opponent's selection when the other side feels that it was inappropriate for the TD to rescind? [ in the case here, I feel that it was inappropriate to rescind]. 10C1: When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available. The laws say that the TD shall present all the options. It seems that if the player does not wait for him, the TD can complete his mission when the player permits him and thus comply with the Law. However, when taking Laurie's view, if a player does not permit [the infraction] the TD to supply all the options before selection of an option, does this make him guilty of an irregularity and subject to penalty himself? Roger Pewick Laurie Kelso wrote: > > Laurie finds himself disagreeing with a fellow Australian. > > On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Reg Busch wrote: > > > North is dealer, but South makes an opening bid OOT. TD is called. > > West is relatively inexperienced. > > > > TD to West: Your first option is to accept the BOOT.... > > West: I'll accept the bid. > > TD: The Laws require me to explain all your options, and I won't accept a > > decision from you until you are fully informed about all your options. > > Law 10C1 makes it clear that it is the directors duty to explain all the > options available. > > > TD then explains all West's options and their consequences. West now > > decides not to accept the BOOT, North is barred and NS get a rotten score. > > > > NS appeal to the CTD, claiming that West made a decision knowing that he > > hadn't heard all his options, and that the TD did not have the power to > > refuse to accept his initial decision, ill-informed though it may have been. > > I think such an appeal is frivolous. > The director had every right to refuse to accept West's premature attempt. > Law 9B2 forbids West from selecting an option until the Director has > explained all relevant matters. > > > This imaginary scenario is prompted by a director's communication to me > > that she always adopts this policy of refusing to accept a 'premature' > > decision until the player has heard all his options. Despite its good > > intentions, I doubt its legality. Opinions? > > As you can see from above I think this Directors actions are legal. This > scenario is quite common in the events I direct. I also insist on > explaining all the options before accepting any selection. I only consider > Law 11A relevant for those situations where the Director is not summoned. > > Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 03:07:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 03:07:48 +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 DAA27680 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 03:07:41 +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 PAA17387 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:53:49 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199901051453.PAA17387@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, 5 Jan 1999 15:56:34 +0100 Subject: Is this a L12c2 case? Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dealer: North, all vulnerable, IMPs s Ax h Jxx d AKJx c xxxx s xxx s KQxxxx h xx h AQTxx d xxx d x c AQxxx c x s xx h Kxx d Qxxxx c KJx W N E S - 1NTa 2D Dbl p p 2H ?Dbl p p p 1NT alerted: 13-15. 2D was not alerted. Before South doubles 2H, he asks West about the meaning of 2D and gets the answer: diamonds. Before the opening lead East corrects his partners explanation: 2D was artificial, showing spades and a lower ranking suit. The TD allows North to change her last pass. North decides to bid 3D, and is allowed to play there for -200. After the play, South calls the TD back and claims that, had he known that it was artificial, he would have passed 2D, which would have led to a score of at least +100. Well, do NS have any right to +100, or dou you agree with the TD who told South to shut up because EW were cold for 11 tricks in spades? (I guess not :), but what else?). JP From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 03:51:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 03:51:40 +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 DAA27800 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 03:51:32 +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 LAA24663 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:51:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA15462 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:51:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:51:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901051651.LAA15462@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Interpretation X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan" > An inadvertent revoke is not the outcome of > deliberation by the player and the words 'rational' and > 'irrational' are not appropriately applied to it. Hmmm... I wonder. As Eric pointed out, '(ir)rational', strictly used, applies to a thought process, not an action. But isn't it normal English usage to define a "rational act" as "an act chosen or that might be chosen as a result of a rational thought process?" If you accept that, then it's fair to describe a revoke as "irrational" because it would not be chosen as a result of a rational thought process (barring Alcatraz coup and similar illegalities). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 03:57:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 03:57:40 +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 DAA27819 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 03:57:33 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-92.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.92]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10893092 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:00:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3692442C.C7B27206@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 10:56:12 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim References: <01BE3893.E71036A0@har-pa1-28.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I do humbly apologize. I have been negligent by failing to remember that George Orwell was correct. RP Craig Senior wrote: > > Roger Pewick wrote: > > In this case, claimer stated that they were playing all the trumps. > This is certain. > > ###Actually this is wrong, as has been pointed out to you several times. > The only thing certain is that this is NOT what claimer stated.### From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 04:01:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 04:01:01 +1100 Received: from spartacus (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA27834 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 04:00:55 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by spartacus with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 0zxZqa-0005cE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:00:48 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990105175425.00a2a100@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 17:54:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: TD's duties and powers In-Reply-To: <369230D1.62395B96@freewwweb.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:33 05-01-99 -0600, you wrote: >In light of what Laurie says, L10 says some mighty curious things. For >instance: > >10B: The Director may allow or cancel any payment or waiver of penalties >made by the players without his instructions. > >In the case presented, the TD was giving instructions and the player >acted without waiting for the TD to finish. Does this really really >require the TD to void the player's waiver to penalty which the player >made of their own will while usurping the counsel of the TD? Or does it >really give the TD the authority if he belives that it appropriate? Wait a nmoment please. The first sentence of the TD should be: The laws will give you several options and you can choose one after i have told you all possibillities (and checked you understand them all). this didnt happen in this case i think. If W then still chooses prematurely i as TD just would accept this decision, reckoning he knew the rules in advance. I certainly wouldnt punish him but his choice stands. I still think NS should be punished for going to the CTD. regards anton How >about, it is not appropriate to void [such] a waiver when a player had >the opportunity to hear all the options before selecting one, yet did >not wait? And let's not forget, is it appropriate to appeal if the >other side is damaged by the rescinding of the opponent's selection when >the other side feels that it was inappropriate for the TD to rescind? [ >in the case here, I feel that it was inappropriate to rescind]. > > >10C1: When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the >Director shall explain all the options available. > >The laws say that the TD shall present all the options. It seems that >if the player does not wait for him, the TD can complete his mission >when the player permits him and thus comply with the Law. > >However, when taking Laurie's view, if a player does not permit [the >infraction] the TD to supply all the options before selection of an >option, does this make him guilty of an irregularity and subject to >penalty himself? > >Roger Pewick > > > >Laurie Kelso wrote: >> >> Laurie finds himself disagreeing with a fellow Australian. >> >> On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Reg Busch wrote: >> >> > North is dealer, but South makes an opening bid OOT. TD is called. >> > West is relatively inexperienced. >> > >> > TD to West: Your first option is to accept the BOOT.... >> > West: I'll accept the bid. >> > TD: The Laws require me to explain all your options, and I won't accept a >> > decision from you until you are fully informed about all your options. >> >> Law 10C1 makes it clear that it is the directors duty to explain all the >> options available. >> >> > TD then explains all West's options and their consequences. West now >> > decides not to accept the BOOT, North is barred and NS get a rotten score. >> > >> > NS appeal to the CTD, claiming that West made a decision knowing that he >> > hadn't heard all his options, and that the TD did not have the power to >> > refuse to accept his initial decision, ill-informed though it may have been. >> >> I think such an appeal is frivolous. >> The director had every right to refuse to accept West's premature attempt. >> Law 9B2 forbids West from selecting an option until the Director has >> explained all relevant matters. >> >> > This imaginary scenario is prompted by a director's communication to me >> > that she always adopts this policy of refusing to accept a 'premature' >> > decision until the player has heard all his options. Despite its good >> > intentions, I doubt its legality. Opinions? >> >> As you can see from above I think this Directors actions are legal. This >> scenario is quite common in the events I direct. I also insist on >> explaining all the options before accepting any selection. I only consider >> Law 11A relevant for those situations where the Director is not summoned. >> >> Laurie > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 04:28:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 04:28:32 +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 EAA28013 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 04:28:26 +1100 Received: from [195.99.43.20] [195.99.43.20] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zxaHS-0005qd-00; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 17:28:36 +0000 From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 17:29:01 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am pleased to be able to report that Herman and I have found a point on = which we are in complete agreement. Herman wrote: >The Laws specifically mention the fact that one defender has showed out in the suit. (they do not, for instance, mention the fact that claimer could have a perfect count of the hand when one (or both) defender has shown out in all four suits.) I wish to go on record as saying that I will categorically and without = reservation accept any statement of claim based on the fact that both = defenders have shown out of all four suits. About the rest of Herman's message, I am not so sure. But I thought it best = not to suppress the good news. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 05:20:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 05:20:31 +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 FAA28171 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 05:20:25 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxb5V-000059-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:20:19 +0000 Message-ID: <2tF0KXBwZjk2EwUd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:57:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <000701be38b9$1ed91140$2c8d93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000701be38b9$1ed91140$2c8d93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jan Kamras >To: blml >Date: 05 January 1999 08:34 >Subject: Re: Claim > > >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >.Jan says:- >>Maybe we should all simply RTFLB a bit more carefully b4 judging - maybe >>it isn't so bad afterall? :-)) >> >+++ Oh, I wouldn't go that far! What is happening here is that David is >pursuing his perceived duty of stirring the pot. He is far too sensible really >to think as perversely as he argues. ~Grattan~ +++ > Now switch the words Grattan and David in the above and we have got it! But in the case of letting the claimer have another go, Grattan, I truly believe you are 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 Jan 6 05:20:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 05:20:37 +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 FAA28172 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 05:20:26 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxb5V-00005D-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:20:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 17:35:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Wish List References: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B2F@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> In-Reply-To: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B2F@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: >Over the past few months I have seen a number of threads which illustrate >that the current laws are open to interpretation and the opinions are often >divided and irreconcilable. In particular the more than 100 on the issue of >"Claim" (including the meaning of the word irrational), a few on the topic >"Revoke and Claim" and, a while ago, the quite a lot on the "LOOT / Revoke >?" thread. > >For the 'Claim" thread, I propose that the appropriate laws be amended so >that any contested claim which is incorrect is then adjudicated to give the >worst possible result to the claimer for all items not mentioned in the >claim. This can be achieved by letting the NOS play the hand double dummy >and make all decisions with regards to cards played by the OS. This would >deter frivolous claims and make the TD's decision easy. Of course it may >not lead to "equity" but then neither do the laws for revokes. This may be workable but is it really what we want? Do not forget that one effect of deterring frivolous claims is to deter non-frivolous claims as well, especially from people who do not have a lot of confidence. Making life easier for TDs is not the prime aim. What we want is to do the best for the players, and that is a very difficult concept. >For the "Revoke and Claim" and the "LOOT / Revoke ?" threads, I propose the >following: > >1) Add to L65A, "When all 4 cards have been placed face down, the trick >is complete." > >2) Begin L44G with "When the trick is complete (see L65A), ..." I like this. >A third change is concerned with establishment of a revoke. I propose that >as a replacement to L63A2 and L63A3: > > 2. When player's card is turned face down > when a player turns his card face down on completion >of the trick (see L65A). > 3. Member of Either Side Makes a Claim or Concession > when a member of the either side makes or acquiesces >in a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand (or in any >other fashion). > >This means that a player (as in the "Revoke and Claim" thread) can no longer >be woken up by a claim and still correct the revoke without punishment. Surely, what you mean is that in one set of circumstances this is true but not in others? If I revoke on T9, and then there is a claim when T9 is still going on, then neither the existing Laws nor your suggested alteration adequately cover the problem. By going on, I mean not completed by your suggested Law. OTOH [on the other hand] if I revoke on T9, and it is completed, and then there is a claim, the claim does not wake you up by your suggestion - or at least, it may do, but too late, because the claim has been established. Fine - one very minor [because it is going to be very rare] problem is eliminated. But I am not going to lose any sleep about claims that occur between four cards being turned down for a trick and the OS playing to the next trick when the OS has revoked specifically on the last trick: it sounds like a once every fifty million deals occurrence, and it seems adequately covered by the suggestion that doubtful points in a claim go against revoker rather than claimer if there is an unestablished revoke, a change I do agree with because it seems to cost nothing. Aha, you say, but what does your suggested alteration cost? It makes a major difference in the establishment of all the other revokes which don't happen to have a claim during this one tiny period. Now, I do not know the actual logic for the timing of establishments being as it is but it is well known, and to change it would be a big change. While the Laws need to be changed where the Laws are wrong, or times have changed, or whatever, to make a major change that players will notice solely to solve one incredibly rare possibility that can be changed by a different change in the Laws that players will not notice seems wrong. [NB: what a *dreadful* sentence!] No, let us leave that bit of the Law unchanged, though I would like to see L63B changed back to the 1985 version. >Fourthly, I propose a change to L66A (and deletion of 66B): > > "So long no card has been played to the next trick, declarer >or either defender may require that all cards just played to the current >trick be faced. Note that if the trick was complete (see L65A), the trick >remains complete and any revoke established by turning a card face down is >still established." > >I can see no real reason why this shouldn't be allowed. I have no strong feelings about this, though of course it is reverting to an earlier approach. >Finally, revise L64A to be: > >A. Penalty Assessed > 1. Offending Side Won Revoke Trick > When a revoke is established, if the offending side won the >trick on which the revoke occurred then (penalty) after play ceases, the >trick on which the revoke occurred is transferred to the non-offending side. > > > 2. Subsequent tricks > If any trick subsequent to the trick on which the revoke >occurred was won by the offending side, one such trick is transferred to the >non-offending side. > >This makes it (a bit) simpler for players and TDs to understand. Thus >always the same: revoked trick if won plus one more after the revoke. Certainly this Law should be re-written to make it simpler. I have found that the approach used by my book Duplicate Bridge Rules Simplified seems much easier to understand. David blowing his own trumpet again, you say? Errr, no - that particular section was written by an anonymous member of Mr Bridge's staff, and I thought the approach was brilliant. I have added it to the end of the article. But the point it that the main aim in life is not to make the TD's life easier, and players do not need to understand the revoke penalties. When you look at why the revoke Laws are as they are, what they effectively do is to provide a method that *usually* restores equity or better to the NOs, and randomly inserts a penalty element. Of course there is often moaning that it isn't fair. "How can I lose may ace of trumps?" said by a defender who only took one trick, unfortunately after his partner had revoked. May I offer you my 1999 defensive tip: when on lead against a grand slam with the ace of trumps, lead it before your fool of a partner can revoke. :)) Now consider the position in no-trumps where three rounds of a suit are cashed, all following, that leaves a winner outstanding. If someone revokes, and keeps a card to beat the fourth round one, that is often an _additional_ trick. The Law recognises this: the best revokes are those where failing to follow leaves the player with an additional trick, and the Law thus takes a trick away from the revoker if he won such an additional trick. Your change would make it simpler, but unnecessarily so. Better wording plus adequate training should solve the revoke Law, but wFrom owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 05:20:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 05:20:34 +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 FAA28173 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 05:20:26 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxb5V-00005A-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:20:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:20:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: TD's duties and powers References: <369230D1.62395B96@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: <369230D1.62395B96@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: >However, when taking Laurie's view, if a player does not permit [the >infraction] the TD to supply all the options before selection of an >option, does this make him guilty of an irregularity and subject to >penalty himself? Oh come on, this is a game of bridge. You go to the table, you start to read the Laws, a player interrupts to say he will accept the call, you politely point out that you will tell him all his options first. You do not start thinking "Shall I penalise him?". -- 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 ~ e do need that additional trick when a card is kept to win a later trick. --------- PROCEDURE WHEN A REVOKE IS ESTABLISHED How many tricks did the OFFENDING SIDE win from the revoke trick onwards (INCLUDING the revoke trick)? [a] NONE: there is no Penalty. [b] ONE: PENALTY ONE TRICK transferred. [c] TWO or MORE: Did the revoke card win the revoke trick? YES PENALTY TWO TRICKS transferred. NO Did the OFFENDER (not his Partner) win a subsequent trick with a card that could have been legally* played to the revoke trick? YES PENALTY TWO TRICKS transferred. NO PENALTY ONE TRICK transferred. * Note: this refers to "a card that could have been LEGALLY played to the revoke trick", not necessarily reasonably! Tricks are transferred as shown to the opponents at the end of the hand. If the revoke penalty is insufficient compensation for the non-offenders then see RESTORING EQUITY on page 30. Source: Duplicate Bridge Rules Simplified -- 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 Jan 6 06:11:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 06:11:21 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA28289 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 06:11:14 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092ndb.san.rr.com [204.210.48.219]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA00771 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:11:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901051911.LAA00771@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Interpretation Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:08:58 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > ------------------------------------------ > > A wise man once said that when there is ambiguity in regard to the > > Laws, the true meaning resides in the mind of whoever was > > responsible for the words, not in the words themselves. > > > > All we have to do is ask the chairman of the WBFLC what the > > Committee intended when it used the word "irrational" in Excerpt 3 > > of the WBFLC Lille minutes when characterizing actions that could > > annull redress. If the word embraces revokes, LOOTs, and such, in > > the Committee's opinion, then other opinions don't matter. > ----------------------------------- \x/ > ------------------------------------ > > > ++++ The Committee made no reference to this in its discussion; it > assumed that everyone knew what 'irrational' means, but did not find > out whether it meant the same thing to all its members present. > Maybe a good agenda item for the next WBFLC meeting? With some (EK and others) saying a revoke is a basis for possible annullment of redress, and others saying no, perhaps the Committee would be willing to settle the matter. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 07:03:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 07:03:49 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA28354 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 07:03:43 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092ndb.san.rr.com [204.210.48.219]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA07694 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:03:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901052003.MAA07694@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Is this a L12c2 case? Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:02:11 -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: > Dealer: North, all vulnerable, IMPs > > s Ax > h Jxx > d AKJx > c xxxx > s xxx s KQxxxx > h xx h AQTxx > d xxx d x > c AQxxx c x > > s xx > h Kxx > d Qxxxx > c KJx > > W N E S > - 1NTa 2D Dbl > p p 2H ?Dbl > p p p > > 1NT alerted: 13-15. > 2D was not alerted. > > Before South doubles 2H, he asks West about the meaning of 2D > and gets the answer: diamonds. Before the opening lead East > corrects his partners explanation: 2D was artificial, showing > spades and a lower ranking suit. > The TD allows North to change her last pass. North decides to bid > 3D, and is allowed to play there for -200. > After the play, South calls the TD back and claims that, had he > known that it was artificial, he would have passed 2D, which > would have led to a score of at least +100. > > Well, do NS have any right to +100, or do you agree with the TD > who told South to shut up because EW were cold for 11 tricks in > spades? (I guess not :), but what else?). > I don't believe it likely that South would have passed 2D if he had known it was artificial. He would have doubled to show diamonds, bid 2H to show a heart stop, or bid 2NT, or take whatever other action his system calls for. The "most favorable result that was likely" absent the infraction would have to follow one of these actions. I'll let more qualified persons take over from there. Here is a good example of why asking about individual bids whose meaning is plainly shown on the convention card (I'm thinking of ACBL-land, where the CC shows the meaning of 2D) should be discouraged, or even illegal, for those with no visual impairment. It only causes trouble, such as when (as here) one of the opponents has forgotten a partnership agreement. Promoting UI or MI by unnecessary questioning ought to be outlawed, or at least be made a basis for annullment of redress. It seems unwise to me for anyone to accept the TDs offer of a chance to change one's call. Better to say, "I don't know what I should do, the infraction has confused me completely, so I won't change the call." Then a change of call cannot adversely affect one's case in a TD ruling or AC decision, as it may have here. Of course some TDs will say, as one told me recently at a big regional, "I've given you a chance to change your call, so don't look to me for further redress." That's not legal, is it? Question: If a TD asks what you would have done in the absence of an infraction, to give you a chance to change a call, is it ethical to say you don't know when you do know? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 07:11:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 07:11:16 +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 HAA28380 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 07:11:06 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA20708 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 14:10:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.69) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020603; Tue Jan 5 14:09:10 1999 Received: by har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE38BD.8206A300@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:10:19 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE38BD.8206A300@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Claim Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:06:37 -0500 Encoding: 69 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] wrote (much snipped) Lest people should class me as a dyed in the wool Bridge Lawyer, this position came up in a recent pairs tournament when these cards remained: Dummy QJx AKx x 8 Declarer AKx Qxx x 9 Declarer in 3NT had lost one trick, the AKQJ of clubs all having appeared (declarer had begun with a 4-4 fit in the suit). He faced his cards, saying: "I have a club, three spades and three hearts - I will give you a diamond at the end." I, who had the ten of clubs and three winning diamonds, thought about this thread for a few moments and offered him plus 430. Comments on a postcard. ###Looks like off one to me. He first indicated he was going to play the "good" club; that is not irrational if he believes it to be good. It is an unsuccessful normal line of play...he gets to keep it. There is no red flag or wake up call to let him correct matters until it would be too late. While your concession is very sportsmanlike, I would not think you a BL to accept the lawful result in a match where something was at stake. In a friendly game, I give it to them too.### Suppose the hands are like this (a crystallization of the actual case): x xx AKQJ1098 xxx Ax AKQxxxx x AKQ Declarer in 6H wins the opening lead of SK and claims, announcing that he will draw trumps. West has all four missing trumps and a diamond void. Of course, once East shows out on the first trump, it is "irrational" (or is it?) for declarer not to ruff a spade in dummy and make his contract. I would not allow declarer's claim - would you? ### Whyever not? The discard by east is the alarm clock that wakes declarer up from the intended line of play. It certainly appears that taking the spade ruff is the only rational way to fly. Just made of course, since west cannot be denied the trump jack. You are surely not suggesting that crossing to the diamond length and trying to pitch is the act of a sane individual, are you? Perhaps in a very low level game that might be the case. Then a trump return could sink declarer after the diamond ruff. But declarer is most unlikely to take a line with any risk from bad distribution when a risk free line exists AND he has just been hoist by his own petard for assuming no one is void.### I haven't even started yet. ### If that's a Harold Reid quote, I can only reply in the words of J.D. Sumner: "I can hardly wait!" Craig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 07:41:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 07:41:52 +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 HAA28439 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 07:41:45 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA08210 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 14:41:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.69) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008183; Tue Jan 5 14:40:28 1999 Received: by har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:41:36 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Claim - bigger example Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:14:37 -0500 Encoding: 41 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] wrote (snip) If declarer starts with the belief that with AKQxx facing xxxx he can draw trumps without having a loser in the suit, he might be assumed to play the AKQ without noticing what cards his opponents play ### At this point he crosses the line from carelss to irrational.### (since he thinks those cards do not matter). Then, with (as he thinks) the rest on top, why should he cash them in any particular order? ### We generally assume that winners are cashed high cards first, then low ones. If trump have been "drawn" why should we expect otherwise? #### To crystallize: suppose declarer at 7NT has these cards: A 5432 AKJ109 KQx xxx AKQ76 Q A10xx A club is led, declarer plays low from dummy and wins the jack with the ace. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will take five hearts, three clubs, five diamonds and a spade for 14 tricks. Hearts are 4-0. Would you allow his claim? (I would not.) #### Looks like he still has 13 tricks...which should be enough. A rational declarer would be awakened when an opponent showed out of hearts on the first round. A marginally insane one would notice on the second round. Most cretins and novices should become aware by the third discard that something is rotten in Denmark. Alas, poor Yorick still has time to amend his ways and cash winners! Just made. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 08:52:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 08:52:46 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA28591 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 08:52:40 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA01766 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:52:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA15798 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:52:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:52:44 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901052152.QAA15798@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a L12c2 case? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > some TDs will say, as one told me recently at a big > regional, "I've given you a chance to change your call, so don't > look to me for further redress." That's not legal, is it? It depends on what "that" means. If you have a chance to change your call (after MI is corrected), and you decide not to, you cannot receive redress for damage caused by a bad choice at that turn. Likewise for damage at any later turn or during the play, for that matter. You made your choice, and you have to live with it. You may receive redress, however, if you were damaged earlier in the auction. The fact that you might have rescued yourself by a lucky choice at the final turn is irrelevant if the MI made it harder to take the right action earlier. And of course you still receive redress if you are damaged by an opponent's using UI at any stage. Finally, if the call that you decide not to change is "wild or gambling" or whatever _in light of the correct information, which you now have_, the usual rules about that apply. It doesn't matter if the call might have been perfectly sensible given the MI. Once you have correct information, it's up to you to play bridge. All of the above refers to a change of call under L21B1. Someone else can answer Marv's other question about the TD's investigation of "might have beens" where it is too late for an actual change. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 09:33:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 09:33:48 +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 JAA28747 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 09:33:37 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990105223331.WPQX6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 14:33:31 -0800 Message-ID: <3692940F.9A27D7A6@home.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:37:03 -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: Claim References: <+Y1+nWAFE2j2Ewft@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3691CA47.A444242D@home.com> <36920CD3.3FC25A01@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > L68C : "A claim SHOULD be accompanied ..." > > Preface : "When a player "should" do something (example : > L68C!), his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which > will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a > procedural penalty only seldom." > > No left field at all ! But from there, to your position of 12/28 when you said that "I don't beleive L68C requires the claimer to do anything", there is a giant leap, imho. Not stating a line is an "infraction of law". If stating a line would be merely "optional" as you've implied, the relevant law-text would have been "a claim MAY be...." or similar. > As for the wording of L70D, some have suggested that the > claimer should suggest the new line, not anyone else. I know the headings are not part of the laws, but in this respect L70D seems pretty clear to me. The only fuzzy part is how many new lines claimer can propose. > However, when the alternative lines are so clear, I will not > wait for claimer to tell me his line. After all, I should > be looking at alternative "normal" lines, But only after claimer has proposed a new line. The sequence of events required also seems pretty clear. If claimer has no new line to offer, why should the TD help to improve claimers bridge-result? It is up to you not to wait for claimer to state a new line, just don't try to tell us it has any support in the laws of bridge!:-) (As an aside, maybe all alternative lines are not as clear to **this** claimer as they are to you, and the TD is not supposed to play the hand for declarer. It would not be fair if these opponents play against you, when other pairs have to play against the (in this case lesser) claimer.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 10:11:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:11:16 +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 KAA28919 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:11:09 +1100 Received: from ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.125]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990105231103.GXII6075.fep4@ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:11:03 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Is this a L12c2 case? Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:11:03 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36ad9a0d.6078480@post12.tele.dk> References: <199901052003.MAA07694@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199901052003.MAA07694@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:02:11 -0800, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >Question: If a TD asks what you would have done in the absence of >an infraction, to give you a chance to change a call, is it ethical >to say you don't know when you do know? It is never ethical (or legal) to lie to the TD. In this case you would be trying to get more than your legal redress for the damage caused by the infraction: you would be trying to get the best result of two possible calls even when the chance to change your call would protect you perfectly from damage. I consider that definitely unethical. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 10:11:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:11:04 +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 KAA28905 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:10:58 +1100 Received: from ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.125]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990105231051.GXIA6075.fep4@ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:10:51 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Subsequent/Consequent Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:10:51 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36988cbc.2669228@post12.tele.dk> References: <199901041848.KAA03067@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199901041848.KAA03067@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:47:55 -0800, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >However, The OS does not think there was an infraction by them, and >feel that the obvious double shot that pushed them to 7NT was an >illegal action, trying to take advantage of a perceived infraction. >They appeal the non-ruling, feeling that they should get +690. > >The AC rules that the UI infraction possibility is moot, result >stands. Double shots are not illegal. Yes. There is no particular reason to worry about whether something that might be called a "double shot" has occurred. There has been no irregularity that damaged the NOS, there is no damage to be redressed, and therefore no need to worry about whether such redress should be denied. The NOS has bid a grand slam that won - their reasons for doing so are their own business and nobody else's. The OS has helped the NOS to a winning grand by their irregularity - that may teach them to avoid such irregularities in the future. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 10:10:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:10:58 +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 KAA28897 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:10:52 +1100 Received: from ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.125]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990105231045.GXHX6075.fep4@ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:10:45 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:10:45 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36a99985.5942564@post12.tele.dk> References: <368F46C2.B4A0286F@village.uunet.be> <199901040054430500.1CFB1E40@mail.btinternet.com> <3690B29C.87402275@village.uunet.be> <199901041504390510.20055F78@mail.btinternet.com> <369216DA.A22C8A29@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <369216DA.A22C8A29@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 Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:42:50 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >How can you conclude that he WILL continue to miscount ? I >am not concluding that he won't, but I say that it is quite >possible that he will. As in any case, only the TD at the >table can determine why he miscounted the hearts. If the TD >finds that it is a true miscount, he may well leave the bad >claim in. But it is surely possible that claimer did not >miscount but rather did not count at all. If that is the >case, then the claim should not be dismissed of hand. Yes, if the TD is _certain_ that that is the case. L70A: "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer". So if the TD considers it possible that the claimer will continue to miscount, he must rule as if he _would_ continue to miscount. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 10:10:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:10:53 +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 KAA28891 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:10:47 +1100 Received: from ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.125]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990105231039.GXHU6075.fep4@ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:10:39 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:10:39 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36958a0d.1982019@post12.tele.dk> References: <9901041608.aa02364@flash.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <9901041608.aa02364@flash.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:08:34 PST, Adam Beneschan wrote: >So I think we might need to get more information about what declarer >was thinking when he said he would take 5 heart tricks. If he thought >there were only 3 hearts outstanding, I would accept David's logic. >But if he knew there were 4 hearts out, and the possibility of a bad >break simply slipped his mind, I'd accept Herman's argument. Exactly. If there is doubt as to which of the two possibilities is the case, we need to remember that L70A says that "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer". I personally find it difficult to believe that any non-novice who knows that there are 4 cards out could "forget" that they might be 4-0, so declarer would have to be quite convincing for me to rule in his favour. But others have a different opinion about that... --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 10:11:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:11:22 +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 KAA28926 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:11:16 +1100 Received: from ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.125]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990105231109.GXIK6075.fep4@ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:11:09 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:11:09 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36ae9a28.6105549@post12.tele.dk> References: <01BE3801.00B90200@har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com> <369208E4.C1698C1F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <369208E4.C1698C1F@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 Tue, 05 Jan 1999 13:43:16 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >In the same manner, it is careless to claim without checking >what to do about the 4-0, but not irrational, and certainly >not a proof that claimer cannot count to 13. No, but the burden of "proof" is on the claimer: is there proof that he _can_ count to 13 (but needs to see somebody show out before he remembers that a suit can be 4-0 - which, as someone almost said, actually happens almost every tenth time*)? Let me quote L70A for the third time today: "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer". *: I haven't done the math myself, but I trust Kelsey & Glauert and they say 9.56%. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 10:11:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:11:10 +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 KAA28912 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:11:04 +1100 Received: from ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.125]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990105231057.GXIE6075.fep4@ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:10:57 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: TD's duties and powers Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:10:57 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36ab99af.5984675@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.5.32.19990105175425.00a2a100@cable.mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990105175425.00a2a100@cable.mail.a2000.nl> 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, 05 Jan 1999 17:54:25 +0100, Anton Witzen wrote: >If W then still chooses prematurely i as TD just would accept this >decision, reckoning he knew the rules in advance. I certainly wouldnt >punish him but his choice stands. If a player tries to choose prematurely, I tell him that he is to make his choice after I have explained the alternatives, and that I will only accept his choice now if he really insists that he does not want to hear the alternatives. If he then does insist, I accept it. I once encountered a declarer who, after an OLOOT, said "Am I correct in assuming that I can choose to forbid a heart lead? If so, I don't want to hear the other possibilities." I accepted that - we should not force people to listen to the (confusing) list of options if they really do not want to. >I still think NS should be punished for going to the CTD. Appeals without merit are penalized by some standard procedure, typically by keeping a deposit. If no deposit is required for an appeal to the CTD and the regulations do not specify any other penalty for meritless appeals, or if the TD did not tell NS that such a penalty might be imposed, NS should definitely not be penalized. It would be quite unreasonable to impose penalties for meritless appeals without warning. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 10:11:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:11:29 +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 KAA28933 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:11:22 +1100 Received: from ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.125]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990105231115.GXIL6075.fep4@ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:11:15 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:11:15 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36af9b48.6393383@post12.tele.dk> References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> <368E1454.29811497@village.uunet.be> <369d9c52.4966781@post12.tele.dk> <3690AAAC.E86EA970@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3690AAAC.E86EA970@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 Hi Herman, On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 12:49:00 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> The possibilities for serious disagreement with Herman in this >> thread seem to become smaller and smaller :-) > >You are saying this as if you regret it ! > >Is there a special smiley for regret ? I don't know. But it seems that there are still some slight disagreements over details that we can enjoy discussing. This thread is now more than twice as long as "Strange Claim", which was the longest thread in the first year of BLML's existence. Why do claims provoke the longest discussions? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 10:11:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:11:36 +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 KAA28941 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:11:29 +1100 Received: from ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.125]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990105231121.GXIO6075.fep4@ip125.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:11:21 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:11:21 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36b09b63.6420652@post12.tele.dk> References: <01BE3893.E71036A0@har-pa1-28.ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE3893.E71036A0@har-pa1-28.ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:42:21 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: >Roger Pewick wrote: > >In this case, claimer stated that they were playing all the trumps. >This is certain. Craig: >###Actually this is wrong, as has been pointed out to you several times.= =20 >The only thing certain is that this is NOT what claimer stated.### I quote the original post: 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. It does sound to me as if he claimed that he would play all the trumps. Craig: >No sane player would ever=20 >continue in that fashion (unless as Jesper opined he thought only 3 = trumps=20 >were out...and even HE would stop after 3 rounds. Why would he stop? When you believe that you have the rest in top tricks, is there any particular reason to not take the trumps before the other suits? > There is nothing to=20 >suggest that this player had miscounted his trumps though. Applying = Occam's=20 >razor makes it far more likely that the language of his claim was = imprecise=20 >in failing to state all contingencies than that he made a gross error in= =20 >counting his trumps. I would like some evidence to override the more=20 >logical presumption before I would infer such an error over the far more= =20 >likely case of wording the claim poorly and incompletely.)### "... far more likely"? If I had made that claim, it would be at least a 90% chance that I thought there were only 3 trumps out. I do not forget that 4 cards can be distributed 4-0 - but I do sometimes miscount. Others may be different in their typical errors, but I'm probably not _quite_ unique in this respect - and any doubt is to be resolved against the claimer, as L70A tells us. (The fourth time I've quoted L70A today - I promise to stop soon...) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 10:12:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:12:49 +1100 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (root@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA28951 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:12:29 +1100 Received: from uaf.edu (uaf-du-03-14.alaska.edu [137.229.8.74]) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA09297 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 14:12:14 -0900 (AKST) Message-ID: <36929CC1.54D38C8B@uaf.edu> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:14:09 -0900 From: Michael Schmahl X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: More Claim Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Suppose declarer, playing 6NT in a matchpoint game, has the following cards, on a heart lead. AKQJT9 A KQJT2 3 xx xxxx 9 AKQJT2 Declarer now claims 13 tricks, stating that he has 6 spades, 6 clubs, and the HA. Clubs are 6-0, and East has the DA. You are called. At first glance, you might rule that Declarer takes 12 tricks. But Declarer mentions that East is squeezed on the sixth round of spades, and so Declarer must have the rest of the tricks. Now how do you rule? Would it be any different if Declarer played two rounds of spades first, making it obviously irrational to play any clubs at this point, stranding himself from Dummy? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 10:16:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:16:05 +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 KAA29050 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:15:55 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990105231549.WYSW6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:15:49 -0800 Message-ID: <36929DF8.4DF98389@home.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 15:19:20 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim References: <+Y1+nWAFE2j2Ewft@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3691CA47.A444242D@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > If the law-makers meant that a claim must be accompanied by a > statement, and if that statement is successfully challenged, the claimer > can go on making other new statements until one is found that is > acceptable to the TD then I strongly believe the Laws would say so > explicitly. I do not believe there is any such inference available from > L70D. I agree with you that L70D is fuzzy on how many new lines claimer can propose b4 the process stops, but I don't agree there is any doubt that claimer can propose at least one new line, when the original line has become "irrational". The fuzziness stems from the headings use of "line" in the singular, whereas the text states "*any* successful line" as opposed to "*a*", possibly implying "any one line out of (possibly) several lines". > I also believe such an approach to be flawed in intent, totally > unjust, and against the wording of L70A. (snips) > It is far-fetched to assume that there is a procedure of this sort to > be applied which the lawmakers assume will be applied without saying so > and is against the wording of L70A [... the Director adjudicates ...]. Also other statements seem to imply that 70A is somehow in competition with, or an alternative to, C,D and E. I don't read it that way. 70A tells us to strive for equity, and then ends with: "The Director proceeds as follows". What follows is B,C etc. The logical interpretation of this is (to me) that what follows are the procedures to achieve equity in certain specific (C and E) cases and one more general (D). Therefore it is not a matter of applying 70D *or* 70A, but rather that *by applying 70D one follows 70A*. Btw, it would become even more clear if the subsequent clauses were clearly numbered as sub-clauses of 70A, rather than as separate clauses (Grattan?!), although the heading "General Objective" in 70A should give a clue. As so often, the headings are two-edged swords. In some cases they aid in interpreting the laws, in some they just confuse. They should either be made part of the laws (and sufficiently improved for that purpose), or they should be deleted (but that would neccessitate substantial compensatory language and structure changes). > Common bridge sense is that you make "a" statement of clarification, > not half a dozen. I strongly agree with this. I have also repeatedly stated that any ambiguity in the law-text should be resolved in favour of such common sense. Therefore, if one perceives that L70D is ambiguous as to the number of new lines that can be proposed, I strongly feel it should be read as allowing claimer only ONE more shot once the original line is proven "irrational". Afterall, if playing out the hand declarer would only get one chance. The purpose of the claim-procedure should be to speed up the game, not to allow declarer to replay a hand until he finally succeeds! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 10:23:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:23:03 +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 KAA29069 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:22:55 +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 0zxfoG-0001CV-00; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:22:48 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA256118567; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:22:47 +0100 Subject: Re: Claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:22:46 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <369208E4.C1698C1F@village.uunet.be> from "Herman De Wael" at Jan 05, 1999 01:43:16 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote [hearts 4-0] >In the same manner, it is careless to claim without checking >what to do about the 4-0, but not irrational, and certainly >not a proof that claimer cannot count to 13. > >I allow the claim. > >There have been voiced 4 votes against, by now, can someone >tally the votes for ? Craig and me make 2. I allow the claim, too, but I think it is close. I would not allow the claim if claimer worded it as 'I cash 13 tricks in the following order: 5 hearts, ...' rather than 'I draw the trumps and then I have tricks to burn'. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 10:34:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:34:32 +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 KAA29106 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:34:23 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa06586; 5 Jan 99 15:33 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:10:39 PST." <36958a0d.1982019@post12.tele.dk> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 15:33:47 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901051533.aa06586@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I personally find it difficult to believe that any non-novice who > knows that there are 4 cards out could "forget" that they might > be 4-0, so declarer would have to be quite convincing for me to > rule in his favour. Me too; but also, I personally find it difficult to believe that any non-novice wouldn't look at the dummy carefully enough to figure out that there are only 4 hearts there and not 5. So I don't consider the above a useful argument---to me, both possible explanations for why declarer claimed improperly are equallly bizarre. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 10:44:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:44:14 +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 KAA29132 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:44:09 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990105234403.XETL6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:44:03 -0800 Message-ID: <3692A496.3BF6BE25@home.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 15:47:34 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > I am more than a little concerned about the turn this thread is > taking. (snip) > Can't we at least alll agree that it is only proper to claim if you > believe you have a 100% line? I agree with this sentiment. A claim should be assumed valid *regardless of the distribution of opponents cards*, unless a clarifying statement is included. In our case the claimer could e.g. have stated "I claim 13 tricks unless trumps break badly". This would clearly allow us to award 12 tricks, unless a normal entry for a discard would be ruffed. Noone before has mentioned this, but I feel it is significant that declarer claimed "all tricks", as opposed to "his contract (6H)". Had he done the latter I would be inclined to award 12 or 13 tricks, depending on the lie of the opposing cards, even without a clarifying statement. As it was, claimer deserves any doubts (I'm not here saying there were any) resolved against him. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 10:44:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:44:20 +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 KAA29137 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:44:12 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id XAA03427 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 23:43:16 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 5 Jan 99 23:43 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Is this a L12c2 case? To: mlfrench@writeme.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <199901052003.MAA07694@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) wrote: > Question: If a TD asks what you would have done in the absence of > an infraction, to give you a chance to change a call, is it ethical > to say you don't know when you do know? Absolutely not. A "gentleman" may lie to his wife, his boss, or indeed his electorate but bridge is matter of honour and higher ethics must apply. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 11:19:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:19:28 +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 LAA29242 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:19:20 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-121.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.121]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA11224178 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 19:21:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3692ABAC.A08D580D@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 18:17:48 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: TD's duties and powers References: <369230D1.62395B96@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David, to use your words: "> Oh come on, this is a game of bridge. You go to the table, you start > to read the Laws, a player interrupts to say he will accept the call, > you politely point out that you will tell him all his options first. > You do not start thinking "Shall I penalise him?"." L9B2 2. Further Bids or Plays No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification and to the assessment of a penalty. A pretty strong word, shall. For whatever reason, L9B2 says such a thing is an infraction. And after all, This Is Bridge. I can visualize no other situation that I might consider invoking a penalty for such an action except if I found a player gaining, or attempting to gain, an advantage unfairly. I refuse to have something two inconsistent ways. A player under his own volition does not wait for his options, if he does not otherwise do something illegal, his action stands. Period. I complete the giving of the options, tell all the ramifications of the option selected [and how it was selected if needed]. The player gets what he bargained for- gain, or loss, or no change. He does not get a second stab as his first stab is the only one that counts [except that taking a second stab may subject him to penalties]. I will add, if time permits, that there is such a thing as 9B2 to instill the consequences of not obeying the law. But rub salt in the wound- No. Personally, I find the giving of such a second stab at options to be bridge lawyering, and as such, reprehensible. I find no basis in the Law to support it because I need appropriate grounds to reject under 10B. I am of course, refering to acts done on one's own volition. New Years greetings, Roger Pewick David Stevenson wrote: > > axeman wrote: > > >However, when taking Laurie's view, if a player does not permit [the > >infraction] the TD to supply all the options before selection of an > >option, does this make him guilty of an irregularity and subject to > >penalty himself? > > Oh come on, this is a game of bridge. You go to the table, you start > to read the Laws, a player interrupts to say he will accept the call, > you politely point out that you will tell him all his options first. > You do not start thinking "Shall I penalise him?". > > -- > 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 Jan 6 11:32:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:32:54 +1100 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA29309 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:32:47 +1100 Received: from [195.99.51.62] [195.99.51.62] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zxgtg-0004Q8-00; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:32:30 +0000 From: David Burn To: Subject: RE: Claim - bigger example Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:33:15 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig wrote >David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] wrote (snip) >>If declarer starts with the belief that with AKQxx facing xxxx he can = draw trumps without having a loser in the suit, he might be assumed to play = the AKQ without noticing what cards his opponents play ### At this point he crosses the line from carelss to irrational.### Well, if that is what is to be adopted as a working definition, I suppose = that it is better than having no definition at all. The trouble with the = words that Grattan quoted from the dictionary is that they are subjectve = terms ("illogical", "absurd"), and thus no more helpful than "irrational" = itself when it comes to deciding what may and may not be allowed. Herman = keeps telling me that I am in a minority position, as if I cared about that = - I am quite prepared to rule according to a consensus, while privately = (and even publicly) considering the consensus position to be the work of = lunatics.=20 (since he thinks those cards do not matter). Then, with (as he thinks) the = rest on top, why should he cash them in any particular order? ### We generally assume that winners are cashed high cards first, then low = ones. If trump have been "drawn" why should we expect otherwise? #### Yes, but there is a difference between what is generally done and what is = rationally done. A short while ago I asked if it was rational to play the = queen before the ace with AQ of a suit if you believed the king had been = played. If you have A2 and believe that all the rest of the cards in the = suit have been played, is it rational to play the two before the ace? What = if you have the four and the deuce? My own opinion is that anything a = player does that is consistent with his own beliefs at the time he does it = constitutes a rational play, regardless of the extent to which his beliefs = themselves may be false.=20 You might say that it is irrational for a man to go about wearing nothing = but a loin cloth in the middle of a London winter - but if you know that = the man believes himself to be Mahatma Gandhi, then his choice of dress = becomes entirely rational. You might also say of a man who loses the fourth = round of hearts with the example suit instead of cashing 13 winners in = other suits that he is playing irrationally - but if you know that the man = believes that AKQxx facing xxxx is always a no-loser suit, then his action = becomes a rational one. And, if you have evidence from his claim that such = is indeed his belief, why should you consider the possibility that he would = indeed adopt the losing line to be an irrational one? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 12:02:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:02:46 +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 MAA29366 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:02:38 +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 PAA01384 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:51:36 -0900 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:51:36 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Revoke and Claim: another wrinkle Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We have recently been discussing what happens if someone revokes and then his opponent claims during or after that same trick, before the revoke is established. We seem to be in agreement (I think) that the revoke is still correctable, and that the claimer ought to be allowed revision of his claim based on the new information - though I am sure we do not agree on exactly what claimer is allowed to do. Now, for the new wrinkle. Suppose you revoke as a defender and declarer claims. 1. One partner's acceptance of a claim or concession is not binding on the other defender. 2. A revoke becomes established when _either_ member of the opposing side plays to the next trick. So - if partner accepts declarer's claim, is the revoke established or not??? And does it matter if partner's acceptance is announced before, the same time as, or after your discovery of your revoke? If this comes up at the club tonight I am going to rule the revoke is established if the acceptance statement is made before attention is called to the revoke, but allow the correction if it is simulataneous or subsequent. I have no idea what I am going to do if revoker's partner wants to change his mind about the concession but declarer doesn't change his mind about his claim. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 12:19:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:19:37 +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 MAA29397 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:19:31 +1100 Received: from modem115.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.115] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zxhd0-0007TX-00; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:19:19 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Claim Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:16:59 -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 "And only the Master shall praise us, and only the Master shall blame; And no-one shall work for money, and no-one shall work for fame, But each for the joy of the working, and each, in his separate star, Shall draw the Thing as he sees It for the God of Things as They are! ======================================== ---------------- \X/ ------------------- \x/ ---------- > > But in the case of letting the claimer have another go, Grattan, I > truly believe you are wrong. > +++ OK David, I'll make a note that 70D is redundant and should be scrapped. But, of course, you are adjusting what I have said to fit the argument in which you are fixed; there is a world of difference between dealing with a claimer's suggestion of a new line in appropriate circumstances (as when a *fresh* development is *substantial enough to justify* the view that his original line has *in consequence* become irrational) and the kind of licence to which you seek to pin my words. And I am in no doubt at all that it is for the claimer to raise the question of a new line as 70D allows, not the Director, who should deal with the claim as made until he recognizes that claimer has raised a 70D matter. By the way, did I miss any use *you* think you should make of 70D or what *you* think it is there for ? ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 12:21:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:21:01 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA29413 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:20:53 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-121.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.121]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA11283620 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 20:23:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3692BA1F.179AE570@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 19:19:27 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Claim References: <01BE38BD.8206A300@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I noticed a tiny something below that is relevant. There are 4 trumps out. It is impossible to draw them in less than 2 rounds . Claimer said, 'drawing trumps'. This clearly means that trumping a spade by dummy would not be performed at any time. The claim statement forbids it!!! Anyway, claimer is drawing trumps, so draw them and then look around to find which, if any, normal lines supply tricks to the defenders. btw, did claimer state the number of tricks claimed? It sounds to me that he was taking what his claim statement would provide. Holiday greetings, Roger Pewick Craig Senior wrote: > > David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] wrote (much snipped) -s- > Suppose the hands are like this (a crystallization of the actual case): > > x > xx > AKQJ1098 > xxx > > Ax > AKQxxxx > x > AKQ > > Declarer in 6H wins the opening lead of SK and claims, announcing that he > will draw trumps. West has all four missing trumps and a diamond void. Of > course, once East shows out on the first trump, it is "irrational" (or is > it?) for declarer not to ruff a spade in dummy and make his contract. I > would not allow declarer's claim - would you? > > ### Whyever not? The discard by east is the alarm clock that wakes declarer > up from the intended line of play. It certainly appears that taking the > spade ruff is the only rational way to fly. Just made of course, since west > cannot be denied the trump jack. You are surely not suggesting that > crossing to the diamond length and trying to pitch is the act of a sane > individual, are you? Perhaps in a very low level game that might be the > case. Then a trump return could sink declarer after the diamond ruff. But > declarer is most unlikely to take a line with any risk from bad > distribution when a risk free line exists AND he has just been hoist by his > own petard for assuming no one is void.### > > I haven't even started yet. > > ### If that's a Harold Reid quote, I can only reply in the words of J.D. > Sumner: "I can hardly wait!" > > Craig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 12:30:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:30:00 +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 MAA29436 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:29:53 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-121.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.121]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA11333084 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 20:32:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 19:28:28 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] wrote (snip) > > If declarer starts with the belief that with AKQxx facing xxxx he can draw > trumps without having a loser in the suit, he might be assumed to play the > AKQ without noticing what cards his opponents play > > ### At this point he crosses the line from carelss to irrational.### NO! Play has ceased. The claim statement is being executed. Nothing else. David Burn is merely pointing out that while the claim statement is being executed, claimer does not 'see the opponent's cards' [play the AKQ without noticing what cards his opponents play] until the statement halts. For instance, the defenders get an unstated trick. This can be thought of as a 'blind test' to prove the validity of claim statement. Holiday greetings, Roger Pewick From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 12:45:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:45:53 +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 MAA29507 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:45:46 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-121.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.121]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA11156981 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 20:48:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3692BFEF.7775292B@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 19:44:15 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim References: <+Y1+nWAFE2j2Ewft@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3691CA47.A444242D@home.com> <36920CD3.3FC25A01@village.uunet.be> <3692940F.9A27D7A6@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The way the laws are worded, the reason for looking for 'additional' normal lines that are consistent with the ORIGINAL statement is to find the most number of tricks consistent with the ORIGINAL statement for the other side, not claimer. Should claimer propose an unstated line of play which retains the ORIGINAL statement, if there are lines consistent with the ORIGINAL statement that give claimer fewer tricks, claimer gets the fewer tricks, not the ones that he proposed later. Jan Kamras wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > L68C : "A claim SHOULD be accompanied ..." > > > > Preface : "When a player "should" do something (example : > > L68C!), his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which > > will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a > > procedural penalty only seldom." > > > > No left field at all ! > > But from there, to your position of 12/28 when you said that "I don't > beleive L68C requires the claimer to do anything", there is a giant > leap, imho. Not stating a line is an "infraction of law". If stating a > line would be merely "optional" as you've implied, the relevant law-text > would have been "a claim MAY be...." or similar. > > > As for the wording of L70D, some have suggested that the > > claimer should suggest the new line, not anyone else. > > I know the headings are not part of the laws, but in this respect L70D > seems pretty clear to me. The only fuzzy part is how many new lines > claimer can propose. > > > However, when the alternative lines are so clear, I will not > > wait for claimer to tell me his line. After all, I should > > be looking at alternative "normal" lines, > > But only after claimer has proposed a new line. The sequence of events > required also seems pretty clear. If claimer has no new line to offer, > why should the TD help to improve claimers bridge-result? > It is up to you not to wait for claimer to state a new line, just don't > try to tell us it has any support in the laws of bridge!:-) > (As an aside, maybe all alternative lines are not as clear to **this** > claimer as they are to you, and the TD is not supposed to play the hand > for declarer. It would not be fair if these opponents play against you, > when other pairs have to play against the (in this case lesser) > claimer.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 12:51:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:51:54 +1100 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA29579 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:51:48 +1100 Received: from modem49.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.177] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zxi8F-0005xx-00; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:51:36 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: Claim Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:46:45 -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 ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ======================================== ---------- > From: Jan Kamras > To: blml > Subject: Re: Claim > Date: 05 January 1999 23:19 > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > If the law-makers meant that a claim must be accompanied by a > > statement, and if that statement is successfully challenged, the claimer > > can go on making other new statements > > (snips) > > > Btw, it would become even more clear if the subsequent clauses were > clearly numbered as sub-clauses of 70A, rather than as separate clauses > (Grattan?!), although the heading "General Objective" in 70A should give > a clue. As so often, the headings are two-edged swords. In some cases > they aid in interpreting the laws, in some they just confuse. They > should either be made part of the laws (and sufficiently improved for > that purpose), or they should be deleted (but that would neccessitate > substantial compensatory language and structure changes). > > > Common bridge sense is that you make "a" statement of clarification, > > not half a dozen. > > I strongly agree with this. > I have also repeatedly stated that any ambiguity in the law-text should > be resolved in favour of such common sense. Therefore, if one perceives > that L70D is ambiguous as to the number of new lines that can be > proposed, I strongly feel it should be read as allowing claimer only ONE > more shot once the original line is proven "irrational". Afterall, if > playing out the hand declarer would only get one chance. The purpose of > the claim-procedure should be to speed up the game, not to allow > declarer to replay a hand until he finally succeeds! ++++ Noted for attention. Thank you for being 'rational' :-))) ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 13:06:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:06:52 +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 NAA29646 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:06:44 +1100 Received: from modem43.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.171] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zxiMo-00017o-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 02:06:38 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Calling Claude Dadoun Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 02:05:27 -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 ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ======================================== Apologies to everyone else; my address for Claude has become corrupted and a message has bounced. Claude, where are you, please? ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 14:05:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA29728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:05:30 +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 OAA29723 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:05:23 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-121.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.121]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA11316257 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:08:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3692D29E.6641187E@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 21:03:58 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: More Claim References: <36929CC1.54D38C8B@uaf.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claimer says a heart [in the bag], 6S and 6C for 13 tricks. No mention of the order. There are 2 primary lines consistent with the original statement. Six spades first, then 6 clubs. The other is vice versa. It would be irrational to not play the clubs from the top down so they are played that way. When discarding on the spades, pitching hearts first then the diamond are to be tested as well as vice versa. When discarding on the clubs, diamonds are pitched from the bottom up. Claimer later proposed that a squeeze would occur on the spade first line to produce either 6C or 5C and a diamond. No claim of a diamond trick was made so would therefore be inconsistent with taking 6S, 6C, and 1H. However, in playing the spades first, it is consistent to keep 6 clubs, and because it would be irrational to not cash diamonds should the D ace be pitched, it is permitted for consideration. If the squeeze is indeed a fact then 13 tricks when spades are played first and clubs last. This is not to say that there is not another normal line consistent with the statement because there is and it was mentioned at the beginning: playing six rounds of clubs first and then 6 spades. This line must be tested for the number of tricks it produces. Since 6C were claimed then 6C must be played, if in fact they produce 6 tricks, next 6 spades are played. If in fact 6 clubs are not won, the defense gains their maximum number of tricks against a non irrational claimer- remembering that dummy has pitched 4 diamonds on the first five clubs. If the 'club first' line produces fewer tricks than the 'spades first' line, claimer receives the tricks for the clubs first line. I suspect that this was a heart wrenching story. I have seen a lot good declarers play out a claimer hand as happy as a lark, with information available that their line would collapse. And indeed, their line incinerated. They would have loved down six after the smoke cleared- if they would have gotten it! Holiday greetings, Roger Pewick Michael Schmahl wrote: > > Suppose declarer, playing 6NT in a matchpoint game, has the > following cards, on a heart lead. > > AKQJT9 > A > KQJT2 > 3 > > xx > xxxx > 9 > AKQJT2 > > Declarer now claims 13 tricks, stating that he has 6 spades, 6 clubs, > and the HA. Clubs are 6-0, and East has the DA. You are called. > > At first glance, you might rule that Declarer takes 12 tricks. But > Declarer mentions that East is squeezed on the sixth round of spades, > and so Declarer must have the rest of the tricks. Now how do you rule? > > Would it be any different if Declarer played two rounds of spades > first, making it obviously irrational to play any clubs at this point, > stranding himself from Dummy? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 14:31:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA29796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:31:39 +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 OAA29791 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:31:33 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-121.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.121]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA11474039 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:34:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3692D8C2.9DA6860F@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 21:30:10 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim References: <+Y1+nWAFE2j2Ewft@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3691CA47.A444242D@home.com> <36929DF8.4DF98389@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello, L70D provides the test which determines whether tricks achieved by a previously til now unstated line will be given to claimer. That test is: is there a normal line that is consistent with the ORIGINAL statement that gives claimer fewer tricks? If there is, that is the most tricks claimer may receive. And if there is a normal line which will produce fewer tricks still, that is what claimer gets- instead. This is far different from the interpretation being discussed below. Holiday greetings, Roger Pewick Jan Kamras wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: bandwith snip > > Common bridge sense is that you make "a" statement of clarification, > > not half a dozen. > > I strongly agree with this. > I have also repeatedly stated that any ambiguity in the law-text should > be resolved in favour of such common sense. Therefore, if one perceives > that L70D is ambiguous as to the number of new lines that can be > proposed, I strongly feel it should be read as allowing claimer only ONE > more shot once the original line is proven "irrational". Afterall, if > playing out the hand declarer would only get one chance. The purpose of > the claim-procedure should be to speed up the game, not to allow > declarer to replay a hand until he finally succeeds! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 14:35:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA29815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:35:11 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA29808 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:35:06 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxjkI-0005Qr-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 03:35:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 02:14:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <01BE38BD.8206A300@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE38BD.8206A300@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >While your concession is very sportsmanlike, I would not think you a BL to >accept the lawful result in a match where something was at stake. In a >friendly game, I give it to them too.### That is an *incredibly* worrying statement. Are matches not friendly games? Do you really act differently when "something is at stake"? -- 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 Jan 6 14:35:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA29819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:35:14 +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 OAA29809 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:35:07 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxjkI-0001o8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 03:35:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 03:16:31 +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 Grattan wrote: >> But in the case of letting the claimer have another go, Grattan, I >> truly believe you are wrong. >+++ OK David, I'll make a note that 70D is redundant and >should be scrapped. Why? Did I say that? No, I did not, so why this answer? > But, of course, you are adjusting what I > have said to fit the argument in which you are fixed; there is a >world of difference between dealing with a claimer's suggestion >of a new line in appropriate circumstances (as when a *fresh* >development is *substantial enough to justify* the view that his >original line has *in consequence* become irrational) and the >kind of licence to which you seek to pin my words. And I am in >no doubt at all that it is for the claimer to raise the question of >a new line as 70D allows, not the Director, who should deal >with the claim as made until he recognizes that claimer has >raised a 70D matter. > By the way, did I miss any use *you* think you should make >of 70D or what *you* think it is there for ? What we have disagreed over is whether you ask claimer for a fresh line. Of course, there are many cases where claimer has added things, made extraneous remarks and so on. As in any other situation, the TD uses all the information that comes his way, and L70D tells him how. My authority for my approach, apart from general EBU training, is the EBL TD Guide, by Endicott and Hansen, which says: 70.6 A claimer is not allowed to embellish or vary the claim which he originally made. Any amplification of his original words must have been indicated or clearly implied by the original statement, and it must not represent an adjustment of wording for the purpose of covering a factor that was not in his mind at the time of the original claim. In testing this question the Director must consider whether there is an alternative and inferior line of normal play that is consistent with the original statement and clarification of 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 Wed Jan 6 15:06:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:06:47 +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 PAA29858 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:06:41 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxkEt-00042f-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 04:06:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 04:01:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: TD's duties and powers In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990105140756.00760a44@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19990105140756.00760a44@ozemail.com.au>, Reg Busch writes >North is dealer, but South makes an opening bid OOT. TD is called. >West is relatively inexperienced. > >TD to West: Your first option is to accept the BOOT.... >West: I'll accept the bid. >TD: The Laws require me to explain all your options, and I won't accept a >decision from you until you are fully informed about all your options. > >TD then explains all West's options and their consequences. West now >decides not to accept the BOOT, North is barred and NS get a rotten score. > >NS appeal to the CTD, claiming that West made a decision knowing that he >hadn't heard all his options, and that the TD did not have the power to >refuse to accept his initial decision, ill-informed though it may have been. > >This imaginary scenario is prompted by a director's communication to me >that she always adopts this policy of refusing to accept a 'premature' >decision until the player has heard all his options. Despite its good >intentions, I doubt its legality. Opinions? > >Reg. > I always explain all options, and don't allow people to accept one until they have heard them all. It is what I'm paid to do and is in accordance with Law 10C1. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 15:26:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:26:54 +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 PAA29930 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:26:50 +1100 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA00627 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:26:45 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:26:45 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso Reply-To: Laurie Kelso To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Interpretation In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990104170753.00711514@pop.cais.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:56 PM 1/4/99 -0500, Craig wrote: > > > By the way Marv, I don't think a revoke (save for an intentional one) > >is irrational either...put me down in the accidental or non-rational camp. > >I really wonder if EK meant what he said in this case, or whether somehow > >the comment has shifted meaning absent context. Would that he were here to > >set us straight, and Selassie isn't talking. > > I agree with Craig here, but readily admit that in doing so we are > disagreeing with EK. This is quite clear in the 1973 article, which > provides the needed context. Kaplan wrote, discussing his "Case C", that > "The damage... was a direct consequence not of the infraction... but of the > revoke... It was subsequent, not consequent. E-W should be penalized for > their infraction, and N-S should keep the zero they have earned." The rationality or irrationality of a revoke, really has little effect on how we should rule. A revoke (unlike wild, gambling or irrational play) is an indisputable separate infraction under law and is treated as such. In situations where one side acts on UI and the other side subsequently revokes, we no longer have any NOs. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 15:45:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA00157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:45:37 +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 PAA00151 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:45:29 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990106044523.ZTTC6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 20:45:23 -0800 Message-ID: <3692EB36.C217F1E2@home.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 20:48:54 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim References: <+Y1+nWAFE2j2Ewft@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3691CA47.A444242D@home.com> <36929DF8.4DF98389@home.com> <3692D8C2.9DA6860F@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: > > Hello, > > L70D provides the test which determines whether tricks achieved by a > previously til now unstated line will be given to claimer. That test > is: is there a normal line that is consistent with the ORIGINAL > statement This is the weirdest reading of L70D so far. 70D only deals with lines of play not "embraced" in the original statement, so why should the "test" have to have anything to do with the original statement? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 15:55:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA00234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:55:52 +1100 Received: from oznet14.ozemail.com.au (oznet14.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.120]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA00229 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:55:48 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn28p03.ozemail.com.au [203.108.124.3]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA26703 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:55:43 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:55:43 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199901060455.PAA26703@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:33 PM 5/01/99 PST, you wrote: > >> I personally find it difficult to believe that any non-novice who >> knows that there are 4 cards out could "forget" that they might >> be 4-0, so declarer would have to be quite convincing for me to >> rule in his favour. and from Adam: >Me too; but also, I personally find it difficult to believe that any >non-novice wouldn't look at the dummy carefully enough to figure out >that there are only 4 hearts there and not 5. So I don't consider the >above a useful argument---to me, both possible explanations for why >declarer claimed improperly are equallly bizarre. > > -- Adam Well I see this often. My partner having seen my hand as dummy would have spent two minutes abusing me for not bidding 7, not converting him to NT etc - and "claiming" by saying "we've got the lot". When opponents do this to me, I say "you have made a claim, do you wish to add any clarifying statements before the TD is called." Is this correct? i.e. does a casual "I'm going to make the lot" constitute a claim under L68A? HNY Tony From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 17:19:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA00437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:19:29 +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 RAA00432 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:19:22 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-162.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.162]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA11445057; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:21:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3692FFEB.FE28797C@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:17:15 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kamras CC: blml Subject: Re: Claim References: <+Y1+nWAFE2j2Ewft@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3691CA47.A444242D@home.com> <36929DF8.4DF98389@home.com> <3692D8C2.9DA6860F@freewwweb.com> <3692EB36.C217F1E2@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It has to do with whether claimer gets those tricks from the 'play not "embraced" in the original statement'- or some number of tricks fewer. you snipped a relevant portion of the post. Happy holidays, Roger Pewick Jan Kamras wrote: > > axeman wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > L70D provides the test which determines whether tricks achieved by a > > previously til now unstated line will be given to claimer. That test > > is: is there a normal line that is consistent with the ORIGINAL > > statement > > This is the weirdest reading of L70D so far. 70D only deals with lines > of play not "embraced" in the original statement, so why should the > "test" have to have anything to do with the original statement? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 19:53:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 19:53:26 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA00579 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 19:53:20 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092ndb.san.rr.com [204.210.48.219]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA05933; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:53:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901060853.AAA05933@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Is this a L12c2 case? Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:51:39 -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 West-meads wrote: > Marv wrote: > > Question: If a TD asks what you would have done in the absence of > > an infraction, to give you a chance to change a call, is it ethical > > to say you don't know when you do know? > > Absolutely not. A "gentleman" may lie to his wife, his boss, or indeed > his electorate but bridge is matter of honour and higher ethics must > apply. > I asked the wrong question, sorry, since "to give you a chance to change a call" should not have been included. If the TD is giving you a chance to change a call, you have to decide one way or another, obviously. What I meant to ask about is the TDs question, "What would you have done if..." when it's too late to change a call. I think it's a dumb question, as the TD cannot rely on the accuracy of the answer. Not that a player may deliberately lie (which surely occurs often), but because a player can easily come to believe he would have doubled, or bid, or whatever, had he not received MI. Inexperienced players especially should not be rushed into making a statement that they are not prepared to make. Better for the TD to make his ruling without that input, then listen to arguments if either side disagrees. Of course the TD may want to inquire about methods, etc., in order to come up with a ruling, that's different. I agree that one should not lie to a TD. The best answer is probably "I don't know for sure," which is nearly always the case. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 19:55:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 19:55:16 +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 TAA00598 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 19:55:11 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990106085505.BIJH6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:55:05 -0800 Message-ID: <369325BD.228F7C9A@home.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:58:37 -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: Interpretation References: <199901030425.UAA11722@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990104085541.0070520c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Is it fair to assume that all actions are either rational or > irrational? I cannot accept this premise, and therefore not the conclusions you draw, although it sounds so superficially convincing when you say that since a revoke is not rational it must be irrational. Many actions are simply accidents, unconcsious, subconcious, reflexes, instinctive etc,etc. They are not the result of *any* kind of thought-process and can thus be neither rational nor irrational. They are at a different plane altogether. Sometimes a cow flies by! If you revoke, it is because you missorted your cards, pulled the wrong card, or the like. It is *not* because you - stupidly and against all reason - thought it might be a good action. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 20:07:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 20:07:36 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA00620 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 20:07:30 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092ndb.san.rr.com [204.210.48.219]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA07402 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:07:25 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901060907.BAA07402@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Is this a L12c2 case? Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:05:15 -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: > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > some TDs will say, as one told me recently at a big > > regional, "I've given you a chance to change your call, so don't > > look to me for further redress." That's not legal, is it? > > It depends on what "that" means. It means: Does a TD have the right to make such a statement? I think the statement is outrageous. It implies that any action I take, change call or not, means no redress. He has given me all the opportunity for redress that I am going to get. I don't believe this sort of thing is backed by the Laws. > If you have a chance to change your > call (after MI is corrected), and you decide not to, you cannot receive > redress for damage caused by a bad choice at that turn. Likewise for > damage at any later turn or during the play, for that matter. You made > your choice, and you have to live with it. > You may receive redress, however, if you were damaged earlier in the > auction. The fact that you might have rescued yourself by a lucky > choice at the final turn is irrelevant if the MI made it harder to take > the right action earlier. And of course you still receive redress if > you are damaged by an opponent's using UI at any stage. Well, I should have made clear that I'm talking about MI that occurs earlier in the auction, not MI in connection with the call preceding mine. Of course you're right that I have to live with my decision if my call is the only call made by my side after the MI. Please recall that the case under discussion had the TD giving a player the option of changing a final pass when the MI occurred on a previous round. I just happened to read L21B1 and it says (in effect) that a call can't be changed after the auction is over. Didn't notice that before. Does that mean the TD cannot permit a final pass to be retracted? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 20:31:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 20:31:45 +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 UAA00667 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 20:31:37 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990106093132.BLNC6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:31:32 -0800 Message-ID: <36932E47.74AF505A@home.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 01:35:03 -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: Interpretation References: <199901030425.UAA11722@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > Edgar Kaplan expressed the opposite opinion (*Bridge World* > editorial, July 93): "When we think of mistakes that would cancel > the usual protection, we think in terms of revokes, or other > *gross* errors." That would include such things as LOOTs, I > presume. I don't see EK saying revokes (or LOOTs) are "irrational", just that they are "mistakes" and "gross errors". By the way, why do I get a sense of deja vu from the EK statement above? Let's see ........ bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanours :-) Why don't we let the US Congress sort out if a revoke qualifies - and if the offender shall be banned from ACBL for life. But then again, both bribery and treason are normally either rational or irrational so........Ah well - I guess I have to give up on my idea that we "rationals" on BLML would handle the impeachment matter while congress with all it's lawyers interprets TFLB. A pity really, since the irrational behaviour they demonstrate is more suited to protecting us from revoking bridgeplayers than the american people from lying presidents, whereas our tendencies to dish out PPs and award "avg+/avg-" is ideal to handle the impeachment (we give a $40,000,000 PP to Congress but award the republicans 60 seats in the senate vs 40 for the democrats, while throwing Clinton in front of a C&E comittee and prohibiting him and his "partners" from using the "cigar-convention" for the duration of the tournament/presidency)! :-) Good night - I will now fall (rationally) asleep. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 20:47:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 20:47:32 +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 UAA00687 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 20:47:27 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990106094722.BMQP6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:47:22 -0800 Message-ID: <369331FD.B3060120@home.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 01:50:53 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Interpretation References: <199901051651.LAA15462@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > If you accept that, then it's fair to describe a revoke as "irrational" > because it would not be chosen as a result of a rational thought > process nor of an irrational one. You, like DS, seem to think that all acts are the result of *some* thought process while the rest of us seem to accept that some acts are "unintentional", "accidents" or whatever. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 6 23:49:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 23:49:16 +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 XAA01028 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 23:49:09 +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 MAA28140 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:48:56 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 MAA08920 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:48:53 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA20699 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:48:52 GMT Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:48:52 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199901061248.MAA20699@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: MI/failure to alert Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk W N E S 1C X* 3C X** * = takeout. ** = responsive, not alerted P 3D P P ?P ? = asked about South's X: told "responsive" This was in EBUland where South's responsive double should be alerted. At the end of the hand (3D=), East calls the TD and says he would bid 4C if the double had been alerted; 4C makes (!). I forget the hands but 4C was not obvious on East's hand. However, 4C is certainly less attractive if 3C has been doubled for penalties. The TD ruled MI and adjusted to 4C=. South (who talked to me) was unhappy, he felt that East had achieved a double shot by defending 3D and then trying 4C when he had seen the hands. I pointed out to South that if the director had been called after North's answer and before West's final pass, East would have been able to change his pass [and so would have to decide now whether he really wanted to bid 4C]. But who was going to call the TD? Obviously West didn't care, as he had now decided to pass, North was probably oblivious to his failure to alert, and East ..., well East did not feel the need to call the TD now. Obviously it is in North-South's interest to call attention to the failure to alert; but can South call the TD? It is clear from North's answer that the call should be alerted, can South point this out if the other players remain silent? Should the TD fail to adjust if he thinks East should have known to call the TD after North's answer to West's question? Comments. 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 Jan 7 00:55:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 00:55:56 +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 AAA03395 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 00:55:49 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 0zxtQw-0000Q1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:55:39 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990106144912.00a1ba50@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 14:49:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Revoke and Claim: another wrinkle In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 15:51 05-01-99 -0900, you wrote: > >We have recently been discussing what happens if someone revokes and then >his opponent claims during or after that same trick, before the revoke is >established. We seem to be in agreement (I think) that the revoke is still >correctable, and that the claimer ought to be allowed revision of his >claim based on the new information - though I am sure we do not agree on >exactly what claimer is allowed to do. > >Now, for the new wrinkle. > >Suppose you revoke as a defender and declarer claims. > >1. One partner's acceptance of a claim or concession is not binding on the >other defender. > >2. A revoke becomes established when _either_ member of the opposing side >plays to the next trick. > >So - if partner accepts declarer's claim, is the revoke established or >not??? And does it matter if partner's acceptance is announced before, the >same time as, or after your discovery of your revoke? > i still think 68D is clear enough. Any player can dispute the claim, even dummy. so revoke still wont be established i think. Perhaps 78 B can also be used. regards, anton >If this comes up at the club tonight I am going to rule the revoke is >established if the acceptance statement is made before attention is called >to the revoke, but allow the correction if it is simulataneous or >subsequent. I have no idea what I am going to do if revoker's partner >wants to change his mind about the concession but declarer doesn't change >his mind about his claim. > >Gordon Bower > > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 01:09:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:09:49 +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 BAA03427 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:09:38 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 0zxteN-0001KR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:09:31 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990106150305.00a29a20@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 15:03:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Is this a L12c2 case? In-Reply-To: <199901060907.BAA07402@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:05 06-01-99 -0800, you wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >> >> > From: "Marvin L. French" > >> > some TDs will say, as one told me recently at a big >> > regional, "I've given you a chance to change your call, so >don't >> > look to me for further redress." That's not legal, is it? >> >> It depends on what "that" means. > >It means: Does a TD have the right to make such a statement? > >I think the statement is outrageous. It implies that any action I >take, change call or not, means no redress. He has given me all the >opportunity for redress that I am going to get. I don't believe >this sort of thing is backed by the Laws. > >> If you have a chance to change your >> call (after MI is corrected), and you decide not to, you cannot >receive >> redress for damage caused by a bad choice at that turn. Likewise >for >> damage at any later turn or during the play, for that matter. >You made >> your choice, and you have to live with it. > >> You may receive redress, however, if you were damaged earlier in >the >> auction. The fact that you might have rescued yourself by a >lucky >> choice at the final turn is irrelevant if the MI made it harder >to take >> the right action earlier. And of course you still receive >redress if >> you are damaged by an opponent's using UI at any stage. > >Well, I should have made clear that I'm talking about MI that >occurs earlier in the auction, not MI in connection with the call >preceding mine. Of course you're right that I have to live with my >decision if my call is the only call made by my side after the MI. >Please recall that the case under discussion had the TD giving a >player the option of changing a final pass when the MI occurred on >a previous round. > >I just happened to read L21B1 and it says (in effect) that a call >can't be changed after the auction is over. Didn't notice that >before. Does that mean the TD cannot permit a final pass to be >retracted? > it can, look at 17E. Only when opening lead is faced (up) it is too late. regards, anton >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 01:44:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:44:54 +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 BAA03498 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:44:48 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zxuCO-0000mN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:44:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:14:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Interpretation References: <199901051651.LAA15462@cfa183.harvard.edu> <369331FD.B3060120@home.com> In-Reply-To: <369331FD.B3060120@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: > >> If you accept that, then it's fair to describe a revoke as "irrational" >> because it would not be chosen as a result of a rational thought >> process > >nor of an irrational one. You, like DS, seem to think that all acts are >the result of *some* thought process while the rest of us seem to accept >that some acts are "unintentional", "accidents" or whatever. It is not easy to see how you can pull *any* card out of your hand without a thought process. -- 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 Jan 7 01:45:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:45:00 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA03504 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:44:52 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zxuCS-0007Gb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:44:47 +0000 Message-ID: <3LTUjWBrY1k2EwWP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:25:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a L12c2 case? References: <199901060907.BAA07402@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199901060907.BAA07402@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: >I just happened to read L21B1 and it says (in effect) that a call >can't be changed after the auction is over. It says "auction period". > Didn't notice that >before. Does that mean the TD cannot permit a final pass to be >retracted? It can be retracted because the auction period is not over until the opening lead is face [L17E]. -- 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 Jan 7 01:44:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:44:59 +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 BAA03502 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:44:51 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zxuCR-0000mO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:44:45 +0000 Message-ID: <7rVXLTBxV1k2Ew13@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:22:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a L12c2 case? References: <199901060853.AAA05933@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199901060853.AAA05933@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: >What I meant to ask about is the TDs question, "What would you have >done if..." when it's too late to change a call. I think it's a >dumb question, as the TD cannot rely on the accuracy of the answer. >Not that a player may deliberately lie (which surely occurs often), >but because a player can easily come to believe he would have >doubled, or bid, or whatever, had he not received MI. Inexperienced >players especially should not be rushed into making a statement >that they are not prepared to make. Better for the TD to make his >ruling without that input, then listen to arguments if either side >disagrees. Of course the TD may want to inquire about methods, >etc., in order to come up with a ruling, that's different. No, the TD should seek all information that he needs, and then rule - and that's it. Once he has ruled the players either accept it or appeal. If a TD sees the need for a What-if question then it is correct for him to ask it before the ruling is given. You have explained the dangers in a What-if question. I think you may safely assume that a competent TD knows the dangers as well, and is allowing for that as well. It is reasonable to ask What-if questions in some situations, for example to find out whether damage has occurred. >I agree that one should not lie to a TD. The best answer is >probably "I don't know for sure," which is nearly always the case. On occasions this will [correctly] lose you a ruling. Far better is to just give the TD what he wants. -- 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 Jan 7 02:41:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 02:41:04 +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 CAA03826 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 02:40:57 +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 PAA17480; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:40:29 GMT Received: by nlxrtd1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:40:03 +0100 Message-ID: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B31@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> From: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" To: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Subject: RE: Revoke and Claim: another wrinkle Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:40:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon, I think you are confused about accepting a claim. The only time a defender can effectively not accept a claim is (see L68B) when he objects to a concession by his partner. In this case "no concession has occurred" (i.e. no claim) and play just continutes, although the TD should (not must) be called in case there is UI. Geoff Francis. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Bower [mailto:siegmund@mosquitonet.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 06 January, 1999 01:52 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Revoke and Claim: another wrinkle > > > > We have recently been discussing what happens if someone > revokes and then > his opponent claims during or after that same trick, before > the revoke is > established. We seem to be in agreement (I think) that the > revoke is still > correctable, and that the claimer ought to be allowed revision of his > claim based on the new information - though I am sure we do > not agree on > exactly what claimer is allowed to do. > > Now, for the new wrinkle. > > Suppose you revoke as a defender and declarer claims. > > 1. One partner's acceptance of a claim or concession is not > binding on the > other defender. > > 2. A revoke becomes established when _either_ member of the > opposing side > plays to the next trick. > > So - if partner accepts declarer's claim, is the revoke established or > not??? And does it matter if partner's acceptance is > announced before, the > same time as, or after your discovery of your revoke? > > If this comes up at the club tonight I am going to rule the revoke is > established if the acceptance statement is made before > attention is called > to the revoke, but allow the correction if it is simulataneous or > subsequent. I have no idea what I am going to do if revoker's partner > wants to change his mind about the concession but declarer > doesn't change > his mind about his claim. > > Gordon Bower > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 02:41:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 02:41:24 +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 CAA03833 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 02:41:17 +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 PAA17466; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:40:25 GMT Received: by nlxrtd1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:40:06 +0100 Message-ID: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B32@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> From: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" To: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, Bridge Laws Subject: RE: Revoke and claim Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:40:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Lavel, You (and most of the other contributors to this thread) seem to assume that S can "not accept the claim". The only thing he can do is dispute losing the claimed tricks. Since L68D states that play ceases, IMO it is not possible to correct the revoke since such correction is part of the play. Therefore it seems reasonable to argue that the revoke automatically gets established by the claim. I would be interested in any arguments for correcting the revoke without penalty. It is also possible that after one defender revokes, it is not declarer who claims but the other defender who concedes all tricks (i.e. makes a claim). In this case the revoke is definitely established and penalised. Geoff. > -----Original Message----- > From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA > [mailto:Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA] > Sent: Friday, 01 January, 1999 23:28 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Cc: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA > Subject: Revoke and claim > > > Hi all.....and happy New Year, > > This week in my club, E as defender won trick 10th and claim the rest. > The declarer (S) called the director and said he revoked on last trick > played (10th). He ask if he can correct his revoke and win 10th trick > with the revoke card. > > My ruling. > > According to Law 63, a revoke may no more be corrected if a member of > offfender's side played to next trick or made/accepted a claim or > concession. As E claimed, play must stop and N-S can not play to next > trick. S clearly not accepted the claim (he wanted to take a > trick). So > the revoke is not established and may be corrected. > > Please comment. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 03:00:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 03:00:27 +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 DAA03877 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 03:00:20 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.175] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zxvNt-00062Q-00; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:00:38 +0000 Message-ID: <199901061600300900.0035F485@mail.btinternet.com> References: <368F46C2.B4A0286F@village.uunet.be> <199901040054430500.1CFB1E40@mail.btinternet.com> <3690B29C.87402275@village.uunet.be> <199901041504390510.20055F78@mail.btinternet.com> <369211E9.80812DBE@village.uunet.be> <199901061553030750.002F21AF@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:00:30 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 05/01/99, at 14:21, Herman De Wael wrote: [much snipped] >So please realise that in all cases claiming is still worse >than playing on. But when all normal lines lead to the >contract, then by claiming you should not go down. > >A careless claim is NOT a proof of overcareless play >afterwards. Oh, well. Next time I come to a Belgian tournament and have a difficult= play problem, I will know what to do. I'll call Herman (and David= Stevenson) to the table and spread my hand, claiming as many tricks as I= can make. "How many is that, then?" "I don't know. I'm too careless to work it out. But, if you'd like to= suggest a few normal lines of play for me, then tell me at which points= they will fail and become irrational, I'll pick the one that I would have= followed in actual play." From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 03:00:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 03:00:57 +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 DAA03894 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 03:00:51 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.175] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zxvOG-0001u3-00; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:01:01 +0000 Message-ID: <199901061601010660.00366CC1@mail.btinternet.com> References: <9901041608.aa02364@flash.irvine.com> <36958a0d.1982019@post12.tele.dk> <199901061537170160.0020AF58@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:01:01 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 06/01/99, at 00:10, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:08:34 PST, Adam Beneschan > wrote: > >>So I think we might need to get more information about what declarer >>was thinking when he said he would take 5 heart tricks. If he thought >>there were only 3 hearts outstanding, I would accept David's logic. >>But if he knew there were 4 hearts out, and the possibility of a bad >>break simply slipped his mind, I'd accept Herman's argument. > >Exactly. Not "exactly" at all. The main difficulty that I have with the "majority"= position (if such it be) is this. Why is it "not irrational" for a man who= has nine hearts between the hands to believe that he has ten of them,= while it is "irrational" for a man to play four rounds of the suit,= believing that the fourth round will hold even though an opponent has= shown out on the first? Both are false beliefs based on counter-factuals -= if any such beliefs are "irrational" in the context of the Laws, then all= such beliefs must for consistency's sake be so classified. I don't really= care why the man thought he had five heart winners - what matters is that= he did so think, and made a claim on that basis. So, if a claim means= anything at all, it is surely to be taken as grounds for the assumption= that he would have played on that basis. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 03:36:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 03:36:03 +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 DAA04071 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 03:35:57 +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 LAA16060 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:35:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA16449 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:36:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:36:02 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901061636.LAA16449@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Claim - bigger example X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Burn > My own opinion > is that anything a player does that is consistent with his own beliefs > at the time he does it constitutes a rational play, regardless of the > extent to which his beliefs themselves may be false. I don't think there is any right or wrong answer, but I'm afraid I don't share your opinion. I would myself add a condition that the beliefs must be subjected to some kind of reality check and be consistent with a rational belief system. > You might say that it is irrational for a man to go about wearing > nothing but a loin cloth in the middle of a London winter - but if you > know that the man believes himself to be Mahatma Gandhi, then his > choice of dress becomes entirely rational. This would not be rational IMHO. Isn't the belief subject to easy refutation? Some people hear voices in their heads telling them to do strange things. I don't think most of us, in common usage, would describe these people as rational, but no doubt their acts would make perfect sense if only we could hear the voices. > From: Jan Kamras > > If you accept that, then it's fair to describe a revoke as "irrational" > > because it would not be chosen as a result of a rational thought > > process > > nor of an irrational one. You, like DS, seem to think that all acts are > the result of *some* thought process while the rest of us seem to accept > that some acts are "unintentional", "accidents" or whatever. Please reread what I wrote; nothing implies what you say. You are inventing a requirement that an irrational act must have resulted from some thought process. Perhaps that's useful, but it's not what I wrote. My suggestion is one way of extending the rational/irrational distinction from thought processes to actions. It's the only way that I can see to do it, but perhaps there are others. Certainly there are acts that are not the result of any thought process, "accidents" if you will. These acts may still be described as rational if a rational thought process might have produced them, even though they didn't happen that way. Acts can be described as irrational if no rational thought process could have produced them. This does *not* imply that an irrational thought process produced the "irrational acts," only that they are inconsistent with a rational thought process. Whether the rational/irrational distinction should be binary or whether it is useful to introduce other categories depends on the purpose for which you are using it. For bridge law purposes, a binary distinction seems quite useful to me. If you accept a binary distinction, a revoke normally falls on the "irrational" side. For other purposes, it may be useful to have a trinary distinction rational/irrational/other, but I don't see the usefulness of that approach in bridge. Whether you agree with me or not, please reread my first paragraph above. Arguments in this forum should be justified on their relevance and usefulness to bridge law, not in other contexts. If we were to agree to _define_ a revoke as irrational, would that create a problem in interpreting any laws? I think it simplifies and clarifies many of them. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 04:22:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 04:22:29 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA04364 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 04:22:20 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-58.uunet.be [194.7.13.58]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA22267 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:22:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 17:34:44 +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 - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk May I ask some of the proponents of DB's point of view (including DB himself of course) to clearly tell Roger (axeman) that : when axeman wrote: > > > NO! Play has ceased. The claim statement is being executed. Nothing > else. > The claim statement is NOT to be executed. If it is irrational to play on with the suit, then claimer should NOT be held to his statement. Please David, enlighten Roger on this. David and others, do agree with me that if you consider it irrational to continue the suit, the claim is validated. The discussion I am having with David B is a totally different one : David B is suggesting that given the faulty claim it is not irrational for claimer to indeed play the cards like that. Does everybody understand the difference between the two discussions ? > David Burn is merely pointing out that while the claim statement is > being executed, claimer does not 'see the opponent's cards' [play the > AKQ without noticing what cards his opponents play] until the statement > halts. For instance, the defenders get an unstated trick. This can be > thought of as a 'blind test' to prove the validity of claim statement. > > Holiday greetings, > > Roger Pewick -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 04:22:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 04:22:36 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA04377 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 04:22:27 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-58.uunet.be [194.7.13.58]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA22283 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:22:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <369393A7.C3484CCE@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 17:47:35 +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: Is this a L12c2 case? References: <199901051453.PAA17387@hera.frw.uva.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hallo Jan, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > > Dealer: North, all vulnerable, IMPs > > s Ax > h Jxx > d AKJx > c xxxx > s xxx s KQxxxx > h xx h AQTxx > d xxx d x > c AQxxx c x > > s xx > h Kxx > d Qxxxx > c KJx > > W N E S > - 1NTa 2D Dbl > p p 2H ?Dbl > p p p > > 1NT alerted: 13-15. > 2D was not alerted. > > Before South doubles 2H, he asks West about the meaning of 2D > and gets the answer: diamonds. Before the opening lead East > corrects his partners explanation: 2D was artificial, showing > spades and a lower ranking suit. > The TD allows North to change her last pass. North decides to bid > 3D, and is allowed to play there for -200. > After the play, South calls the TD back and claims that, had he > known that it was artificial, he would have passed 2D, which > would have led to a score of at least +100. > > Well, do NS have any right to +100, or dou you agree with the TD > who told South to shut up because EW were cold for 11 tricks in > spades? (I guess not :), but what else?). > One important principle : Opponents are entitled to the correct information, but they are NOT entitled to know that there is a bidding mistake. One should answer the question : "What would south have bid, given the correct explanation ?", not the question "What would south have done, had he known that 2D would be misinterpreted". Only in very few cases would a result of 2Di, undoubled, minus a lot be possible. I have not gone far into the case to give any other comments. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 04:22:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 04:22:42 +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 EAA04386 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 04:22:33 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-58.uunet.be [194.7.13.58]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA22303 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:22:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36939893.A6E80D47@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 18:08:35 +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: Revoke and Claim: another wrinkle References: <3.0.5.32.19990106144912.00a1ba50@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > > At 15:51 05-01-99 -0900, you wrote: > > > >We have recently been discussing what happens if someone revokes and then > >his opponent claims during or after that same trick, before the revoke is > >established. We seem to be in agreement (I think) that the revoke is still > >correctable, and that the claimer ought to be allowed revision of his > >claim based on the new information - though I am sure we do not agree on > >exactly what claimer is allowed to do. > > > >Now, for the new wrinkle. > > > >Suppose you revoke as a defender and declarer claims. > > > >1. One partner's acceptance of a claim or concession is not binding on the > >other defender. > > > >2. A revoke becomes established when _either_ member of the opposing side > >plays to the next trick. > > > >So - if partner accepts declarer's claim, is the revoke established or > >not??? And does it matter if partner's acceptance is announced before, the > >same time as, or after your discovery of your revoke? > > > > i still think 68D is clear enough. Any player can dispute the claim, even > dummy. so revoke still wont be established i think. Perhaps 78 B can also > be used. > regards, > anton > > >If this comes up at the club tonight I am going to rule the revoke is > >established if the acceptance statement is made before attention is called > >to the revoke, but allow the correction if it is simulataneous or > >subsequent. I have no idea what I am going to do if revoker's partner > >wants to change his mind about the concession but declarer doesn't change > >his mind about his claim. > > > >Gordon Bower > > > > Sorry Anton, wrong. L63A3 : revoke becomes established when one defender acquiesces L68B : concession has not occured if partner objects Two totally different concepts ! So indeed, when after the claim, one defender says "OK", the revoke has become established. But if the other defender has first said, "hey, and what about my trump ?" the revoke on the previous trick is not established and we are in the mess we are in. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 04:22:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 04:22:39 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA04381 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 04:22:30 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-58.uunet.be [194.7.13.58]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA22289 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:22:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36939727.B0B484D@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 18:02:31 +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: More Claim References: <36929CC1.54D38C8B@uaf.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Schmahl wrote: > > Suppose declarer, playing 6NT in a matchpoint game, has the > following cards, on a heart lead. > > AKQJT9 > A > KQJT2 > 3 > > xx > xxxx > 9 > AKQJT2 > > Declarer now claims 13 tricks, stating that he has 6 spades, 6 clubs, > and the HA. Clubs are 6-0, and East has the DA. You are called. > I am glad to see that Roger Pewick is not too strict in saying : 6 clubs must be played so that makes 1+5 tricks = 6 down. Of course claimer has (at least) two possible normal lines : spades first, and clubs first. Spades first produces 12 easy tricks, 13 on a squeeze, but i will only allow that of really top players, and they should not claim here in this position. (You see, I do take bad claiming into account as proof of something). OTOH, clubs first will produce at most 12 tricks, so 13 is really out of the question. The only remaining question is : would it be possible for this declarer to get the clubs so wrong that he would go down, or is six rounds of clubs an irrational line of play. I find this one less clear than the previous one. I would let table feeling prevail and my main question would be "why did you claim 6 club tricks ?". > At first glance, you might rule that Declarer takes 12 tricks. But > Declarer mentions that East is squeezed on the sixth round of spades, > and so Declarer must have the rest of the tricks. Now how do you rule? > This is an alternative line as dealt with in L70D : there are alternative lines that are normal (clubs first) and that do not lead to 13 tricks. Bad luck. > Would it be any different if Declarer played two rounds of spades > first, making it obviously irrational to play any clubs at this point, > stranding himself from Dummy? Whyever would he play two rounds of spades ? Now he has convinced me that he cannot count to 13 and many irrational lines have just become merely careless, and thus "normal". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 04:22:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 04:22:27 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA04363 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 04:22:19 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-58.uunet.be [194.7.13.58]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA22258 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:22:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36938E0F.4479A453@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 17:23:43 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: > > > I allow the claim, too, but I think it is > close. I would not allow the claim if claimer That's 5 (JD,DB,JP,AW,V) against - 3 (CS,HDW,AF) for . -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 04:22:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 04:22:26 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA04358 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 04:22:16 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-58.uunet.be [194.7.13.58]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA22252 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:22:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36938D28.36376484@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 17:19:52 +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: Claim References: <+Y1+nWAFE2j2Ewft@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3691CA47.A444242D@home.com> <36929DF8.4DF98389@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > I strongly agree with this. > I have also repeatedly stated that any ambiguity in the law-text should > be resolved in favour of such common sense. Therefore, if one perceives > that L70D is ambiguous as to the number of new lines that can be > proposed, I strongly feel it should be read as allowing claimer only ONE > more shot once the original line is proven "irrational". Afterall, if > playing out the hand declarer would only get one chance. The purpose of > the claim-procedure should be to speed up the game, not to allow > declarer to replay a hand until he finally succeeds! There is no need for any number in L70D. Whether Claimer proposes 1 line or 5, the same applies : if any of the 5 lines is normal AND fails, the claim fails. If all 5 succeed, the claim succeeds. So if claimer proposes one new line and it is a loosing one, it is clear he fails. If he proposes a winning line, he will probably stop proposing, and it is up to the director to fathom the 4 others, and check if thay too succeed. So this discussion is rather meaningless. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 06:23:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 06:23:54 +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 GAA04720 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 06:23:47 +1100 Received: from ip92.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.92]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990106192340.JBJE6075.fep4@ip92.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 20:23:40 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 20:23:40 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <369ca747.2076826@post12.tele.dk> References: <9901041608.aa02364@flash.irvine.com> <36958a0d.1982019@post12.tele.dk> <199901061537170160.0020AF58@mail.btinternet.com> <199901061601010660.00366CC1@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901061601010660.00366CC1@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:01:01 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >On 06/01/99, at 00:10, Jesper Dybdal wrote:=20 >>On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:08:34 PST, Adam Beneschan >> wrote: >>>So I think we might need to get more information about what declarer >>>was thinking when he said he would take 5 heart tricks. If he thought >>>there were only 3 hearts outstanding, I would accept David's logic. >>>But if he knew there were 4 hearts out, and the possibility of a bad >>>break simply slipped his mind, I'd accept Herman's argument. >> >>Exactly. > >Not "exactly" at all. The main difficulty that I have with the = "majority" position (if such it be) is this. Why is it "not irrational" = for a man who has nine hearts between the hands to believe that he has = ten of them, while it is "irrational" for a man to play four rounds of = the suit, believing that the fourth round will hold even though an = opponent has shown out on the first? It seems to me that the question of rationality is not relevant in connection with what declarer believed at the time of the claim, but only in connection with various plays. Assuming that the TD can determine what the claimer incorrectly believed, the TD then has to judge the rationality of playing four rounds when declarer, having his misunderstanding, sees an opponent show out on the first round. You could be right that even if his misunderstanding was that he believes 4 cards to "never" be 4-0, he might not bother to notice whether an opponent shows out, once he has got the idea of having 5 heart tricks into his head. I'll have to think about that - you are close to convincing me to rule one down even if I am sure declarer knew there were 4 cards out. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 06:25:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 06:25:50 +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 GAA04734 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 06:25:44 +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 AA170630736; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:25:37 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA160441073; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:31:13 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:30:59 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Revoke and claim 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 =20 FrancisGA wrote =20 =20 Laval, =20 You (and most of the other contributors to this thread) seem to assume that S can "not accept the claim". The only thing he can do is dispute losing the claimed tricks. =20 [Laval Dubreuil] =20 That is what I meant by "did not accept the claim". I should have written "did not accept to loose all remaining tricks". I know very well that= after such a claim by a defender play must cease as stated in Law 68D. =20 =20 IMO it is not possible to correct the revoke since such correction is= part of the play. Therefore it seems reasonable to argue that the revoke automatically gets established by the claim. I would be interested in any arguments for correcting the revoke without penalty. [Laval Dubreuil] =20 =20 Law 63 A reads: A revoke becomes established: =20 1. Offending Side Leads or Plays to Next Trick when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following= trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke). =20 2. A Member of Offending Side Indicates a Lead or Play when the offender or his partner names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick. =20 3. Member of Offending Side Makes a Claim or Concession when a member of the offending side makes or acquiesces in a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand =20 (or in any other fashion). =20 =20 In the example I sent, offending side (declarer) did not play or indicate play to next trick and did not accept claim made by defender. He just call the Director. So I continue to think that declarer may correct his revoke without penalty and get a trick with the revoke card. And I think this is correct because he should have realise he revoked before playing to next trick.... If a claim establish a revoke, I will try to claim quickly each time I think an opponnent revoked. =20 Laval Du Breuil Quebec City =20 =20 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 07:52:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 07:52:54 +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 HAA04962 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 07:52:46 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990106205240.FLBT6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:52:40 -0800 Message-ID: <3693CDEC.1F4ED64C@home.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 12:56:12 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Interpretation References: <199901051651.LAA15462@cfa183.harvard.edu> <369331FD.B3060120@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > It is not easy to see how you can pull *any* card out of your hand > without a thought process. Maybe not - but for the pulling of that card to be judged either rational or not, there needs to be a causal link between *that* thought process and *that* particular card. This is not always the case, and then the action is "accidental" rather than "irrational". I will try to make this my last comment on this since I find the positions by now quite clear, and the merits of further debate questionable (at least for the case that started this). Happy new year to everyone! From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 08:21:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:21:42 +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 IAA05061 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:21:36 +1100 Received: from [158.152.129.79] (helo=mamos.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zy0OJ-00074A-00; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 21:21:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 21:19:43 +0000 To: John Probst Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: grosvenor again In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "John (MadDog) Probst" writes > >so mamos is directing the Prem League playoffs for the Eoropean team >Selectors and I've invited him to stay the night 'chez moi' and we've >moaned about the movement, we've moaned about the selectors, and Diana >has produced her epee, her foil and her sabre. Diana will play for GB >women if she could be bothered. (The rubber bridge game cost me 32 >points playing with the Canuck against Diana and mamos.) > >So Mamos & I explain to Diana about the Grosvenor (recent posting) and >she misplays it rising with the K and she produces the line " A compound >fracture of the self-esteem." And adds in her defence she would not >have played it that way had her father not just explained the restricted >choice rule. > >So the acorns landed under the tree, and also were carried by the crows >to all ends of the Earth. > >And Diana (who could play for GB at Bridge but WILL play for GB at >Fencing) points out it is easy to take 10pence points off her father at >Bridge and she could beat him at fencing too. > >PS, while he was typing this, daddy was just slightly drunk. I think >you should be told. Correction - not sligtly drunk at all :@) mamos:) >Diana P. -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 08:39:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:39:09 +1100 Received: from smtp1.mindspring.com (smtp1.mindspring.com [207.69.200.31]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA05102 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:39:02 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka87b.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.235]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA02839 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:38:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990106163845.006cd03c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:38:45 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: More Claim In-Reply-To: <36929CC1.54D38C8B@uaf.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:14 PM 1/5/99 -0900, Michael S. wrote: >Suppose declarer, playing 6NT in a matchpoint game, has the >following cards, on a heart lead. > >AKQJT9 >A >KQJT2 >3 > > >xx >xxxx >9 >AKQJT2 > >Declarer now claims 13 tricks, stating that he has 6 spades, 6 clubs, >and the HA. Clubs are 6-0, and East has the DA. You are called. > >At first glance, you might rule that Declarer takes 12 tricks. But >Declarer mentions that East is squeezed on the sixth round of spades, >and so Declarer must have the rest of the tricks. Now how do you rule? > I rule 12 tricks. It would be careless, though not irrational, to play on clubs first. >Would it be any different if Declarer played two rounds of spades >first, making it obviously irrational to play any clubs at this point, >stranding himself from Dummy? > Yes, if the claim is now presented after trick 3 with the lead in dummy. It would be irrational, not mearely careless, to do anything other than play all the spades, pitching red cards from the closed hand, and then playing on clubs. In the unlikely event that East parts with the D A along the way, it would be irrational to eschew the gift by failing to cash dummy's good diamonds. So the squeeze will succeed without any apparent forethought or planning. But I know this analysis will not go down well with the "stick-it-to-em" camp. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 08:56:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:56:43 +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 IAA05160 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:56:37 +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 QAA26989 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:55:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990106165729.0070c75c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:57:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: More Claim In-Reply-To: <36929CC1.54D38C8B@uaf.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:14 PM 1/5/99 -0900, Michael wrote: >Suppose declarer, playing 6NT in a matchpoint game, has the >following cards, on a heart lead. > >AKQJT9 >A >KQJT2 >3 > > >xx >xxxx >9 >AKQJT2 > >Declarer now claims 13 tricks, stating that he has 6 spades, 6 clubs, >and the HA. Clubs are 6-0, and East has the DA. You are called. > >At first glance, you might rule that Declarer takes 12 tricks. But >Declarer mentions that East is squeezed on the sixth round of spades, >and so Declarer must have the rest of the tricks. Now how do you rule? Assuming declarer has not said or done anything that would indicate that he intends to play spades first, I will force him to start clubs. As in the previous thread, I will rule that it would be irrational for him to play the C2 and go down. 12 tricks. >Would it be any different if Declarer played two rounds of spades >first, making it obviously irrational to play any clubs at this point, >stranding himself from Dummy? Absolutely. 13 tricks. In fact, if he had played *one* round of spades first I would take that as the necessary indication that he intends to play spades before clubs, and allow 13 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 Thu Jan 7 08:57:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:57:37 +1100 Received: from smtp1.mindspring.com (smtp1.mindspring.com [207.69.200.31]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA05169 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:57:31 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka87b.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.235]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA05862 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:57:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990106165715.006cd9dc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:57:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert In-Reply-To: <199901061248.MAA20699@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:48 PM 1/6/99 GMT, Robin wrote: > >Should the TD fail to adjust if he thinks East should >have known to call the TD after North's answer to West's >question? > No. After North's answer, an irregularity has been revealed (failure to alert), and all players at the table have an equal right, indeed a responsibility, to call the TD. It is possible that East, in particular, was reluctant to do so for the reason ascribed by South: a chance at a double shot. But it is at least as likely that East didn't want to cause a scene (when it probably wouldn't matter anyway), or was unaware of what protections would be afforded him by calling the cops in a timely fashion. And East has lost some measure of protection by failing to call the TD at the time. If he had done so, he would have been allowed to bid 4C. After the hand is over, his claim that he would have bid is not taken for granted, but must be evaluated for plausibility, as part of the process of determining whether EW were damaged by the infraction. And a TD who suspects East of the double shot motivation is likely to take a very hard look at that claim. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 09:03:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:03:01 +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 JAA05214 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:02:54 +1100 Received: from modem14.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.142] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zy12M-0003vb-00; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 22:02:47 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Claim Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 21:34:21 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ======================================== --------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Claim > Date: 06 January 1999 03:16 > > Grattan wrote> _____________________ David wrote ------------------- > What we have disagreed over is whether you ask claimer for a fresh > line. Of course, there are many cases where claimer has added things, > made extraneous remarks and so on. As in any other situation, the TD > uses all the information that comes his way, and L70D tells him how. -------------------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > ++++ Tilting at windmills. Did I inadvertently say something about asking claimer for a fresh line? I have been talking about his volunteering one, and I think a couple of my posts make this clear enough. The Director does not initiate a variation of the claimer's line, claimer does. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 09:03:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:03:04 +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 JAA05215 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:02:57 +1100 Received: from modem14.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.142] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zy12R-0003vb-00; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 22:02:51 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Claim Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 21:42:36 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ".....yet happiest if ye seek No happier state, and know to know no more." - Paradise Lost ======================================== ---------- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Claim > Date: 06 January 1999 16:23 > > af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: > > > > > > I allow the claim, too, but I think it is > > close. I would not allow the claim if claimer > > That's 5 (JD,DB,JP,AW,V) against - 3 (CS,HDW,AF) for . > +++ I think it a close run thing whether the fresh development in the suit break can be regarded as cause for deeming the stated line to have become irrational; it depends IMO on things about the claimer's statement that I have not seen. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 09:19:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:19:14 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA05255 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:19:08 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA23735 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:18:29 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.55) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma023712; Wed Jan 6 16:18:07 1999 Received: by har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE3998.AFA39C60@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:19:15 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3998.AFA39C60@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Claim Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:14:58 -0500 Encoding: 39 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Of course you do. In a kitchen table game for fun it is harmless to give your opponents something to which they are not entitled but which will add to the friendly feeling. In a tournament this would not be right, if some of the other people involved might be harmed by it. It would be akin to bidding 7N and redoubling on your 2 pointer vulnerable because you were playing this round against your friends who were second overall while you had a 30%er. You don't give the opponents what they do not properly have when it counts for something for other contestants...when you are just playing at home for fun (or NC on line) why not let them have it if you want, for no one but you can suffer any injury...and that not a meaningful one. Perhaps we again are two people separated by a common language...I have always equated the words "friendly game" with party type bridge as opposed to the competitive game. Don't worry...be happy. :-)) Craig ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 9:14 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Craig Senior wrote: >While your concession is very sportsmanlike, I would not think you a BL to >accept the lawful result in a match where something was at stake. In a >friendly game, I give it to them too.### That is an *incredibly* worrying statement. Are matches not friendly games? Do you really act differently when "something is at stake"? -- 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 Jan 7 09:19:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:19:32 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA05261 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:19:26 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA11958; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:18:47 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.55) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma011836; Wed Jan 6 16:18:01 1999 Received: by har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE3998.AB2FC780@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:19:08 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3998.AB2FC780@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'David Burn'" Subject: RE: Claim - bigger example Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:00:09 -0500 Encoding: 69 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] You might say that it is irrational for a man to go about wearing nothing but a loin cloth in the middle of a London winter - but if you know that the man believes himself to be Mahatma Gandhi, then his choice of dress becomes entirely rational. ### You think that a man who is deranged enough to think he is someone else is rational? I think he is a prime candidate for an asylum. His choice of dress might be consistent...but NOT rational. You might also say of a man who loses the fourth round of hearts with the example suit instead of cashing 13 winners in other suits that he is playing irrationally - but if you know that the man believes that AKQxx facing xxxx is always a no-loser suit, then his action becomes a rational one. And, if you have evidence from his claim that such is indeed his belief, why should you consider the possibility that he would indeed adopt the losing line to be an irrational one? We are dealing with someone who carelessly forgot to provide for a 4-0 break in stating a claim. That is not irrational...just careless. Why then must we expect him to behave irrationally when opponent's discard wakes him up to the fact that he has been careless? I think he is more likely to don a loincloth for the winter than to not notice that opponent has shown out...failing to notice something that obvious is irrational. That is why we allow proven finesses (but none other) in claim situations...opponent showing out is deemed sufficiently obvious to wake up even the most careless (while taking inferences based upon what has already appeared in each hand is not allowed). You wish a textbook definition of irrational to control this situation...rather as though you expect it to be governed by statute law (as though courts always agree on what statutes mean anyway!). What has developed in practice in this area is a substantial body of case (or common) law in which it is rather well established what irrational shall mean in adjudicating bridge claims. This seems to be one of those cases in which usage has established a definition. Are we going to see a shift away from a sensible working definition toward the chaos that now prevails in defining "logical alternative"? I for one don't want to go there. Craig P.S. I still maintain that the awkwardly phrased statement regarding pulling the trump could not possibly be interpreted by someone who understands English usage as indicating that more than three rounds of trump would be pulled. The wording was such that no native English speaker would ever have spoken it in those exact words. One has to look to the intent of a statement, rather than the exact wording when someone is using a language foreign to them. We are able to gain much useful information and many fine ideas from Dany and Vitold here on group, for example. (You brits are even able to occasionally interpret us Americans...though we *claim* to speak "English".) We cannot always hold them to exact wording though, and must read through to the intended meaning which is often quite clear even though the syntax is imperfect. (The extent of my Russian is nyet and my Hebrew is little better though I have picked up a few Yiddish pejoritives that have been hurled at me over the years. I mean no disrespect to our comrades on group who are forced to converse in the language WE find most comfortable because there are MORE of us...and they may be enough smarter to hold forth multilingually while some of us lack the talent.) We must seek to penetrate to the meaning rather than punish the syntax in such a case. Poor English does not equate to poor bridge, (n'est pas?) and we should not burden someone speaking in a second or third language with an irrational line because he phrases his claim less than perfectly. On the scene of course a TD would know if there were a language barrier or if the words could be taken literally, even though phrased very clumsily. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 09:28:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:28:34 +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 JAA05295 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:28:27 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id WAA05519 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 22:27:34 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 6 Jan 99 22:27 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: More Claim 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: <36939727.B0B484D@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > Michael Schmahl wrote: > > > > Suppose declarer, playing 6NT in a matchpoint game, has the > > following cards, on a heart lead. > > > > AKQJT9 > > A > > KQJT2 > > 3 > > > > xx > > xxxx > > 9 > > AKQJT2 > > > > Declarer now claims 13 tricks, stating that he has 6 spades, 6 clubs, > > and the HA. Clubs are 6-0, and East has the DA. You are called. > > > > I am glad to see that Roger Pewick is not too strict in > saying : 6 clubs must be played so that makes 1+5 tricks = 6 > down. > > Of course claimer has (at least) two possible normal lines : > spades first, and clubs first. Spades first produces 12 > easy tricks, 13 on a squeeze, but i will only allow that of > really top players, and they should not claim here in this > position. (You see, I do take bad claiming into account as > proof of something). If TD determines that it was Declarer's intent to play spades first (as I believe it was from the statement) then he should award 13 tricks regardless of player's strength. The squeeze is automatic & show up, were the hand to have been played out there is no way east would discard DA anyway. If TD thinks there is a reasonable ("at all likely" perhaps) chance that declarer will play clubs first and not notice the 6-0 break then he should rule -6. I'd normally allow this claim (and the original one if Herman's still counting). Claims are good for the game, they should be encouraged as far as possible within the laws. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 09:40:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:40:02 +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 JAA05341 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:39:54 +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 RAA29042 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:39:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 17:40:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert In-Reply-To: <199901061248.MAA20699@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:48 PM 1/6/99 GMT, Robin wrote: >W N E S >1C X* 3C X** * = takeout. ** = responsive, not alerted >P 3D P P >?P ? = asked about South's X: told "responsive" > >This was in EBUland where South's responsive double should be >alerted. > >At the end of the hand (3D=), East calls the TD and says he >would bid 4C if the double had been alerted; 4C makes (!). > >I forget the hands but 4C was not obvious on East's hand. >However, 4C is certainly less attractive if 3C has been >doubled for penalties. The TD ruled MI and adjusted to 4C=. > >South (who talked to me) was unhappy, he felt that East had >achieved a double shot by defending 3D and then trying 4C >when he had seen the hands. One can hardly blame him; he appears to be right. >I pointed out to South that if the director had been called >after North's answer and before West's final pass, East >would have been able to change his pass [and so would have >to decide now whether he really wanted to bid 4C]. > >But who was going to call the TD? East. He was the only one who had any reason to believe that the irregularity might result in damage to his side, or, for that matter, make any difference whatsoever. >Obviously West didn't care, as he had now decided to pass, >North was probably oblivious to his failure to alert, and >East ..., well East did not feel the need to call the TD now. Unlucky for him. If he didn't feel the need to call the TD until he decided, after the hand was played, that he would have been better off bidding 4C, too bad. >Obviously it is in North-South's interest to call attention >to the failure to alert; but can South call the TD? >It is clear from North's answer that the call should be >alerted, can South point this out if the other players >remain silent? It shouldn't be in N-S's interest to call the TD, as there is no way N-S could have been damaged by the irregularity. They may do so (L9B1(b)), but in real life the burden is assumed to be on the side that feels that the irregularity might cause them damage for which they might seek redress. >Should the TD fail to adjust if he thinks East should >have known to call the TD after North's answer to West's >question? Yes. That's exactly the sort of situation that L11A is for. The TD who awarded 4C making allowed the NOS to "gain[] through subsequent action [or, as here, lack of action] taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty", which would have allowed E to change his call at the appropriate time per L21B1. 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 Jan 7 09:44:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:44:11 +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 JAA05370 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:44:03 +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 NAA17883; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:32:47 -0900 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:32:47 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" cc: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: Revoke and Claim: another wrinkle In-Reply-To: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B31@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) wrote: > Gordon, > > I think you are confused about accepting a claim. The only time a defender > can effectively not accept a claim is (see L68B) when he objects to a > concession by his partner. In this case "no concession has occurred" (i.e. > no claim) and play just continutes, although the TD should (not must) be > called in case there is UI. > > Geoff Francis. > Let me try again, hopefully being more clear. Declarer claims. If *both* defenders have no objections we score it up. If either defender says "no, wait a minute" we call the director and use L70. (68D - any player may object to a claim.) We have been discussing what happens when one of the defender says not just "no, wait a minute," but "no, wait a minute, I revoked on the trick we just played." If this happens we correct the not-yet-established revoke, and then tear out our hair trying to adjudicate a claim based on misinformation from the revoker's play to the previous trick. What I am asking is: suppose the defender who did not revoke says "yes, I agree declarer has the rest" , before the revoker confesses. >From 68D, we still will have to go through 70 because one player (the revoker) has challenged the claim; and we still have to deal with the revoke. I am thinking that it might be a good idea to treat the revoke as established now, since revoker's partner has, in effect, "played" to the remaining tricks by attempting to acquiesce to declarers's claim. A claim after an established revoke seems to be less messy: we can use L64C if necessary to assign a score based on what should have happened if the whole sorry affair had never occurred, which is not one of our options if we look only at L70. (Only using L64C, of course, in cases when declarer's claim blows up in his face so badly in ligt of the new information that the automatic revoke penalty is not sufficient.) I hope this is clerer. GRB From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 10:08:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:08:18 +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 KAA05446 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:08:12 +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 SAA27674 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:08:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA16815 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:08:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:08:18 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901062308.SAA16815@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Revoke and Claim: another wrinkle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Gordon Bower > What I am asking is: suppose the defender who did not revoke says "yes, I > agree declarer has the rest" , before the revoker confesses. [assuming the revoke was on the last trick and not otherwise established] Isn't this easy if we RTFLB? L68B says no concession has occurred if revoker "immediately objects." Otherwise, a concession has occurred. The revoke is established if and only if a concession has occurred (L63A3). What am I missing? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 11:12:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:12:13 +1100 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05656 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:10:32 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n45.san.rr.com [204.210.46.69]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA27197 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:10:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901070010.QAA27197@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blml" Subject: Re: Interpretation Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:09:13 -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 Jan Kamras wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > Edgar Kaplan expressed the opposite opinion (*Bridge World* > > editorial, July 93): "When we think of mistakes that would cancel > > the usual protection, we think in terms of revokes, or other > > *gross* errors." That would include such things as LOOTs, I > > presume. > > I don't see EK saying revokes (or LOOTs) are "irrational", just that > they are "mistakes" and "gross errors". > The issue is whether damage is the direct consequence of an infraction or merely subsequent to the infraction, not a direct consequence. The WBFLC chose an unfortunate word to characterize actions that would possibly annull redress, since there is so much disagreement as to the meaning. Excerpt 3 from Lille WBFLC minutes: ...redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action [,but only...] They should have stopped right there. Only abnormal errors (e. g., a revoke) or abnormal misjudgments (sic) are grounds for annullment. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 11:41:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:41:18 +1100 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA05729 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:41:11 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.100] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zy3VV-0005lY-00; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 00:41:01 +0000 Message-ID: <199901070041200210.0212DA93@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:41:20 +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="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 06/01/99, at 21:42, Grattan wrote: >Grattan >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > >".....yet happiest if ye seek >No happier state, and know to know no more." > - Paradise Lost >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >---------- >> From: Herman De Wael >> To: Bridge Laws >> Subject: Re: Claim >> Date: 06 January 1999 16:23 >> >> af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: >> > >> > >> > I allow the claim, too, but I think it is >> > close. I would not allow the claim if claimer >> >> That's 5 (JD,DB,JP,AW,V) against - 3 (CS,HDW,AF) for . >> >+++ I think it a close run thing whether the fresh development >in the suit break can be regarded as cause for deeming the stated line >to have become irrational; it depends IMO on things about the >claimer's statement that I have not seen. ~ Grattan ~ +++ I thought this was close also; if I were bothered one way or the other, I= would claim it as a vote for my side rather than a vote against. After= all, in the way I posed the initial problem, declarer had claimed "five= heart tricks" in the belief that he had those tricks (very close to what= happened in the original case, if anyone can remember that far back).= Grattan "has not seen" those things about the statement that he would wish= to see because it was not a real case - I made it up. I did this because it seems important to me that we, as a group, should be= able to produce an interpretation of the Laws relating to claims that will= cover all possible cases - "God's algorithm", for those who know what that= means. As those who, with inexhaustible patience, have followed this= thread will know, this group is a very long way from being able to lay= down a single principle that will serve as a guide in all possible cases.= We cannot even resolve the more or less trivial case that began this= thread. The primary reason for our inability to do this appears to me to lie in our= different interpretations of the word "irrational" as it occurs in the= footnotes to Laws 68 through 70 (and perhaps beyond). I believe that if= there existed a working definition for this word - by which I mean a= definition that is objective in the context of the Laws of the game - then= real progress could be made. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 12:42:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:42:52 +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 MAA05822 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:42:41 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zy4Sz-0005B0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:42:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 00:49:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example In-Reply-To: <199901060455.PAA26703@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199901060455.PAA26703@oznet14.ozemail.com.au>, Tony Musgrove writes > >Well I see this often. My partner having seen my hand as dummy would have >spent two minutes abusing me for not bidding 7, not converting him to NT etc >- and "claiming" by saying "we've got the lot". >When opponents do this to me, I say "you have made a claim, do you wish to >add any clarifying statements before the TD is called." Is this correct? >i.e. does a casual "I'm going to make the lot" constitute a claim under L68A? > Technically Yes. We can always get him with 74A and 74B2, if he says it isn't. Cheers -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 12:42:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:42:54 +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 MAA05825 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:42:41 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zy4T2-0005At-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:42:33 +0000 Message-ID: <3t+c3vBd8Al2EwNC@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:34:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert In-Reply-To: <199901061248.MAA20699@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199901061248.MAA20699@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >W N E S >1C X* 3C X** * = takeout. ** = responsive, not alerted >P 3D P P >?P ? = asked about South's X: told "responsive" > >This was in EBUland where South's responsive double should be >alerted. > >At the end of the hand (3D=), East calls the TD and says he >would bid 4C if the double had been alerted; 4C makes (!). > >I forget the hands but 4C was not obvious on East's hand. >However, 4C is certainly less attractive if 3C has been >doubled for penalties. The TD ruled MI and adjusted to 4C=. > >South (who talked to me) was unhappy, he felt that East had >achieved a double shot by defending 3D and then trying 4C >when he had seen the hands. > >I pointed out to South that if the director had been called >after North's answer and before West's final pass, East >would have been able to change his pass [and so would have >to decide now whether he really wanted to bid 4C]. > >But who was going to call the TD? >Obviously West didn't care, as he had now decided to pass, >North was probably oblivious to his failure to alert, and >East ..., well East did not feel the need to call the TD now. > >Obviously it is in North-South's interest to call attention >to the failure to alert; but can South call the TD? >It is clear from North's answer that the call should be >alerted, can South point this out if the other players >remain silent? > >Should the TD fail to adjust if he thinks East should >have known to call the TD after North's answer to West's >question? > I think not, NS caused the problem, and I think L10B applies I'd rule to 4C=. NS should have corrected the MI and didn't before the opening lead. Nice problem. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 12:42:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:42:52 +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 MAA05824 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:42:41 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zy4T2-0005Ay-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:42:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:13:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Is this a L12c2 case? In-Reply-To: <199901060907.BAA07402@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199901060907.BAA07402@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes > >I just happened to read L21B1 and it says (in effect) that a call >can't be changed after the auction is over. Didn't notice that >before. Does that mean the TD cannot permit a final pass to be >retracted? > I believe L16C is the one that empowers the call to be changed. The auction period ends when an opening lead has been faced (L17E), not before that. (ie there isn't a limbo period between the final pass and the opening lead, it is still auction period *until* the opening lead) Cheers John >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 12:42:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:42:54 +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 MAA05829 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:42:44 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zy4Sz-0005Ax-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:42:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 00:38:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example In-Reply-To: <199901061601010660.00366CC1@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199901061601010660.00366CC1@mail.btinternet.com>, David Burn writes > I don't really care why the man thought he >had five heart winners - what matters is that he did so think, and made a claim >on that basis. So, if a claim means anything at all, it is surely to be taken as >grounds for the assumption that he would have played on that basis. > Agree entirely. I'd so rule at the YC and I can't imagine anyone disagreeing, could you? Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 12:42:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:42:55 +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 MAA05823 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:42:41 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zy4T2-0005Ax-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:42:34 +0000 Message-ID: <5NdfPrBTzAl2EwvL@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:24:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: More Claim In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990106163845.006cd03c@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19990106163845.006cd03c@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >>Suppose declarer, playing 6NT in a matchpoint game, has the >>following cards, on a heart lead. >> >>AKQJT9 >>A >>KQJT2 >>3 >> >> >>xx >>xxxx >>9 >>AKQJT2 >> >>Declarer now claims 13 tricks, stating that he has 6 spades, 6 clubs, >>and the HA. Clubs are 6-0, and East has the DA. You are called. >> > >But I know this analysis will not go down well with the "stick-it-to-em" >camp. > >Mike Dennis Stick-it-to-him I'm afraid , Spades first pitching the D9 then C (why should he cash the DK if the Ace is discarded? He claimed his 6 club tricks). 12 tricks. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 12:47:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:47:50 +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 MAA05897 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:47:44 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zy4Xx-00065B-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:47:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 00:43:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example In-Reply-To: <199901061600300900.0035F485@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199901061600300900.0035F485@mail.btinternet.com>, David Burn writes >On 05/01/99, at 14:21, Herman De Wael wrote: > >[much snipped] > >>So please realise that in all cases claiming is still worse >>than playing on. But when all normal lines lead to the >>contract, then by claiming you should not go down. >> >>A careless claim is NOT a proof of overcareless play >>afterwards. > >Oh, well. Next time I come to a Belgian tournament and have a difficult play >problem, I will know what to do. I'll call Herman (and David Stevenson) to the >table and spread my hand, claiming as many tricks as I can make. > >"How many is that, then?" >"I don't know. I'm too careless to work it out. But, if you'd like to suggest a >few normal lines of play for me, then tell me at which points they will fail and >become irrational, I'll pick the one that I would have followed in actual play." > If you and Ian Payn try this one on at the YC [and you've tried most things] I'll send you to the bar under 81C4 and 91A. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 13:10:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:10:19 +1100 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA05938 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:10:10 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa29627; 6 Jan 99 18:09 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Another claim example Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 18:09:34 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901061809.aa29627@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OK, for everyone who said "Declarer thinks he has five heart tricks so we'll force him to play that way", how would you deal with this claim? -- xxxxx Kxx -- -- AKxxx Axx -- Hearts trumps. South on lead, claims all but one of the last, saying "I've got five hearts and two diamonds". West, however, has all three missing hearts but is void in diamonds. So, saying "South thinks he doesn't have a heart loser, so we force him to play that way", you make South play all his hearts from the top, with the result that West is endplayed and South gets all but one trick anyway. Is this the correct ruling? If not, how is it different from the 7NT hand we're all discussing? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 13:12:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:12:14 +1100 Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA05956 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:12:08 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.100] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zy4vj-0002eK-00; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 02:12:11 +0000 Message-ID: <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 02:12:16 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 06/01/99, at 17:34, Herman De Wael wrote: >May I ask some of the proponents of DB's point of view >(including DB himself of course) to clearly tell Roger >(axeman) that : > >when axeman wrote: >> >> >> NO! Play has ceased. The claim statement is being executed. Nothing >> else. >> > >The claim statement is NOT to be executed. > >If it is irrational to play on with the suit, then claimer >should NOT be held to his statement. > >Please David, enlighten Roger on this. I think that Roger is sufficiently enlightened already. I have said= consistently that if declarer believes that AKQ32 opposite 7654 will= always bring in five tricks, and if he has claimed on that basis, he may= be as well assumed to play five - or at any rate, four - rounds of that= suit as to do anything else. Jesper Dybdal, I thought, said the same thing= - if declarer, having played three rounds, believed that the rest of the= tricks were his without needing any ruffs, he might as well play the next= two rounds as opposed to cashing side winners, even though this suit was= trump. Craig Senior has argued that when you think you have drawn trump,= you stop drawing them and embark on your side suits, as if that were the= only rational thing to do. As far as I can see, the Australians never play= an extra round for "lurkers". Maybe that's why they beat us at cricket,= but they have not yet beaten us at logic. >David and others, do agree with me that if you consider it >irrational to continue the suit, the claim is validated. I am not aware of having made any statement that could remotely lead to= such a conclusion. It is never irrational to continue a suit, even though= it be the trump suit, when you believe that you have the rest on top in= any case. I have always asserted that if you believe before playing a card= in "the suit" that you do not have a loser in "the suit", you should be= assumed to continue in that belief even after you have played one - or= two, or even three. That, indeed, is the crux of my disagreement with= Craig Senior (primarily) and with you (secondarily). My argument is that= if you claim on the basis that the suit has no losers, you are bound to= play on the basis that the suit has no losers, and that if your original= claim was deemed "careless but not irrational", your subsequent= (hypothetical) play of four rounds would be deemed equally "careless but= not irrational". On that point, as has become clear, we do not agree - we= may never do so, but I am not going to dismiss Roger's argument on those= grounds alone. >The discussion I am having with David B is a totally >different one : > >David B is suggesting that given the faulty claim it is not >irrational for claimer to indeed play the cards like that. > >Does everybody understand the difference between the two >discussions ? I am not sure that I understand it - at least, not in the context of the= hands under discussion. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 13:23:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA06008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:23:59 +1100 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA06003 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:23:51 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.100] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zy56o-0003eL-00; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 02:23:39 +0000 Message-ID: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 02:23:58 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Here's another one Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: A 5432 K32 AKQJ10 432 AKQJ6 A109 32 The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcing= that he will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he believes= to be the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How would you= adjudicate his claim? (Show your working, assuming various diamond= layouts, and be very sure that it is consistent with your views in the= "Claim" thread, since these are now a matter of record.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 13:41:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA06042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:41:18 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA06037 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:41:12 +1100 Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.78.243.111]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.05 118 121 101) with ESMTP id <19990107024035.BQAZ8305@worldnet.att.net> for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 02:40:35 +0000 Message-ID: <36941EA0.B7FAF4B7@worldnet.att.net> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 21:40:32 -0500 From: Michael Kopera X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-WorldNet (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: More Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm coming late to this discussion, but it seems if we are going to allow spades to be played first (presumably in the order stated in the claim), I don't see why clubs aren't played next (with S discarding 3 H's and a D on the spades), with the Ace of hearts to come last. If the Ace of hearts isn't played, there is no showup squeeze. Yes, declarer is allowed to notice the 6-0 club break and not have to try to cash the sixth--12 tricks only. -- Mike Kopera Bridge is so great because it is intellectually challenging and yet totally meaningless. Geoffry Rees - NY Times 04/05/95 Tim West-meads wrote: > > In-Reply-To: <36939727.B0B484D@village.uunet.be> > Herman wrote: > > Michael Schmahl wrote: > > > > > > Suppose declarer, playing 6NT in a matchpoint game, has the > > > following cards, on a heart lead. > > > > > > AKQJT9 > > > A > > > KQJT2 > > > 3 > > > > > > xx > > > xxxx > > > 9 > > > AKQJT2 > > > > > > Declarer now claims 13 tricks, stating that he has 6 spades, 6 clubs, > > > and the HA. Clubs are 6-0, and East has the DA. You are called. > > > > > > > I am glad to see that Roger Pewick is not too strict in > > saying : 6 clubs must be played so that makes 1+5 tricks = 6 > > down. > > > > Of course claimer has (at least) two possible normal lines : > > spades first, and clubs first. Spades first produces 12 > > easy tricks, 13 on a squeeze, but i will only allow that of > > really top players, and they should not claim here in this > > position. (You see, I do take bad claiming into account as > > proof of something). > > If TD determines that it was Declarer's intent to play spades first (as I > believe it was from the statement) then he should award 13 tricks > regardless of player's strength. The squeeze is automatic & show up, were > the hand to have been played out there is no way east would discard DA > anyway. If TD thinks there is a reasonable ("at all likely" perhaps) > chance that declarer will play clubs first and not notice the 6-0 break > then he should rule -6. > > I'd normally allow this claim (and the original one if Herman's still > counting). > > Claims are good for the game, they should be encouraged as far as possible > within the laws. > > Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 13:45:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA06065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:45:40 +1100 Received: from smtp1.mindspring.com (smtp1.mindspring.com [207.69.200.31]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA06060 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:45:32 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka8jo.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.34.120]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA30850 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 21:45:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990106214516.006cf01c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 21:45:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> References: <199901061248.MAA20699@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:40 PM 1/6/99 -0500, Eric wrote: >>Should the TD fail to adjust if he thinks East should >>have known to call the TD after North's answer to West's >>question? > >Yes. That's exactly the sort of situation that L11A is for. The TD who >awarded 4C making allowed the NOS to "gain[] through subsequent action [or, >as here, lack of action] taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty", >which would have allowed E to change his call at the appropriate time per >L21B1. > But this is _NOT_ an 11A situation. That applies when the NOS gains through subsequent action taken _by an opponent_ (in this case NS) in ignorance of the penalty, not by either action or inaction by the NOS themselves. Your argument that the burden for calling the TD will usually fall on the NOS "in real life" is true only insofar as the NOS generally have the more obvious interest to protect. But the Laws stipulate no such division of responsibility. The director must be summoned when there is an evident irregularity in the auction, and any of the players may do so. In this case, both sides actually had interests to protect. Either West or East could have realized that they might be risking the right to bid 4C by failing to act, and that they might or might not get a favorable hearing if they waited until after the hand to try and make that call. But likewise, South had an interest to protect, as events proved. By calling the TD and forcing EW to make the choice before seeing the hands, he could have guarded against the "double shot" he was so quick to pin on East. I agree in principle that the NOS do and should, as a matter of equity, forfeit the right to redress in some situations when they fail to summon the TD at the appropriate time. And if the TD in the present situation judges 4C to be an unlikely action (absent the UI), then no harm and no foul. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 13:48:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA06083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:48:49 +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 NAA06078 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:48:42 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zy5Ux-0007LA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 02:48:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 19:17:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke and claim References: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B32@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> In-Reply-To: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B32@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: >You (and most of the other contributors to this thread) seem to assume that >S can "not accept the claim". The only thing he can do is dispute losing >the claimed tricks. Since L68D states that play ceases, IMO it is not >possible to correct the revoke since such correction is part of the play. >Therefore it seems reasonable to argue that the revoke automatically gets >established by the claim. I would be interested in any arguments for >correcting the revoke without penalty. L63 says what establishes a revoke. Opponents' claims do not. >It is also possible that after one defender revokes, it is not declarer who >claims but the other defender who concedes all tricks (i.e. makes a claim). >In this case the revoke is definitely established and penalised. If partner makes a claim or concession, L63 says this does establish the revoke - fine. -- 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 Jan 7 14:25:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:25:41 +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 OAA06199 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:25:34 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zy64a-0004K3-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 03:25:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 03:21:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Here's another one In-Reply-To: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com>, David Burn writes >Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: > >A >5432 >K32 >AKQJ10 > >432 >AKQJ6 >A109 >32 > >The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcing that he >will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. > >Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he believes to >be the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How would you adjudicate >his claim? (Show your working, assuming various diamond layouts, and be very >sure that it is consistent with your views in the "Claim" thread, since these >are now a matter of record.) > This one is very much tougher than the preceding thread(s). The H layout is significant too btw David. The problem is that declarer cannot "cash" 5 Hearts as he hasn't got 5. The question I ask myself is when would declarer have spotted the JD? Clearly not before he has cashed the top 3 hearts. At this point I'd accept it is irrational to contine with the JD (thinking it to be a heart). I'm not allowing him to cash the 4th heart if they broke 3-2 btw, because he wasn't "watching" the second round, nor forcing him to play it if they were 4-1; the claim just does not embrace this. The best he can now do is to cash 2D (assuming the Q doesnt fall - see below) and 5 clubs. 11 tricks. However if the QD were to fall in 2 then I'm not forcing a finesse before he cashes the clubs. I'd give him his club tricks, one top D and a losing D finesse. 10 tricks. another lone furrow I guess. Ploughing [Plowing] lessons available. Cheers John. Lovely example -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 14:25:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:25:40 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA06198 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:25:33 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zy64a-0006WN-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 03:25:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 02:57:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Another claim example In-Reply-To: <9901061809.aa29627@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9901061809.aa29627@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >OK, for everyone who said "Declarer thinks he has five heart tricks so >we'll force him to play that way", how would you deal with this claim? > > -- > xxxxx > Kxx > -- > > > -- > AKxxx > Axx > -- > >Hearts trumps. South on lead, claims all but one of the last, saying >"I've got five hearts and two diamonds". West, however, has all three >missing hearts but is void in diamonds. So, saying "South thinks he >doesn't have a heart loser, so we force him to play that way", you >make South play all his hearts from the top, with the result that West >is endplayed and South gets all but one trick anyway. > >Is this the correct ruling? If not, how is it different from the 7NT >hand we're all discussing? > > -- Adam > The claim was clear. Play Hs, then Ds. 71A makes the outcome clear. He loses a H, but not a D. We do not make him play 2 top H and then 3 Diamonds. Not to take the Ruff and discard *is* irrational. Nice example where the claimer gets "saved" by his sloppy claim. Cheers John. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 20:35:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA06660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:35:16 +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 UAA06655 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:35:10 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990107093459.LCIA6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 01:34:59 -0800 Message-ID: <36948097.6218D7DA@home.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 01:38:31 -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: Here's another one References: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm sure Jesper will have no problems with this one (a sloppy claimer is a sloppy player)! :-)) I think it's very tough, but am inclined to proceed along these lines: a) The claim is accompanied by a stated, rational, line of play considering he beleives he has AKQJ6 of hearts, so we follow this line. b) If hearts are in reality 5-0, declarer will think they are 4-0 and even after 3 top hearts he is still "asleep" and should play the DJ on which he expects the HT to fall, When he follows with Hx from dummy someone will "wake him up". I would now find it irrational to continue the original line (playing DJ to DK then Dx to DA, even though it would succeed if DQ single or doubleton), which anyway de facto has been abanded by "shifting" to diamonds at trick 4, and allow declarer to state one new line. Since he by now as per L70B2 sees all the cards, let's assume he "finds" the DQ if that is possible (he cannot handle DQxxx with LHO due lack of reentry to his hand). I now look for other "normal" lines that will fail. We now enter a grey area that depends on the level of player and on how far you are willing to take the "principle of empty spaces". If declarer is good+ and RHO is the one void in hearts, I might be inclined to allow him to find the DQ with RHO. In all other cases, I'd let opponents score the DQ (if possible) plus whatever spades they can take. Of course if declarer prefers to take a new line that gives up on the contract but ensures 11 tricks, I would allow that too, but not after I ruled on the new attempt to take 13 tricks. He gets one shot at a new line, then I adjudicate. c) If hearts are in reality 4-1, he will think they are 3-1. If they are x/JTxx he will think it's x/Txx and should continue as above, but I'm somewhat less inclined to allow successful "empty spaces" based plays when only one spade gone and clubs not yet tested. If they are T/Jxxx he will think it's T/xxx, and situation is the same. If however they are J/Txxx, he will wake up already when playing HA. I would now consider it irrational to continue hearts and would allow him to play clubs (plus one more heart, but retaining the heart-communication) if he so wishes. If this creates a very convincing "empty spaces" argument for finding the successful line, I might allow it (again subject level of declarer). d) If hearts are really 3-2 it is not "irrational" to continue hearts, followed by the clubs, and then attempt to find the DQ, since now he only needs 3 diamond tricks. But here L70E applies, and is very specific. It doesn't allow him to find the DQ (a particular card) on *any* new line of play, without the qualification of L70D that only "normal" lines can be considered. It might make bridge sense to allow him to find the DQ if originally 4th or 5th (since after 10 tricks at least one diamond has been discarded), or if singleton, but it seems L70E precludes us from doing this. Am I misreading it? Can we do it anyway by referring back to L70A (equity)? DS can, but I of course cannot do the latter after having taken the position that L70A says that we are adjudicating equitably by applying L70E! :-) Finally, is it only I who think L70B2 should be changed so that opponents don't face their cards b4 TD has exhausted eventual new lines of play from claimer? It would make L70D much easier to apply if claimer had to state a new line single-dummy. As it is, I feel we have to be (unneccesarily?)suspicious of any new, succesful, line. Grattan?! Would such a change have any drawbacks? David Burn wrote: > > Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: > > A > 5432 > K32 > AKQJ10 > > 432 > AKQJ6 > A109 > 32 > > The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. > > Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he believes to be the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How would you adjudicate his claim? (Show your working, assuming various diamond layouts, and be very sure that it is consistent with your views in the "Claim" thread, since these are now a matter of record.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 21:15:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:15:13 +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 VAA06703 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:15:06 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA24124 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:14:12 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 7 Jan 99 10:14 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Here's another one 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: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> David Burn wrote: > > Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: > > A > 5432 > K32 > AKQJ10 > > 432 > AKQJ6 > A109 > 32 > > The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcing > that he will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. > > Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he > believes to be the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How > would you adjudicate his claim? (Show your working, assuming various > diamond layouts, and be very sure that it is consistent with your views > in the "Claim" thread, since these are now a matter of record.) I decide that declarer *will* notice at trick 5 (just before playing the "HJ") that it is a diamond but that he has not noticed who followed suit. He will then play 5 clubs (throwing 2S+1D) and the final heart and then take a second round diamond finesse into the wrong hand. He makes if hearts are 3-2 and the DQ is singleton. I assume that oppos keep sufficient diamonds to make a misguess rational so he will probably be one or 2 light. The diamond misguess is exactly the sort of "doubtful point" I think should be resolved against declarer (even if he can count diamonds 5-2 and the queen is in the long hand). To my mind a doubt is different to a "remote possibility". Suppose you have a declarer who is notorious for revoking (average 1 hand in ten) we would surely not rule his claim invalid because if played out he might revoke yet the chances of declarer going wrong in many of these threads is, IMO, substantially less than that. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 21:15:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:15:13 +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 VAA06704 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:15:07 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA24141 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:14:14 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 7 Jan 99 10:14 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Another claim example 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: <9901061809.aa29627@flash.irvine.com> Adam wrote: > > > OK, for everyone who said "Declarer thinks he has five heart tricks so > we'll force him to play that way", how would you deal with this claim? > > -- > xxxxx > Kxx > -- > > > -- > AKxxx > Axx > -- > > Hearts trumps. South on lead, claims all but one of the last, saying > "I've got five hearts and two diamonds". West, however, has all three > missing hearts but is void in diamonds. So, saying "South thinks he > doesn't have a heart loser, so we force him to play that way", you > make South play all his hearts from the top, with the result that West > is endplayed and South gets all but one trick anyway. > > Is this the correct ruling? If not, how is it different from the 7NT > hand we're all discussing? In this example south will make whether or not he *notices* the unplanned for heart split. However, if we allow that he notices the heart split he will make (assuming some basic competence) even if West is doubleton in diamonds. HAK,DAK another is not compatible with either his careless claim or a rational line if he notices the flaw. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 21:50:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:50:02 +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 VAA06794 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:49:55 +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 KAA14640 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:49:18 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 KAA14085 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:48:30 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990107114917.007b3ce0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 11:49:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Here's another one In-Reply-To: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:23 07/01/99 +0000, David Burn wrote: >Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: > >A >5432 >K32 >AKQJ10 > >432 >AKQJ6 >A109 >32 > >The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. > >Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he believes to be >the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How would you adjudicate his >claim? (Show your working, assuming various diamond layouts, and be very sure that >it is consistent with your views in the "Claim" thread, since these are now a >matter of record.) That's how I would try to adjudicate this one, hoping never to be in this difficult situation in real life: Declarer (South), according to his claim statement, cashes hearts, from the top (the 6 would be irrational), and as playing anyone of the 4 tops first, would be rationnal, I make him begin with the one least favorable for him: J. West contributes a diamond, dummy a heart and when attention is drawn to the revoke, declarer wakes up and knows about DJ. From this point, South has three possible lines which I consider to qualify for "rational" (either finesse of DQ, no finesse), so I choose for him one which fails. Result 7NT failing (exact number of tricks depending on location of DQ and reartition of spades) except specific case of stiff DQ with West. I think it would not be impossible to convince me to adopt a different approach. JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 7 22:17:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:17:15 +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 WAA06893 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:17:01 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zyDQo-0003bo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:16:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 03:46:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke and Claim: another wrinkle References: <199901062308.SAA16815@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199901062308.SAA16815@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Gordon Bower >> What I am asking is: suppose the defender who did not revoke says "yes, I >> agree declarer has the rest" , before the revoker confesses. >[assuming the revoke was on the last trick and not otherwise established] > >Isn't this easy if we RTFLB? > >L68B says no concession has occurred if revoker "immediately objects." >Otherwise, a concession has occurred. > >The revoke is established if and only if a concession has occurred >(L63A3). > >What am I missing? You are confusing concessions and acquiescence. When declarer [or a defender] claims, the opposition either acquiesce or they contest it. That is what happened here. A concession is where you decide to make a claim that includes your side losing one or more tricks. -- 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 Jan 7 22:17:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:17:13 +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 WAA06891 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:17:00 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zyDQo-0003bp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:16:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 03:51:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert References: <199901061248.MAA20699@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >>But who was going to call the TD? > >East. He was the only one who had any reason to believe that the >irregularity might result in damage to his side, or, for that matter, make >any difference whatsoever. [s] >It shouldn't be in N-S's interest to call the TD, as there is no way N-S >could have been damaged by the irregularity. They may do so (L9B1(b)), but >in real life the burden is assumed to be on the side that feels that the >irregularity might cause them damage for which they might seek redress. If you read L75D it is fairly clear that in MI cases the players giving the MI are expected to call the TD. I think the burden of calling the TD as you put it is part of the basic problem. Far better is to call the TD yourself when you have committed an infraction. -- 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 Jan 7 22:17:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:17:15 +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 WAA06895 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:17:03 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zyDQs-0003bo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:16:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:15:55 +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 Grattan wrote: >_____________________ David wrote ------------------- >> What we have disagreed over is whether you ask claimer for a fresh >> line. Of course, there are many cases where claimer has added things, >> made extraneous remarks and so on. As in any other situation, the TD >> uses all the information that comes his way, and L70D tells him how. >++++ Tilting at windmills. Did I inadvertently say something about asking >claimer for a fresh line? I have been talking about his volunteering one, and >I think a couple of my posts make this clear enough. The Director does not >initiate a variation of the claimer's line, claimer does. That is where we differ. Look, currently people are arguing about what happens when the statement of claim is "Playing the trumps". Now, without going in to the arguments, some argue that you have to play all the rounds of trumps, come hell, high water or anything else: some don't. Let us suppose as a premise that you do not believe that all the trumps have to be played despite the statement. OK, so as a TD, what do you do if you decide that you are not going to force declarer to play all the trumps? You have suggested that you seek new information *from claimer*: I just make a decision *without* asking claimer to state a fresh line. You are *now* suggesting you do not ask claimer for a fresh line. Please explain what you meant by: >The Director is not to introduce and allow claimer a successful line >that claimer has not proposed; the law does not give him that power. if you are not asking claimer and you are not allowing the TD to do it, then who are you asking? This is the basic disagreement. I believe the Law *does* give the TD the power to introduce a fresh line. Let us go back to "A Strange Claim" where the arguments eventually convinced me and the majority. Declarer claimed a number of tricks in clubs, diamonds and spades, not noticing a club blockage. For a variety of reasons, the final answer that convinced some of us [and, to be fair, was the view of the majority of posters all through] was that in practice declarer would discover the club blockage and then would do the most logical thing, namely play a heart towards KJ in dummy. That is what it was decided that the ruling should have been - a fresh line introduced by the TD/AC. No-one [not even you] suggested we should go back to declarer and say "When you discover a club blockage, what do you do next?" All right, in this last post you are saying you would not do so either - but the alternative is that you *must* allow the TD to come up with his variation when the original line breaks down, and that is what we have been arguing about ever since the post quoted above. Even in this last post you say >The Director does not >initiate a variation of the claimer's line, claimer does. and that is 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 Thu Jan 7 22:17:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:17:14 +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 WAA06892 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:17:01 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zyDQo-0003bm-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:16:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 03:44:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke and Claim: another wrinkle References: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B31@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: >Declarer claims. > >If *both* defenders have no objections we score it up. If either defender >says "no, wait a minute" we call the director and use L70. (68D - any >player may object to a claim.) > >We have been discussing what happens when one of the defender says not >just "no, wait a minute," but "no, wait a minute, I revoked on the trick >we just played." If this happens we correct the not-yet-established >revoke, and then tear out our hair trying to adjudicate a claim based on >misinformation from the revoker's play to the previous trick. > >What I am asking is: suppose the defender who did not revoke says "yes, I >agree declarer has the rest" , before the revoker confesses. > >From 68D, we still will have to go through 70 because one player (the >revoker) has challenged the claim; and we still have to deal with the >revoke. I am thinking that it might be a good idea to treat the revoke as >established now, since revoker's partner has, in effect, "played" to the >remaining tricks by attempting to acquiesce to declarers's claim. Well, I am sorry, but you cannot make up laws like this [even reasonable ones!]. L45 describes how cards are "played", and it does not include acquiescing in a claim. So we shall have to examine the Laws. Now, what establishes a revoke? Leading or playing to the next trick - nope, didn't happen. Designating a play - nope - making a claim or concession - nope - acquiescing in a claim or concession - aha! His partner acquiesced in a claim by agreeing to it! Yes! No! No? Well, initially acquiescence apparently occurred when partner agreed to the claim, but you raised an objection ["I've revoked": you are objecting to the claim because it would establish your revoke] and once you have objected then acquiescence has not occurred. It is a funny Law, but it is clear: L69A. Of course, it has to be in time, but we are dealing with pd saying "OK" and you saying "There's a small snag ...". So acquiescence has not occurred and your revoke is not established, and it is not relevant which came first - your statement or your partner's. A final thought: L69A refers to a contestant assenting and then raising an objection: can you object to your partner's assenting? [I nearly wrote ascension, but I don't think that is right!] Yes, because the Law refers to a contestant, and a pair is a contestant, or part of one. If you really want a silly thread you should consider the case of dissension between two partners as to whether to assent to a claim in an **individual** event - think about it! >A claim after an established revoke seems to be less messy: we can use >L64C if necessary to assign a score based on what should have happened if >the whole sorry affair had never occurred, which is not one of our options >if we look only at L70. (Only using L64C, of course, in cases when >declarer's claim blows up in his face so badly in ligt of the new >information that the automatic revoke penalty is not sufficient.) I am not suggesting my way is less messy: it is terribly messy, but it is what the Law says. >I hope this is clerer. There's no answer to that! -- 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 Jan 7 22:17:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:17:58 +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 WAA06945 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:17:49 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zyDRc-0003lP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:17:42 +0000 Message-ID: <0cnkmvC9lCl2EwOA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 03:26:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: More Claim References: <36941EA0.B7FAF4B7@worldnet.att.net> In-Reply-To: <36941EA0.B7FAF4B7@worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Kopera wrote: >I'm coming late to this discussion, but it seems if we are going to >allow spades to be played first (presumably in the order stated in the >claim), I don't see why clubs aren't played next (with S discarding 3 >H's and a D on the spades), with the Ace of hearts to come last. If the >Ace of hearts isn't played, there is no showup squeeze. Yes, declarer is >allowed to notice the 6-0 club break and not have to try to cash the >sixth--12 tricks only. I wasn't coming into this thread, but I feel I should prove I am still awake. The small problem with your analysis, Michael, is that there was a heart lead, after which it is difficult to retain the singleton ace. ------- I seem to be having Fax problems from other countries, so if one or two of you that are not in the UK like to send a Fax to +44 870 055 7697 it would be appreciated. Please send me an email as well, so I can see whether it made it or not because I know the Fax has been sent. A bit of text in the Fax please! -- 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 Jan 7 22:36:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:36:21 +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 WAA06966 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:36:15 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 0zyDjQ-0006v8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:36:04 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990107122936.00a47660@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 12:29:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Revoke and claim In-Reply-To: References: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B32@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B32@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 19:17 06-01-99 +0000, you wrote: >Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) wrote: > >>You (and most of the other contributors to this thread) seem to assume that >>S can "not accept the claim". The only thing he can do is dispute losing >>the claimed tricks. Since L68D states that play ceases, IMO it is not >>possible to correct the revoke since such correction is part of the play. >>Therefore it seems reasonable to argue that the revoke automatically gets >>established by the claim. I would be interested in any arguments for >>correcting the revoke without penalty. > > L63 says what establishes a revoke. Opponents' claims do not. > >>It is also possible that after one defender revokes, it is not declarer who >>claims but the other defender who concedes all tricks (i.e. makes a claim). >>In this case the revoke is definitely established and penalised. > > If partner makes a claim or concession, L63 says this does establish >the revoke - fine. > Dont we have to use 68B then, if PD (and revoker) protests against the claim ??? and conclude the revok still isnt established?? regards, anton > >-- >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 ~ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 00:02:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 00:02:54 +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 AAA07274 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 00:02:47 +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 NAA29040 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:02:33 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 NAA22022 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:02:29 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA20944 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:02:27 GMT Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:02:27 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199901071302.NAA20944@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A reminder of the original problem. >>W N E S >>1C X* 3C X** * = takeout. ** = responsive, not alerted >>P 3D P P >>?P ? = asked about South's X: told "responsive" >> >>This was in EBUland where South's responsive double should be >>alerted. >> >>At the end of the hand (3D=), East calls the TD and says he >>would bid 4C if the double had been alerted; 4C makes (!). >> Thanks for the various and varied responses. I'm sorry I can't give you the hands, vulnerability, but this came up in conversation in a car before Christmas. John writes: > > > >Should the TD fail to adjust if he thinks East should > >have known to call the TD after North's answer to West's > >question? > > > I think not, NS caused the problem, and I think L10B applies > > I'd rule to 4C=. NS should have corrected the MI and didn't before the > opening lead. Nice problem. Cheers John > -- But NS have corrected the MI by the end of the auction, its just that no one has pointed out that there was MI (due to failure to alert) until North gave the correct answer to West's question. It was too late (at the end of the auction) for East to change his bid, as West had passed. In practice, West passed quite quickly after the answer to the question, so there was not long for East to call the TD in time to change his call. In my opinion, if East is going to ask for a ruling at the end of the hand then I think he should call the TD, even if West has passed. But East will get his double shot, whether the TD is called at the end of the auction or at the end of the had; as long as the TD is not called before West passes. If the TD asked East what he would have called, he will say "4C", and if the result of 4C is no better than defending 3C then there is no damage and there will no adjustment. EW can not get a worse score by West saying he would have bid 4C. To me, it is clearly advantageous for NS to call the TD before West's final pass. Given that North is asleep (or does not know the alerting regulations), it is up to South. As far as I can tell, L75D2 prohibits this. L75D2. Error Noticed by Explainer's Partner A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; a defender may not correct the error until play ends. After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous. South can not point out partner's failure to alert (before the explanation) and there is nothing in L75 which suggests he can point out partner's error once partner has made an explanation which contradicts the failure to alert. Lets turn the problem around: W N E S 1C X* 3C X** * = takeout. ** = penalties, not alerted (correctly) P 3D P P ?P ? = asked about South's X: told (by North) "responsive" How the failure to alert is not an error, North has given a mistaken explanation. Again, North's explanation contradicts his failure to alert. Does anyone think that South can point out the misinformation before the end of auction? Is this example significantly different from the original? Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 00:15:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 00:15:31 +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 AAA09605 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 00:15:24 +1100 Received: from p58s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.89] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zyFHQ-0004WV-00; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:15:16 +0000 Message-ID: <000701be3a3f$5a8b93c0$598a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , Subject: Re: Claim Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:23:07 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 07 January 1999 01:04 Subject: Re: Claim On 06/01/99, at 21:42, Grattan wrote: >+++ I think it a close run thing whether the fresh development >in the suit break can be regarded as cause for deeming the stated line >to have become irrational; it depends IMO on things about the >claimer's statement that I have not seen. ~ Grattan ~ +++ I thought this was close also; if I were bothered one way or the other, I would claim it as a vote for my side rather than a vote against. After all, in the way I posed the initial problem, declarer had claimed "five heart tricks" in the belief that he had those tricks (very close to what happened in the original case, if anyone can remember that far back). Grattan "has not seen" those things about the statement that he would wish to see because it was not a real case - I made it up. I did this because it seems important to me that we, as a group, should be able to produce an interpretation of the Laws relating to claims that will cover all possible cases - "God's algorithm", for those who know what that means. As those who, with inexhaustible patience, have followed this thread will know, this group is a very long way from being able to lay down a single principle that will serve as a guide in all possible cases. We cannot even resolve the more or less trivial case that began this thread. The primary reason for our inability to do this appears to me to lie in our different interpretations of the word "irrational" as it occurs in the footnotes to Laws 68 through 70 (and perhaps beyond). I believe that if there existed a working definition for this word - by which I mean a definition that is objective in the context of the Laws of the game - then real progress could be made. ++++ I shall note the problem; if you have a problem with 'irrational' it ill behoves me to deny it, although for me 'irrational' is a word that is quite specific, meaning devoid of rationality, out of kilter with reason, and I think in the bridge context this has to be taken quite literally, if the action is devoid of all reason it is irrational. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 00:22:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 00:22:58 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA09659 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 00:22:47 +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 IAA12012 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:22:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990107082330.0070f650@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 08:23:30 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example In-Reply-To: <199901061600300900.0035F485@mail.btinternet.com> References: <368F46C2.B4A0286F@village.uunet.be> <199901040054430500.1CFB1E40@mail.btinternet.com> <3690B29C.87402275@village.uunet.be> <199901041504390510.20055F78@mail.btinternet.com> <369211E9.80812DBE@village.uunet.be> <199901061553030750.002F21AF@mail.btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:00 PM 1/6/99 +0000, dburn wrote: >Oh, well. Next time I come to a Belgian tournament and have a difficult play problem, I will know what to do. I'll call Herman (and David Stevenson) to the table and spread my hand, claiming as many tricks as I can make. > >"How many is that, then?" >"I don't know. I'm too careless to work it out. But, if you'd like to suggest a few normal lines of play for me, then tell me at which points they will fail and become irrational, I'll pick the one that I would have followed in actual play." "We'll be happy to suggest a few normal lines of play, but we don't care which one you would have followed in actual play. You will be scored as making the fewest number of tricks produced by any of them." I suspect it will take David quite some time, using this strategy, to win the equivalent of Life Master rank in Belgium. 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 Jan 8 00:29:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 00:29:58 +1100 Received: from nbrmr1001.ac.com (NBRMR1001.ac.com [170.252.248.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA09717 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 00:29:52 +1100 Received: from emehm1101.ac.com ([170.252.192.148]) by nbrmr1001.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA29784 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 07:30:49 -0600 (CST) Received: by emehm1101.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id 862566F2.0049EA4B ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 07:27:19 -0600 X-Lotus-FromDomain: AC_TELEKOM@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING From: "Christian Farwig" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <862566F2.0049E6A4.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:09:35 +0100 Subject: Re: Here's another one Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: A 5432 K32 AKQJ10 432 AKQJ6 A109 32 The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he believes to be the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How would you adjudicate his claim?<< Simple one ;-). I allow declarer to draw all spades, heart and club-tricks he can get (I think it is irrational not to cash the fourth heart if they are breaking. He also gets two diamonds, but that's it. He is not allowed to take the finesse and he is also not allowed to drop the queen if she's doubleton - I will always assume that he finesses the wrong way around. That's 11-12 tricks for me. Christian n n n n From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 00:47:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 00:47:22 +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 AAA09791 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 00:47:15 +1100 Received: from p11s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.18] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zyFmH-0006Ea-00; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:47:09 +0000 Message-ID: <003e01be3a43$cef2efc0$598a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , Subject: Re: Claim Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:41:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 07 January 1999 01:04 Subject: Re: Claim =================== \x/ =================== I did this because it seems important to me that we, as a group, should be able to produce an interpretation of the Laws relating to claims that will cover all possible cases - "God's algorithm", for those who know what that means. As those who, with inexhaustible patience, have followed this thread will know, this group is a very long way from being able to lay down a single principle that will serve as a guide in all possible cases. We cannot even resolve the more or less trivial case that began this thread. ===================== \x/ ================== ++++ It may be of interest to note that leading WBF and zonal personalities in Zones 1&2 are now looking at a proposal by which under the umbrella of the WBF a 'jurisprudence' would be developed that would be the basis for decisions of appeals committees world-wide, in all NBOs and international organisations. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 01:05:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 01:05:45 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f176.hotmail.com [207.82.251.62]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA09861 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 01:05:37 +1100 Received: (qmail 8725 invoked by uid 0); 7 Jan 1999 14:04:55 -0000 Message-ID: <19990107140455.8724.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 07 Jan 1999 06:04:54 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, dburn@btinternet.com Subject: Re: Here's another one Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 06:04:54 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: > >A >5432 >K32 >AKQJ10 > >432 >AKQJ6 >A109 >32 > >The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcing= > that he will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. > >Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he believes= > to be the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How would you= > adjudicate his claim? (Show your working, assuming various diamond= > layouts, and be very sure that it is consistent with your views in the= > "Claim" thread, since these are now a matter of record.) Isn't there a Latin expression for this sort of argument? I think I know what it is, but I'm not going to make a fool of myself by mis-spelling it. I've been following this thread with some interest (and a lot of patience), amazed, really, that it has managed to drag on for so long. It seems blindingly obvious to me that if someone makes a claim, they're saying what they are going to do. Whilst it is perfectly acceptable to include conditions in a claim, one wouldn't accept them post facto. If you hold A K Q x x opposite x x x x in a suit and don't play the Ace before claiming five tricks in the suit, you are being careless. Being ruled against, quite properly if you ask me (although nobody ever does), might stop you doing something so stupid again, and might also save everybody a whole lot of time. Two further points: 1 - Happy New Year 2 - Please can someone send David Burn some tablets for his blood pressure, as his goat appears to be well and truly got. Perhaps I'm missing something, but he seems to have been making sense from the outset. Is everybody just picking on him? Regards Norman ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 01:05:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 01:05:47 +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 BAA09866 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 01:05:41 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA13451 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:05:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990107090648.00722bac@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 09:06:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Here's another one In-Reply-To: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:23 AM 1/7/99 +0000, dburn wrote: >Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: > >A >5432 >K32 >AKQJ10 > >432 >AKQJ6 >A109 >32 > >The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. > >Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he believes to be the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How would you adjudicate his claim? (Show your working, assuming various diamond layouts, and be very sure that it is consistent with your views in the "Claim" thread, since these are now a matter of record.) He claimed with top tricks, so I will allow him to cash his top tricks. When he plays hearts, he will start with A, K, Q. Either he will have then noticed that he doesn't have the HJ, or he will play the DJ still thinking it's the HJ, and will then be forced to notice his error when he is required to follow with a diamond from dummy. Since L70E prevents the finesse, he will win the DK and continue cashing winners. Of course, if W shows out on the DJ, I will rule that he might not have played the DJ at the point, so he is not entitled to get the suit right. He gets one spade, three or four hearts depending on whether they are 3-2, two or three diamonds depending on whether the queen drops in two rounds, and five clubs: 11, 12 or 13 tricks depending on the lie. 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 Jan 8 01:28:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 01:28:10 +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 BAA09964 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 01:28:04 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA14379 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:26:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990107092836.007260e4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 09:28:36 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990106214516.006cf01c@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> <199901061248.MAA20699@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:45 PM 1/6/99 -0500, Michael wrote: >But this is _NOT_ an 11A situation. That applies when the NOS gains through >subsequent action taken _by an opponent_ (in this case NS) in ignorance of >the penalty, not by either action or inaction by the NOS themselves. My view is that the NOS gained because the OS, in ignorance of the proper penalty for the NOS's infraction, failed to call the TD as soon as the infraction was revealed. >Your argument that the burden for calling the TD will usually fall on the >NOS "in real life" is true only insofar as the NOS generally have the more >obvious interest to protect. But the Laws stipulate no such division of >responsibility. The director must be summoned when there is an evident >irregularity in the auction, and any of the players may do so. L9B1(a) says "The Director must be summoned", but L9B1(b) says that "Any player... *may* summon", and L11A provides only for penalizing (by forfeiting the right to a penalty against the other side) the NOS for a failure to do so. It doesn't make sense to expect the OS to be the ones to take positive action to protect the NOS's rights, nor, necessarily, to understand that the laws might be interpreted in such a way that they, too, have rights that might need protecting. >In this case, both sides actually had interests to protect. Either West or >East could have realized that they might be risking the right to bid 4C by >failing to act, and that they might or might not get a favorable hearing if >they waited until after the hand to try and make that call. But likewise, >South had an interest to protect, as events proved. By calling the TD and >forcing EW to make the choice before seeing the hands, he could have >guarded against the "double shot" he was so quick to pin on East. Exactly. Had South understood the implications of the penalty provisions, he would have known that he might well have been better off to call the TD immediately; "South had an interest to protect". But he presumably didn't understand all that, and his failure to call the TD was an "action... taken in ignorance of the penalty". >I agree in principle that the NOS do and should, as a matter of equity, >forfeit the right to redress in some situations when they fail to summon >the TD at the appropriate time. And if the TD in the present situation >judges 4C to be an unlikely action (absent the UI), then no harm and no foul. Had 4C by East been a "likely" action, why wouldn't East, as soon as the infraction was revealed (which occurred during the auction period, before the opening lead), say something like "But if I had known that I might not have passed -- Director, please!" (or simply called the TD). I'd be hard-pressed to believe that he really wanted to bid 4C all along but waited until after the hand to say so. 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 Jan 8 01:29:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 01:29:27 +1100 Received: from mpcmr1002.ac.com (MPCMR1002.ac.com [170.252.160.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09984 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 01:29:21 +1100 Received: from emehm1101.ac.com (EMEHM1101.ac.com [10.2.102.45]) by mpcmr1002.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA16121 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:27:19 -0600 (CST) Received: by emehm1101.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id 862566F2.004F59E6 ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:26:43 -0600 X-Lotus-FromDomain: AC_TELEKOM@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING From: "Christian Farwig" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <862566F2.004F53B1.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:44:36 +0100 Subject: Re: Here's another one Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>He makes if hearts are 3-2 and the DQ is singleton. I assume that oppos keep sufficient diamonds to make a misguess rational so he will probably be one or 2 light. The diamond misguess is exactly the sort of "doubtful point" I think should be resolved against declarer (even if he can count diamonds 5-2 and the queen is in the long hand)<< I think that your solution has a slight flaw. To cash a high diamond first is good play, but to omit this is not irrational. Therefore this precaution should not be allowed for declarer. Even with a single-Q, he has to lose a diamond-trick. Christian n n n n From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 02:19:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:19:30 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA10307 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:19:17 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-246.uunet.be [194.7.9.246]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA20431 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:19:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3694CD10.14C9B261@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 16:04:48 +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: Here's another one References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > > I decide that declarer *will* notice at trick 5 (just before playing the > "HJ") that it is a diamond but that he has not noticed who followed suit. > He will then play 5 clubs (throwing 2S+1D) and the final heart and then > take a second round diamond finesse into the wrong hand. He makes if > hearts are 3-2 and the DQ is singleton. I assume that oppos keep > sufficient diamonds to make a misguess rational so he will probably be > one or 2 light. > I realise my "line" of playing the diamond jack because he did not notice it was not a heart was inspired in having him notice as late as possible. Now if that line actually leads to the slam making, then surely it will be right to actually have him notice sooner, ie when he wants to play it as his fourth heart. > The diamond misguess is exactly the sort of "doubtful point" I think > should be resolved against declarer (even if he can count diamonds 5-2 > and the queen is in the long hand). > Probably correcter ruling than mine. I realise I could now intercept my message, but I won't. I'm not worried about being caught out. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 02:19:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:19:30 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA10308 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:19:18 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-246.uunet.be [194.7.9.246]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA20449 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:19:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3694CDDD.8EE0D348@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 16:08:13 +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: More Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > > I'd normally allow this claim (and the original one if Herman's still > counting). > That's 5 (JD,DB,JP,AW,V) against - 4 (CS,HDW,AF,TWM) for . > Claims are good for the game, they should be encouraged as far as possible > within the laws. > Indeed -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 02:19:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:19:28 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA10303 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:19:16 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-246.uunet.be [194.7.9.246]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA20358 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:18:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 15:32:53 +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 - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > > >Does everybody understand the difference between the two > >discussions ? > > I am not sure that I understand it - at least, not in the context of the hands under discussion. OK, let me try again. In my following post, I will assume claimer is declarer. The same applies, mutadis mutandis, to defenders, but the argument is less likely to occur. During the play of the hand, a declarer will at some point reach a position in which he realises that play is over. This is quite often illustrated by commentators on rama as, "declarer is coming forwards - play is about to end". At this moment in time, the careful declarer will embark on a thought process which I will call the DFLOP - the "Determination of the Final Line Of Play". This DFLOP will include the determination of the order in which the different suits will be played, taking care of blockages and so on. Sometimes the DFLOP is easy, but every once in a while, it takes some careful planning. After the DFLOP, declarer can find himself in one of four positions : A - he can realise that the play is actually not finished yet, and play on, trying to find the last clues he needs; B - he can realise he has a 100% line, and then he should claim; C - he can think he has a 100% line, but not be 100% certain of it, in which case he will play on, and will have to explain afterwards why he did not claim; or D - he can realise that there are tricks he is willing to concede, which might still come through, by very fortunate positions, or by defensive error, in which case he can also play on. That is what a careful declarer will do. However, every once in while, a careless declarer will claim before he has finished the DFLOP. Jesper calls this "rude", David finds it is irrational, but it quite often happens nevertheless. The case of a declarer being in 4Sp where he thinks he has 13 tricks is a good example. Such a declarer will quite often claim before the DFLOP. How do we deal with such a claim? Well, such a declarer will quite often fail to give a complete claim statement. That means we should find all "normal" lines, and that means we should do the DFLOP in place of declarer. Again we might reach one of the four positions. If the position is B-, we will allow the claim. If it is C-, we should also allow the claim. Even if actual declarer would not claim but play on, he would do so "not irrationally", and he will make his contract. If the position is D-, we will of course do the same as if he were in fact claiming after all, which means he will get any tricks that could not be lost by any "normal" play. And if the position is A-, the careless claimer will now lose the benefit of playing on, and will get his claim if all normal lines work, but lose the claim if any normal line fails. That, IMO, is the position that claimers in this original post, and in the strange claim of 2 years ago, were in. They had claimed before DFLOPping ! Now I agree that if this declarer DFLOPs, and then comes up with the strange statement, "I play all the hearts", then he should be held to that. But Occam's razor tells me that these declarers did not DFLOP. After all, their statements make no sense if they have thought the case through. That is why I think David and I have this argument. David thinks that this declarer was acting after DFLOPping when he stated, "I play all the trumps". I am convinced that he did not DFLOP at all. I wonder how David would rule this case if declarer, in disgust after seeing they stopped in 2Hearts with 13 tricks, would rule the case if declarer just puts down his cards and says "13 tricks". L70D says that he gets the worst of all "normal" lines, and playing 4 heart tricks is surely not a "normal" line. This defender now has thought to add some statement and (quite necessarily, IMO) has added that he plays trumps first. To add to the confusion, he has not said "I play trumps first", which may well satisfy David, Jesper and even Roger, but he has added an extra "all" in his statement. Suddenly, 5 directors jump down his throat and force him to play irrationally, because he has indicated an irrational line in claiming. Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying that this is how the case actually went. For all we know, the actual ruling never happened at any table, so we could not ask anyone about the real facts. All I am saying is that the scarce words about the case lead me to think this is what happened : -Declarer has the intuition that he has all tricks -Declarer did not DFLOP -Declarer claimed, and added a word too many in his claim statement. I don't see in any of this any kind of proof that the irrational line, as some would have this fellow play, now falls within the bounds of "careless or inferior for the class of player involved". Of course, if anything at the table may lead to the opposite conclusion, I will fully support David's ruling. But David has no proof either that that is what happened. Is the distinction between claiming before or after the DFLOP any helpful ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 02:19:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:19:27 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA10302 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:19:16 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-246.uunet.be [194.7.9.246]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA20423 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:19:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3694CC2C.96935D80@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 16:01:00 +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: Here's another one References: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> <36948097.6218D7DA@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: (good analysis, and quite close to mine IMO) > > Finally, is it only I who think L70B2 should be changed so that > opponents don't face their cards b4 TD has exhausted eventual new lines > of play from claimer? It would make L70D much easier to apply if claimer > had to state a new line single-dummy. As it is, I feel we have to be > (unneccesarily?)suspicious of any new, succesful, line. > Grattan?! Would such a change have any drawbacks? > No need ! If declarer finds a line that does not succeed, his claim is bad anyway. If he finds a line - open cards or not - and there is another bad line, his claim is also bad. Are you thinking about cases where the correct line might be too difficult for claimer to find ? And yet there to be no other normal line ? Far too rare an occurence to merit a Law change IMO. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 02:19:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:19:26 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA10301 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:19:14 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-246.uunet.be [194.7.9.246]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA20407 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:19:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3694CAF1.F8A77591@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 15:55:45 +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: Here's another one References: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I will not stray from my position as the main argumentor and so I will tackle what David Burn wrote: > > Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: > > A > 5432 > K32 > AKQJ10 > > 432 > AKQJ6 > A109 > 32 > > The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. > > Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he believes to be the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How would you adjudicate his claim? (Show your working, assuming various diamond layouts, and be very sure that it is consistent with your views in the "Claim" thread, since these are now a matter of record.) I don't think this is hard at all. We now have a reason for the bad claim, and in contrast to the others, this is not a "claim before DFLOPping" (I hope you have read my other post already in which I introduce the DFLOP) So we must assume that declarer continues to see the jack of hearts as a jack of diamonds until some later point in the play. When ? Well, I would not count the falling of the heart jack as one way of waking up. Since declarer has 9 hearts with four tops, he is not looking for the high cards, rather for the discards. I will be very harsh and not to count the playing of the diamond jack to the fourth heart trick as one either. I will have declarer play the hearts from top. So the actual line is : 2: Heart to the Ace, 3: Heart King, 4: Heart Queen, 5: Diamond Jack. What happens now ? A- West covers with the Queen. Either declarer notices, or he doesn't, in which case he plays a small heart and they are bound to tell him what happens. (in case someone says that declarer, stating only "small", now intends the play of a small diamond - L46B3, I take out L46B and read "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" - by stating small, declarer incontrovertibly wants a small heart, so by L47B, he may now change this call) Declarer plays the King of Diamonds to this trick and will make 1 spade, 3 hearts, 4 diamonds, and 5 clubs = 13 tricks. So of course : B- West does not cover. Again declarer is forced to now notice he has played a diamond. He should now recap - did hearts fall 3-2 ? Then he has 12 certain tricks (1Sp, 4He, 2Di, 5Cl), and he can make 7 on the finesse. If they did not, he has only 11 (1Sp, 3He, 2Di, 5Cl) and the repeated finesse will bring in 13 tricks. I don't think any method of calculation will make declarer play for anything less than 13 tricks. Would playing for the drop now be a normal line ? I bow to superior play on that one. I am tired. But you get my drift. Full analysis should of course also be made about the line of playing cubs first. All in all, I think 13 tricks if the queen is behind the jack, some big number down if it isn't. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 02:37:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:37:39 +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 CAA10412 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:37:25 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h60.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id SAA27016; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 18:37:15 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36957DFD.3273@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 19:39:42 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_TRY.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_TRY.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) What I can say - is that the concept of "Named Card is Played Card" was brought to me by my teachers when I first started to play bridge. I was explained that I could change my miswording (so during the bidding as during the card-play) ONLY if it were not words I had wanted to say before doing it (in my mind). And nothing, that happens AFTER my words (that may change my mind), may change these words: bid should stand, card/cards should be played. Maybe - it is too old-fashioned position. Moreover - now I know this was not a specific of the Laws, then or now. Nevertheless I did not ever have to question what was simply given me as part of the game. So - I can't see differences between Roger's and David's (Burn) positions - in this very case, maybe because English isn't my native language:) Best wishes Vitold P.S. Thanks to Grattan for I was able to use his wording. And sorry - for doing it without his permission:) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 02:48:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:48:55 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA10441 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:48:48 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-35.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.35]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA12663367 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:51:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3694D70C.C513E15D@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 09:47:24 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Here's another one References: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I offer an adjudication following the principles elaborated upon by Herman. The defenders protest saying that claimer will discover he can not take 5H because he does not have that many in one hand and that he will discover so after the third heart trick. That the only other source of the missing tricks is diamonds and that L70E requires that unstated play of the diamonds requires that the losing finesse must be enforced [if it is least advantageous]. Claimer did not state that he was playing any defender in particular for the DQ. They should receive the diamond Q, any spades and hearts. Ruling : principle elaborated by Herman There are 4 hearts so the claim is broken since at most 4 hearts can be produced. Therefore it is irrational to not play for diamonds to make up 13 tricks. [it is irrational to set up a spade trick so such lines are not pursued]. The clubs are solid so they are 'played' last. The condition of the fourth heart is not known, if hearts are 4-1, they will be played first [because there are adequate entries to lead toward the AJT9 twice if that is the direction of the losing diamond finesse], if 3-2 they will be played last. Since there are two ways to win extra diamond[s] [via the drop or via finesse] the diamonds shall be played to a losing finesse. The spades are cashed as well as any losing hearts that were set up by playing the AKQ. Claimer is not forced to discard irrationally. So, the point in time arrives when claimer will discover that 5H are impossible and that the original claim statement becomes 'void'. When is this? After the play of the third heart. As all the tricks must be 'won' the cashing of the fourth heart can be done later just as soon as now with the same effect. It is most disadvantageous to play hearts first so they are. After the third heart, the only rational way to achieve the missing tricks is in the diamond suit and because it would be irrational to not take those trick[s] if possible claimer is forced to attack diamonds. Since claimer has no definitive information about the DQ, he is forced to take an early first round finesse which loses [L70E]. If an entry to dummy is needed, it is the most disadvantageous which is not irrational [club ace]. Defenders get any tricks coming. Comments? Cheers Roger Pewick David Burn wrote: > > Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: > > A > 5432 > K32 > AKQJ10 > > 432 > AKQJ6 > A109 > 32 > > The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. > > Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he believes to be the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How would you adjudicate his claim? (Show your working, assuming various diamond layouts, and be very sure that it is consistent with your views in the "Claim" thread, since these are now a matter of record.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 03:17:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA10520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 03:17:28 +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 DAA10514 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 03:17:14 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-35.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.35]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA12854108 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:19:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3694DDB7.C5D7937B@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 10:15:51 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Here's another one References: <3.0.5.32.19990107114917.007b3ce0@phedre.meteo.fr> 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 LAA12854108 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre, I think you are a terrific person with an agile mind. However, Claimer did not state specifically that he believed that he held the HEART JACK. When not holding the Ace, King, AND QUEEN, the diamond jack is not a top by any stretch of any imagination=85 except yours . However= , that you are proposing so is psychological mumbo jumbo bridge lawyering and as such I do not like it. If the diamond jack is to be forced, it must be forced for some other bridge reason which is valid, not because you make claimer believe that it was the HJ when he did not say so [and even then?]. =20 Cheers, Roger Pewick Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >=20 > At 02:23 07/01/99 +0000, David Burn wrote: > >Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: > > > >A > >5432 > >K32 > >AKQJ10 > > > >432 > >AKQJ6 > >A109 > >32 > > > >The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcin= g > that he will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. > > > >Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he > believes to be >the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How > would you adjudicate his >claim? (Show your working, assuming various > diamond layouts, and be very sure that >it is consistent with your view= s in > the "Claim" thread, since these are now a >matter of record.) >=20 > That's how I would try to adjudicate this one, hoping never to be in t= his > difficult situation in real life: >=20 > Declarer (South), according to his claim statement, cashes hearts, from= the > top (the 6 would be irrational), and as playing anyone of the 4 tops fi= rst, > would be rationnal, I make him begin with the one least favorable for h= im: > J. West contributes a diamond, dummy a heart and when attention is draw= n to > the revoke, declarer wakes up and knows about DJ. From this point, Sout= h > has three possible lines which I consider to qualify for "rational" (ei= ther > finesse of DQ, no finesse), so I choose for him one which fails. > Result 7NT failing (exact number of tricks depending on location of DQ= and > reartition of spades) except specific case of stiff DQ with West. > I think it would not be impossible to convince me to adopt a different > approach. >=20 > JP Rocafort >=20 > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 >=20 > Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr > ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 04:08:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 04:08:05 +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 EAA10648 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 04:07:59 +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 MAA10126 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:07:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA17365 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:08:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:08:07 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901071708.MAA17365@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revoke and Claim: another wrinkle X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, this is more interesting than I thought. > >> What I am asking is: suppose the defender who did not revoke says "yes, I > >> agree declarer has the rest" , before the revoker confesses. > From: David Stevenson > You are confusing concessions and acquiescence. > > When declarer [or a defender] claims, the opposition either acquiesce > or they contest it. That is what happened here. > > A concession is where you decide to make a claim that includes your > side losing one or more tricks. There is no doubt that the defender's statement is (initially) an acquiescence. Actually, it is only half of an acquiescence in a pair game because the whole "contestant" must agree in order for an acquiescence to exist. (Hmmm... can an acquiescence exist in a team game before scores are compared? [Open TFLB.] Yes, it can. OK.) I am under the impression that the statement is also a concession because it offers declarer the rest of the tricks. L68B has no qualification along the line of "but only if an opponent has not yet claimed." Why can't the statement be both a concession and an acquiescence at the same time? Either way, I think we get to much the same result, but there are some subtle differences. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 04:07:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 04:07:35 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA10641 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 04:07:26 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-35.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.35]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA12984222 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:10:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3694E97B.DC0E3337@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 11:06:03 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Here's another one References: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> <3694CAF1.F8A77591@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman, I saw your subsequent post about the DJ. Does this mean that you indeed agree that in this case, L70E forbids a winning diamond finesse? I am looking forward to your critique of my adjudication in this case. Roger Pewick Herman De Wael wrote: > > I will not stray from my position as the main argumentor and > so I will tackle what > David Burn wrote: > > > > Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: > > > > A > > 5432 > > K32 > > AKQJ10 > > > > 432 > > AKQJ6 > > A109 > > 32 > > > > The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. > > > > Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he believes to be the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How would you adjudicate his claim? (Show your working, assuming various diamond layouts, and be very sure that it is consistent with your views in the "Claim" thread, since these are now a matter of record.) > > I don't think this is hard at all. > > We now have a reason for the bad claim, and in contrast to > the others, this is not a "claim before DFLOPping" (I hope > you have read my other post already in which I introduce the > DFLOP) > > So we must assume that declarer continues to see the jack of > hearts as a jack of diamonds until some later point in the > play. > > When ? > > Well, I would not count the falling of the heart jack as one > way of waking up. Since declarer has 9 hearts with four > tops, he is not looking for the high cards, rather for the > discards. > > I will be very harsh and not to count the playing of the > diamond jack to the fourth heart trick as one either. > > I will have declarer play the hearts from top. > > So the actual line is : 2: Heart to the Ace, 3: Heart King, > 4: Heart Queen, 5: Diamond Jack. > > What happens now ? > > A- West covers with the Queen. > Either declarer notices, or he doesn't, in which case he > plays a small heart and they are bound to tell him what > happens. > (in case someone says that declarer, stating only "small", > now intends the play of a small diamond - L46B3, I take out > L46B and read "except when declarer's different intention is > incontrovertible" - by stating small, declarer > incontrovertibly wants a small heart, so by L47B, he may now > change this call) > Declarer plays the King of Diamonds to this trick and will > make 1 spade, 3 hearts, 4 diamonds, and 5 clubs = 13 tricks. > > So of course : > > B- West does not cover. > Again declarer is forced to now notice he has played a > diamond. He should now recap - did hearts fall 3-2 ? Then > he has 12 certain tricks (1Sp, 4He, 2Di, 5Cl), and he can > make 7 on the finesse. > If they did not, he has only 11 (1Sp, 3He, 2Di, 5Cl) and the > repeated finesse will bring in 13 tricks. > I don't think any method of calculation will make declarer > play for anything less than 13 tricks. > > Would playing for the drop now be a normal line ? I bow to > superior play on that one. I am tired. But you get my > drift. > > Full analysis should of course also be made about the line > of playing cubs first. > > All in all, I think 13 tricks if the queen is behind the > jack, some big number down if it isn't. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 04:27:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 04:27:15 +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 EAA10728 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 04:27:08 +1100 Received: from pd2s03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.211] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 0zyJD4-00070n-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:27:02 +0000 Message-ID: <000401be3a62$85c46800$d38393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:58:26 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 04:43:10 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-35.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.35]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA12790775 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:45:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3694F1DA.E20B1E96@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 11:41:47 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maybe I have missed something but what I profess is that this 'deflop' as you call it must execute the original claim statement as opposed to some other claim statement that does not include the original statement. Cheers, Roger Pewick Herman De Wael wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > > > > > > > >Does everybody understand the difference between the two > > >discussions ? > > > > I am not sure that I understand it - at least, not in the context of the hands under discussion. > > OK, let me try again. > > In my following post, I will assume claimer is declarer. > The same applies, mutadis mutandis, to defenders, but the > argument is less likely to occur. > > During the play of the hand, a declarer will at some point > reach a position in which he realises that play is over. > This is quite often illustrated by commentators on rama as, > "declarer is coming forwards - play is about to end". > > At this moment in time, the careful declarer will embark on > a thought process which I will call the DFLOP - the > "Determination of the Final Line Of Play". > This DFLOP will include the determination of the order in > which the different suits will be played, taking care of > blockages and so on. > Sometimes the DFLOP is easy, but every once in a while, it > takes some careful planning. > > After the DFLOP, declarer can find himself in one of four > positions : > > A - he can realise that the play is actually not finished > yet, and play on, trying to find the last clues he needs; > B - he can realise he has a 100% line, and then he should > claim; > C - he can think he has a 100% line, but not be 100% certain > of it, in which case he will play on, and will have to > explain afterwards why he did not claim; or > D - he can realise that there are tricks he is willing to > concede, which might still come through, by very fortunate > positions, or by defensive error, in which case he can also > play on. > > That is what a careful declarer will do. > > However, every once in while, a careless declarer will claim > before he has finished the DFLOP. > > Jesper calls this "rude", David finds it is irrational, but > it quite often happens nevertheless. The case of a declarer > being in 4Sp where he thinks he has 13 tricks is a good > example. Such a declarer will quite often claim before the > DFLOP. > > How do we deal with such a claim? > > Well, such a declarer will quite often fail to give a > complete claim statement. That means we should find all > "normal" lines, and that means we should do the DFLOP in > place of declarer. Again we might reach one of the four > positions. > If the position is B-, we will allow the claim. > If it is C-, we should also allow the claim. Even if actual > declarer would not claim but play on, he would do so "not > irrationally", and he will make his contract. > If the position is D-, we will of course do the same as if > he were in fact claiming after all, which means he will get > any tricks that could not be lost by any "normal" play. > And if the position is A-, the careless claimer will now > lose the benefit of playing on, and will get his claim if > all normal lines work, but lose the claim if any normal line > fails. > > That, IMO, is the position that claimers in this original > post, and in the strange claim of 2 years ago, were in. > They had claimed before DFLOPping ! > > Now I agree that if this declarer DFLOPs, and then comes up > with the strange statement, "I play all the hearts", then he > should be held to that. > > But Occam's razor tells me that these declarers did not > DFLOP. After all, their statements make no sense if they > have thought the case through. > > That is why I think David and I have this argument. > > David thinks that this declarer was acting after DFLOPping > when he stated, "I play all the trumps". > > I am convinced that he did not DFLOP at all. > > I wonder how David would rule this case if declarer, in > disgust after seeing they stopped in 2Hearts with 13 tricks, > would rule the case if declarer just puts down his cards and > says "13 tricks". L70D says that he gets the worst of all > "normal" lines, and playing 4 heart tricks is surely not a > "normal" line. > This defender now has thought to add some statement and > (quite necessarily, IMO) has added that he plays trumps > first. > To add to the confusion, he has not said "I play trumps > first", which may well satisfy David, Jesper and even Roger, > but he has added an extra "all" in his statement. > Suddenly, 5 directors jump down his throat and force him to > play irrationally, because he has indicated an irrational > line in claiming. > > Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying that this is how > the case actually went. For all we know, the actual ruling > never happened at any table, so we could not ask anyone > about the real facts. > > All I am saying is that the scarce words about the case lead > me to think this is what happened : > -Declarer has the intuition that he has all tricks > -Declarer did not DFLOP > -Declarer claimed, and added a word too many in his claim > statement. > > I don't see in any of this any kind of proof that the > irrational line, as some would have this fellow play, now > falls within the bounds of "careless or inferior for the > class of player involved". > > Of course, if anything at the table may lead to the opposite > conclusion, I will fully support David's ruling. > > But David has no proof either that that is what happened. > > Is the distinction between claiming before or after the > DFLOP any helpful ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 04:52:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 04:52:32 +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 EAA10804 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 04:52:22 +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 RAA28963 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:51:42 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 RAA21942 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:50:54 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990107185143.007b59f0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 18:51:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Here's another one In-Reply-To: <3694DDB7.C5D7937B@freewwweb.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19990107114917.007b3ce0@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:15 07/01/99 -0600, axeman wrote: >Jean-Pierre, > >I think you are a terrific person with an agile mind. However, Claimer >did not state specifically that he believed that he held the HEART >JACK. When not holding the Ace, King, AND QUEEN, the diamond jack is >not a top by any stretch of any imagination=85 except yours . However, >that you are proposing so is psychological mumbo jumbo bridge lawyering >and as such I do not like it. If the diamond jack is to be forced, it >must be forced for some other bridge reason which is valid, not because >you make claimer believe that it was the HJ when he did not say so [and >even then?]. =20 > >Cheers, > >Roger Pewick > I am a little impressed by the adjective terrific and I agree my interpretation is extreme and questionable. I think South should play early his DJ because this was his intention as it appears from his statement to cash 5 heart tricks, and from David Burn's investigation to learn which card was the 5th heart. It appears that declarer thought HA, HK, HQ and DJ were 4 equivalent cards (top hearts in his own nomenclature) which he intended to play at tricks 2, 3, 4 and 5 in a random order. Incidentally, I was wrong (in my logic) to make him play DJ at trick 2, as I did not notice the lead was in North: I should make him play it at trick 3. And, in this logic, I don't give him his 7NT contract when West is void of diamonds, because, in this case, South can revoke with DJ on the 2d trick and, later, go wrong in diamonds. Delighted to polemize with you. JP Rocafort=20 > >Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >>=20 >> At 02:23 07/01/99 +0000, David Burn wrote: >> >Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: >> > >> >A >> >5432 >> >K32 >> >AKQJ10 >> > >> >432 >> >AKQJ6 >> >A109 >> >32 >> > >> >The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcing >> that he will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. >> > >> >Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he >> believes to be >the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How >> would you adjudicate his >claim? (Show your working, assuming various >> diamond layouts, and be very sure that >it is consistent with your views= in >> the "Claim" thread, since these are now a >matter of record.) >>=20 >> That's how I would try to adjudicate this one, hoping never to be in= this >> difficult situation in real life: >>=20 >> Declarer (South), according to his claim statement, cashes hearts, from= the >> top (the 6 would be irrational), and as playing anyone of the 4 tops= first, >> would be rationnal, I make him begin with the one least favorable for= him: >> J. West contributes a diamond, dummy a heart and when attention is drawn= to >> the revoke, declarer wakes up and knows about DJ. From this point, South >> has three possible lines which I consider to qualify for "rational"= (either >> finesse of DQ, no finesse), so I choose for him one which fails. >> Result 7NT failing (exact number of tricks depending on location of DQ= and >> reartition of spades) except specific case of stiff DQ with West. >> I think it would not be impossible to convince me to adopt a different >> approach. >>=20 >> JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ =20 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) =20 e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 05:29:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 05:29:23 +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 FAA10919 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 05:29:16 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA11830 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 18:28:23 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 7 Jan 99 18:28 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Here's another one 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: <862566F2.004F53B1.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Christian wrote: > > >>He makes if hearts are 3-2 and the DQ is singleton. I assume that > oppos > keep > sufficient diamonds to make a misguess rational so he will probably be > one or 2 light. > > The diamond misguess is exactly the sort of "doubtful point" I think > should be resolved against declarer (even if he can count diamonds 5-2 > and the queen is in the long hand)<< > > I think that your solution has a slight flaw. To cash a high diamond > first > is good play, but to omit this is not irrational. Therefore this > precaution > should not be allowed for declarer. Even with a single-Q, he has to > lose a > diamond-trick. Not a flaw, a difference of interpretation. Cashing a high honour first in the three card ending is never worse than not cashing and sometimes better. I therefore considered that imposing a first round finesse would be imposing an irrational, rather than a careless, play. I would vary this view based on the strength of the player involved. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 06:27:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 06:27:11 +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 GAA11030 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 06:27:05 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-121.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.121]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA12602331; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:29:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36950A37.37FD8DA7@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 13:25:43 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: References: <000401be3a62$85c46800$d38393c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My condolences on his passing. Roger Pewick Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott > "My gracious silence, hail!" - Coriolanus. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > I am unsure how many will have heard of the death of Harold > Franklin during the holiday period. The EBU plans to have an > evening celebration of his life shortly. Details - Chris Brown at > the EBU. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 08:00:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 08:00:41 +1100 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA11247 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 08:00:30 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n45.san.rr.com [204.210.46.69]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA23468 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:00:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901072100.NAA23468@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:59:27 -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: > Eric Landau wrote: > > >>But who was going to call the TD? > > > >East. He was the only one who had any reason to believe that the > >irregularity might result in damage to his side, or, for that matter, make > >any difference whatsoever. > > [s] > > >It shouldn't be in N-S's interest to call the TD, as there is no way N-S > >could have been damaged by the irregularity. They may do so (L9B1(b)), but > >in real life the burden is assumed to be on the side that feels that the > >irregularity might cause them damage for which they might seek redress. > > If you read L75D it is fairly clear that in MI cases the players > giving the MI are expected to call the TD. > L75D addresses errors in explanations, not failures to explain (unless a pass constitutes an error in explanation). When there is an error in explanation, only one person at the table knows of the error, so of course he/she is the only one who can (and must) call the TD. That person is not supposed to correct the explanation until the TD arrives, so no one else knows about the irregularity. L9B1 makes clear that everyone at the table who becomes aware of an irregularity is responsible for seeing that the TD is called at once (but dummy must wait until play is complete if no one else has drawn attention to it). As soon as a player announces that his partner has committed an Alert irregularity (actually he/she should call the TD first), the TD must be called by someone, anyone. Failure to do so is an infraction by both sides. In the case of failures to Alert, this law is routinely violated in these parts. Almost everyone merely says, "There has been a failure to Alert," and then answers any questions about the call in question. Only if the opponents feel they may have been damaged do they call the TD. That's not in accordance with the Laws, whose authors usually have good reasons for what they write. Still, handling simple situations in this way does seem harmless, especially if all four players are experienced. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 08:32:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 08:32:58 +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 IAA11351 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 08:32:50 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-121.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.121]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA13204249; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:35:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <369527AB.791BDDA5@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 15:31:24 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Here's another one References: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> <3694CAF1.F8A77591@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > I will not stray from my position as the main argumentor and > so I will tackle what > David Burn wrote: > > > > Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: > > > > A > > 5432 > > K32 > > AKQJ10 > > > > 432 > > AKQJ6 > > A109 > > 32 > > > > The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. > > > > Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he believes to be the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How would you adjudicate his claim? (Show your working, assuming various diamond layouts, and be very sure that it is consistent with your views in the "Claim" thread, since these are now a matter of record.) > > I don't think this is hard at all. > > We now have a reason for the bad claim, and in contrast to > the others, this is not a "claim before DFLOPping" (I hope > you have read my other post already in which I introduce the > DFLOP) > > So we must assume that declarer continues to see the jack of > hearts as a jack of diamonds until some later point in the > play. > > When ? > > Well, I would not count the falling of the heart jack as one > way of waking up. Since declarer has 9 hearts with four > tops, he is not looking for the high cards, rather for the > discards. > > I will be very harsh and not to count the playing of the > diamond jack to the fourth heart trick as one either. > > I will have declarer play the hearts from top. > > So the actual line is : 2: Heart to the Ace, 3: Heart King, > 4: Heart Queen, 5: Diamond Jack. > > What happens now ? > > A- West covers with the Queen. > Either declarer notices, or he doesn't, in which case he > plays a small heart and they are bound to tell him what > happens. > (in case someone says that declarer, stating only "small", > now intends the play of a small diamond - L46B3, I take out > L46B and read "except when declarer's different intention is > incontrovertible" - by stating small, declarer > incontrovertibly wants a small heart, so by L47B, he may now > change this call) > Declarer plays the King of Diamonds to this trick and will > make 1 spade, 3 hearts, 4 diamonds, and 5 clubs = 13 tricks. > So of course : > > B- West does not cover. > Again declarer is forced to now notice he has played a > diamond. He should now recap - did hearts fall 3-2 ? Then > he has 12 certain tricks (1Sp, 4He, 2Di, 5Cl), and he can > make 7 on the finesse. > If they did not, he has only 11 (1Sp, 3He, 2Di, 5Cl) and the > repeated finesse will bring in 13 tricks. > I don't think any method of calculation will make declarer > play for anything less than 13 tricks. > > Would playing for the drop now be a normal line ? I bow to > superior play on that one. I am tired. But you get my > drift. > > Full analysis should of course also be made about the line > of playing cubs first. > > All in all, I think 13 tricks if the queen is behind the > jack, some big number down if it isn't. AHA! We have found a way to legalize the Alcatraz Claim Coup! Roger Pewick From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 08:38:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 08:38:31 +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 IAA11375 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 08:38:26 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA19586 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:38:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA17551 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:38:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:38:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901072138.QAA17551@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Here's another one X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort >...in this case, South can revoke with DJ on the 2d > trick and, later, go wrong in diamonds. Considering the possibility of a revoke by declarer seems bizarre, at least if dummy has not forfeited his rights. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 09:02:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:02:52 +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 JAA11549 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:02:41 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA07187 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:02:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990107170340.00692d44@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 17:03:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Another claim example In-Reply-To: References: <9901061809.aa29627@flash.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:57 AM 1/7/99 +0000, John wrote: >In article <9901061809.aa29627@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan > writes >> >>Hearts trumps. South on lead, claims all but one of the last, saying >>"I've got five hearts and two diamonds". West, however, has all three >>missing hearts but is void in diamonds. So, saying "South thinks he >>doesn't have a heart loser, so we force him to play that way", you >>make South play all his hearts from the top, with the result that West >>is endplayed and South gets all but one trick anyway. >> >>Is this the correct ruling? If not, how is it different from the 7NT >>hand we're all discussing? >> >The claim was clear. Play Hs, then Ds. 71A makes the outcome clear. He >loses a H, but not a D. We do not make him play 2 top H and then 3 >Diamonds. Not to take the Ruff and discard *is* irrational. Nice >example where the claimer gets "saved" by his sloppy claim. Absolutely not. A statement of a claim which consists of a count of the claimer's (assumed) sure tricks should in no way imply the order in which they will be taken. Naming the tricks you plan to take is a not uncommon, albeit somewhat casual, way to claim. I, and I'm not alone, typically count the tricks in the order of the suits in dummy, to make it easier for my opponents to follow the count. Others are in the habit of always counting in suit-rank order. (Note that the declarer in the example might have been doing either.) When, as is my habit, I've claimed by naming the tricks I expect to take, I've never had an opponent, TD or AC even suggest that I had proposed to take them in the order I named them. In the case at hand, since it would be irrational not to draw trumps before attempting to cash diamonds, declarer can be assumed to start with HA, HK. But it's perfectly rational (and only very slightly inferior) for declarer, whether or not he thinks that trumps are gone, to continue with three rounds of diamonds, conceding the third. I rule that he loses a heart and a diamond. At the rubber club, with no TD to call and the play moving right along, the dialog would go like this: S (showing his cards): "I've got five hearts and two diamonds." E: "No you don't. I've got Qxx of hearts behind you." S: "OK. Four hearts and two diamonds. Next hand." ...a perfectly reasonable and sensible outcome. 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 Jan 8 09:42:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:42:46 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA11651 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:42:41 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.42.80]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.05 118 121 101) with SMTP id <19990107224205.NQRO8305@default> for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:42:05 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Another claim example Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:41:17 -0600 Message-ID: <01be3a8e$d694de00$872a4b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau big snip >At the rubber club, with no TD to call and the play moving right along, the >dialog would go like this: > >S (showing his cards): "I've got five hearts and two diamonds." >E: "No you don't. I've got Qxx of hearts behind you." >S: "OK. Four hearts and two diamonds. Next hand." > >...a perfectly reasonable and sensible outcome. Ah for the good old days. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 10:49:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA11792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:49:39 +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 KAA11787 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:49:30 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zyPAz-00077y-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 23:49:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:25:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke and claim References: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B32@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B32@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> <3.0.5.32.19990107122936.00a47660@cable.mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990107122936.00a47660@cable.mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >>>It is also possible that after one defender revokes, it is not declarer who >>>claims but the other defender who concedes all tricks (i.e. makes a claim). >>>In this case the revoke is definitely established and penalised. >> If partner makes a claim or concession, L63 says this does establish >>the revoke - fine. >Dont we have to use 68B then, if PD (and revoker) protests against the >claim ??? and conclude the revok still isnt established?? Yes, good point, I missed that. L68B says that the concession has not occurred if pd objects, so this does not establish the revoke. However, we decided in an earlier thread that if a defender concedes some but not all of the remaining tricks then we deal with this as a claim and a concession separately, and I don't think a defender can contest his partner's claim. Thus a player can stop a revoke being established if his partner concedes but only if he concedes *all* the remaining tricks. -- 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 Jan 8 10:50:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA11817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:50:34 +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 KAA11794 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:49:55 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zyPAz-00077z-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 23:49:19 +0000 Message-ID: <7xf3tZEfHOl2EwMM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:33:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert References: <199901071302.NAA20944@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199901071302.NAA20944@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >Lets turn the problem around: > >W N E S >1C X* 3C X** * = takeout. ** = penalties, not alerted (correctly) >P 3D P P >?P ? = asked about South's X: told (by North) "responsive" > >How the failure to alert is not an error, North has given a mistaken >explanation. Again, North's explanation contradicts his failure to alert. >Does anyone think that South can point out the misinformation before the >end of auction? >Is this example significantly different from the original? Yes, very. Failure to alert is misinformation, and a player is required to call the TD as soon as he realises *he* has given MI, so the player who explained originally was *required* to call the TD before explaining. In this case, it is partner who has given MI, and that should be pointed out at the end of the hand [auction, for declarer/dummy]. -- 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 Jan 8 13:44:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:44:34 +1100 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (root@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA12132 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:44:26 +1100 Received: from uaf.edu (uaf-du-04-04.alaska.edu [137.229.8.84]) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA18938 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:44:21 -0900 (AKST) Message-ID: <36944EBC.A884685F@uaf.edu> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 21:05:48 -0900 From: Michael Schmahl X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE3998.AB2FC780@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: CS: Poor English does not equate to poor bridge, (n'est pas?) ^^^^^^^^^^ Yes, but does poor French so equate? :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 14:59:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA12225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:59:15 +1100 Received: from smtp1.mindspring.com (smtp1.mindspring.com [207.69.200.31]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA12220 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:59:09 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka870.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.224]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA24911 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:58:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990107225844.006d5ad8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 22:58:44 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Is this a L12c2 case? In-Reply-To: <199901052003.MAA07694@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:02 PM 1/5/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: >Question: If a TD asks what you would have done in the absence of >an infraction, to give you a chance to change a call, is it ethical >to say you don't know when you do know? > Mais non! That would be a lie, and the clear consensus delivered by my betters in a somewhat lenghty thread last year was to the effect that lying at the table was not only unethical, but a violation of ... well of something, dammit! Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 16:00:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA12617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 16:00:19 +1100 Received: from smtp3.mindspring.com (smtp3.mindspring.com [207.69.200.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA12612 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 16:00:10 +1100 Received: from michael (user-38lcivh.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.241]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA18311 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 00:00:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990107235948.006d7054@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 23:59:48 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990107092836.007260e4@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990106214516.006cf01c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> <199901061248.MAA20699@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:28 AM 1/7/99 -0500,Eric wrote: > >L9B1(a) says "The Director must be summoned", but L9B1(b) says that "Any >player... *may* summon", and L11A provides only for penalizing (by >forfeiting the right to a penalty against the other side) the NOS for a >failure to do so. It doesn't make sense to expect the OS to be the ones to >take positive action to protect the NOS's rights, nor, necessarily, to >understand that the laws might be interpreted in such a way that they, too, >have rights that might need protecting. > >Had South understood the implications of the penalty provisions, >he would have known that he might well have been better off to call the TD >immediately; "South had an interest to protect". But he presumably didn't >understand all that, and his failure to call the TD was an "action... taken >in ignorance of the penalty". > This is not what I had understood as the intent of the phrase "action...taken in ignorance of the penalty", and I think it is a bit of a stretch. I had understood that the "actions" referred to are those which are a part of the game (in particular, continuing the auction or play), rather than those which relate to the administration of the game or other secondary matters. But there's a bigger problem here: on the one hand, you have identified the burden of calling the TD as lying principally with the NOS, and yet on the other, you have identified the failure of the OS to call the TD as the "action...taken in ignorance". The logical conclusion is that the NOS is _never_ entitled to redress if the TD is not summoned at the appropriate time, since perforce the OS has taken the "action" of failing to call the TD. I doubt that is your intent, although you do seem ready to deal harshly with the NOS in this situation. >Had 4C by East been a "likely" action, why wouldn't East, as soon as the >infraction was revealed (which occurred during the auction period, before >the opening lead), say something like "But if I had known that I might not >have passed -- Director, please!" (or simply called the TD). I'd be >hard-pressed to believe that he really wanted to bid 4C all along but >waited until after the hand to say so. > Lots of reasons, but most likely exactly the same ignorance of his rights which you have ascribed to the South player. East might reasonably be concerned that such a comment would be a source of UI--everything before 'Director please!' is inappropriate in any event. Or East might be asleep at the switch. Or perhaps it takes East a while to work up the nerve to stand up for his rights. Certainly a planned double shot is one possible explanation, and for a strong, experienced player it may well be the most likely explanation. But even so, the Laws afford the NOS access to "double shots" in a number of respects. The fact is, NS committed an infraction by failing to alert their responsive double as required. If East had a fairly clear 4C bid but chose to pass in light of the apparent penalty double of 3C, when in fact 4C is on, then his side has been damaged by the MI, and he is entitled to redress. His failure to summon the TD at the time of comment does not cause him to forfeit all rights to redress. It does cost him the immediate right to change his final pass. That's a substantial penalty to pay, if 4C seems like the likely choice, since he is in effect rolling the dice on the decision of the TD. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 19:33:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 19:33:50 +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 TAA12932 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 19:33:44 +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 IAA13063 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 08:33:08 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 IAA08744 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 08:32:21 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990108093309.007bc7d0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 09:33:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Here's another one In-Reply-To: <199901072138.QAA17551@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:38 07/01/99 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort >>...in this case, South can revoke with DJ on the 2d >> trick and, later, go wrong in diamonds. > >Considering the possibility of a revoke by declarer seems bizarre, at >least if dummy has not forfeited his rights. > My intention with this (maybe too short) sentence, was to say: On 2d trick, dummy plays a heart and declarer revokes by playing DJ (which he believes to be HJ); attention is drawn to the irregularity and revoke corrected (by HK for instance). Later, declarer is forced to open diamonds, goes wrong by playing DA first and he is not able to take advantage from seeing West's void. ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 21:48:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA13135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:48:14 +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 VAA13130 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:48:07 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-223.uunet.be [194.7.13.223]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA01997 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:47:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 10:24:35 +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: L25A and L16C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A fellow Belgian TD asks me the following : K J T 8 5 5 2 A K 7 Q T 5 4 Q 7 3 2 J T 9 8 7 Q 6 8 5 3 Q J T 9 9 8 7 2 A K J A 9 6 A K 4 3 6 4 2 6 4 3 N E 1He X North calls the TD and states he has pulled the wrong card. The TD believes him and allows a L25A correction to 1Sp. L25A does not say so, but obviously East can also change his call. He decides to pass. South now bids 3Sp and this is the final contract. Made, because North is alerted to the fact the the spades are with east. Absolute top. My friend TD has then changed the score to Av+, both sides, since there is an obvious advantage, but he cannot punish North for something which is after all "without penalty". Two questions : In order to change the score, we must be able to call the information about the double UI to North-South. The only way to do so is to apply L16C2, which talks about the offending side. Can NS, despite there being no penalty, still be regarded as "offending side". (IMO they can) When awarding the artificial adjusted score (and I don't blame this TD for doing that here), one has to read L12C1, which talks of "at fault". Is it possible for a player to be an offending side and still not be "at fault"? (IMO he can) Would it not be possible to adjust the Av+ downwards again, because player may be considered in breach of L90B7 (errors in procedure) and L74B1 (insufficient attention), thus making the player "partially at fault" and giving him Av or even Av- ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 8 22:51:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 22:51:50 +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 WAA13362 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 22:51:44 +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 MAA12838 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:51:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3695E82C.CE672CEF@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 12:12:44 +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 - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OOOPS Herman De Wael wrote: > > This defender now has thought to add some statement and > (quite necessarily, IMO) has added that he plays trumps > first. read : (quite UNnecessarily, IMO) Sorry ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 00:18:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA15876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 00:18:44 +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 AAA15871 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 00:18:36 +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 PAA21755 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:16:39 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from svk@int.kiev.ua) Message-ID: <003c01be3b07$e1ffcc40$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Interpretation Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:07:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all! On 6 Jan 1999, Laurie Kelso wrote: >The rationality or irrationality of a revoke, really has little effect on >how we should rule. A revoke (unlike wild, gambling or irrational play) is >an indisputable separate infraction under law and is treated as such. In >situations where one side acts on UI and the other side subsequently >revokes, we no longer have any NOs. Let's see 2 examples: 1# NS play 5Ddbl, but the "dbl" is a result of MI. E revokes (or LOOT, or penalty cadr) and N takes 11 tricks. IMHO there is no problem - we must adjust. AS is 5D= without dbl for both OSs. 2# NS play 5Ddbl, but the "5D" is a result of UI. Without UI EW should play 4H=. E revokes and N takes 11 tricks. IMO we must adjust, but there is a problem with a value of AS. It may be: -4H= for NS (OS on MI) and maybe an AC under 12C3 awards to EW (OS on irregularity) average between 30% 4H=, 30% 4H -1 (as a declarer revokes!), 40% -5Ddbl= or something another - the value of AS is not a real subject of this discussion. If we have problem with "rational" or 'irrational" then it may be easier to discuss what "a normal" or "adnormal" errors are? IMO at first it is a "bridge error" (as a bad lead or as a bad finesse), but second: Excerpt 7 of the WBFLC Lille minutes:": the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous':' I hope I will find some support in opinion that any deviation from the correct procedures specified in the Laws is a "normal" error. So, revoke is "gross" but not "adnormal" error. Excerpt 3 of the WBFLC Lille minutes: ":right to redress is not annulled by normal error:" So, the right to redress is not annulled by any deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws. Best wishes Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 00:32:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA15933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 00:32:41 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA15928 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 00:32:32 +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 IAA21186 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 08:30:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990108083240.0071e12c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 08:32:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> <199901061248.MAA20699@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:51 AM 1/7/99 +0000, David wrote: > If you read L75D it is fairly clear that in MI cases the players >giving the MI are expected to call the TD. > > I think the burden of calling the TD as you put it is part of the >basic problem. Far better is to call the TD yourself when you have >committed an infraction. L75D referes to mistaken explanations, but in this case the only explanation given was entirely correct. The MI came earlier, from West's failure to alert. West, who presumably didn't realize that East's responsive double was alertable (he obviously knew what it meant), had no way of knowing that he had committed an infraction until (unless) someone else called the TD. East, if he did realize that West should have alerted, is obligated by L75D2 to keep silent at least until the end of the auction, and can hardly be blamed for thinking that the point was moot, since by the time he would have been allowed to speak up the correct explanation had already been given. He can't be faulted for failing to "inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous" (L75D2) when his partner's actual explanation of the bid in question was not erroneous. It's common practice around here, even among the most ethical players, to take the liberty of technically violating L75D2 in failure-to-alert cases. Typically, the player will, at the appropriate time, inform the opponents that there has been a failure to alert, proffer the correct explanation, and ask the opponents whether there is any possibility that they may have done anything different had the alert been given, then call the director only if they say that they might have. Strict adherence to L75D2 notwithstanding, neither players nor TDs see much merit in calling the TD when everyone at the table agrees that the failure to alert could have no possible effect on the outcome. 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 Jan 9 01:05:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:05:32 +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 BAA16039 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:05:23 +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 JAA22216 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:03:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990108090445.00716b1c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 09:04:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When I wrote the message below, I had the original hand turned 90 degrees. It was South, not East, who made the responsive double, and North, not West, who failed to alert it. My apologies if anyone found this confusing. >At 03:51 AM 1/7/99 +0000, David wrote: > >> If you read L75D it is fairly clear that in MI cases the players >>giving the MI are expected to call the TD. >> >> I think the burden of calling the TD as you put it is part of the >>basic problem. Far better is to call the TD yourself when you have >>committed an infraction. > >L75D referes to mistaken explanations, but in this case the only explanation given was entirely correct. The MI came earlier, from West's failure to alert. West, who presumably didn't realize that East's responsive double was alertable (he obviously knew what it meant), had no way of knowing that he had committed an infraction until (unless) someone else called the TD. East, if he did realize that West should have alerted, is obligated by L75D2 to keep silent at least until the end of the auction, and can hardly be blamed for thinking that the point was moot, since by the time he would have been allowed to speak up the correct explanation had already been given. He can't be faulted for failing to "inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous" (L75D2) when his partner's actual explanation of the bid in question was not erroneous. > >It's common practice around here, even among the most ethical players, to take the liberty of technically violating L75D2 in failure-to-alert cases. Typically, the player will, at the appropriate time, inform the opponents that there has been a failure to alert, proffer the correct explanation, and ask the opponents whether there is any possibility that they may have done anything different had the alert been given, then call the director only if they say that they might have. Strict adherence to L75D2 notwithstanding, neither players nor TDs see much merit in calling the TD when everyone at the table agrees that the failure to alert could have no possible effect on the outcome. 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 Jan 9 01:25:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:25:44 +1100 Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA16113 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:25:29 +1100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id PAA06038 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:25:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01J6ATD3QQAE003BU8@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:44:52 +0100 Received: by AGRO005S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 08 Jan 1999 13:47:45 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 13:49:20 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: privilige To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C117@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk what a privilige to be chairman of a worldwide committee dealing with the laws of bridge, when this world is so inventive. Now even David Burn disappointed me trying to proof that claims are difficult to handle. This claim discussion tends to the conclusion that we need an automatic treatment in cases of disputed claims, punishing the claimer. As we do with revokes. And then the other half starts screaming that we are too harsh. In my bridge experience claims - even difficult ones - are dealt with in a reasonable way. No reason to change anything. Let me be one of the first to react on the 1H (1S) X case brought in by Herman dW. Yes 25 lacks accuracy, we don't handle what to do in case of an inadvertant call withdrawn. But putting 1H on the table when you want to bid 1S is an infraction, regardless the reason. So North has unauthorized inf. and there should be an adjusted score based on 4S - 1 with a disciplinary penalty for north, may be doubled may be not. It might be reasonable to give average-plus to EW but then NS should get average-minus or less (4SX-1) still receiving the penalty as well. This is my personal, so strong, opinion, nothing to do with WBFLC, though I would like to get support from that side. SHOOT. ton From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 01:25:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:25:30 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA16108 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:25:24 +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 JAA22989 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:24:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 09:26:23 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <000701be3a3f$5a8b93c0$598a93c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:23 PM 1/7/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: >I did this because it seems important to me that we, as a group, should be able >to produce an interpretation of the Laws relating to claims that will cover all >possible cases - "God's algorithm", for those who know what that means. As >those who, with inexhaustible patience, have followed this thread will know, >this group is a very long way from being able to lay down a single principle >that will serve as a guide in all possible cases. We cannot even resolve the >more or less trivial case that began this thread. > >The primary reason for our inability to do this appears to me to lie in our >different interpretations of the word "irrational" as it occurs in the >footnotes to Laws 68 through 70 (and perhaps beyond). I believe that if there >existed a working definition for this word - by which I mean a definition that >is objective in the context of the Laws of the game - then real progress could >be made. Perhaps this is not the problem, but merely a symptom of it. There seem to be two distinct and opposing points of view on the subject of claims in general: some players believe that claims are GOOD, they speed up the game and should be encouraged, while others believe that claims are BAD, they are a device by which stronger players take advantage of weaker ones, cause more problems for TDs/ACs than they're worth, and should be discouraged, perhaps even eliminated altogether. I wonder whether those of us who have been arguing for a more lenient view of faulty claims are, in general, in the pro-claim camp, while those who wish to take a harsh view and punish players for badly stated claims are more comfortable with the anti-claim view. I suspect that we will be unable to achieve a consensus on whether to treat over-hasty or sloppy claims leniently or harshly unless and until we reach a consensus on whether we hope, in the future, to see more claims or fewer. 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 Jan 9 01:42:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:42:36 +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 BAA16197 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:42:29 +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 JAA23502 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:41:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990108094326.006961bc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 09:43:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Here's another one In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990107090648.00722bac@pop.cais.com> References: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:06 AM 1/7/99 -0500, I wrote: >He gets one spade, three or four hearts depending on whether they are 3-2, >two or three diamonds depending on whether the queen drops in two rounds, >and five clubs: 11, 12 or 13 tricks depending on the lie. There is an emerging consensus that this is incorrect; declarer, according to most of us, gets three diamonds only if the queen is stiff, otherwise is deemed to have cashed one round and taken the losing finesse. If this is truly the consensus position, I will henceforth take a very different view of L70E. L70E is headed "Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop)", and says "The Director shall not accept... 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..." I have always read this to mean that the claimer may not be deemed to take an unproven finesse -- after all, isn't a losing finesse nonetheless a "play the success of which depends on finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card"? -- and thus should be deemed to play for the drop whenever it is consistent with the original claim statement (as it generally is when the claimer claims top tricks that he doesn't actually have). Comments? 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 Jan 9 03:26:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 03:26:57 +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 DAA16662 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 03:26:46 +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 QAA31431 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 16:26:05 GMT Received: by nlxrtd1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 17:25:53 +0100 Message-ID: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B37@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> From: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: Revoke and claim Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 17:25:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The laws definitely sow confusion don't they. The word "contestant" is used in avery confusing way in L68, especially when you look at the definitions section. L68A seems to imply that the claim is that the pair (of the side of the player making the claim) will win a number of tricks in a pairs event or the team of four will win anumber of tricks in a teams event. This is nonsense. L68B and L69A and B also have similar nonsenses. In most cases I think "player" is intended. Can any expert clarify this? As to whether or not there is a claim (thus is the defender's revoke established or not)when one defender objects to his partner's concession of all remaining tricks, I'm really confused. One part of L68A ("A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed") seems to suggest that there is always a claim (albeit for zero tricks). And is "suggests that play be curtailed" the same as "abandons his hand"? Perhaps more importantly, a defender's objection to his partner's concession of tricks must be to concession of subsequent tricks. If it is because of his own revoke and nothing to do with the subsequent tricks then this doesn't seem to be a valid objection. Even if there is also an objection to concession of subsequent tricks, perhaps the objection should be treated as a claim in itself. So, with 5 tricks to go, if defender A states "claim 2 tricks" and defender B objects, it is presumably simple, B claims 3 or more. But if defender A states "claim 0 tricks" or "concede all tricks" then B's objection can only be to claim 1 or more (of the subsequent tricks). It all seems very vague! Geoff. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, 07 January, 1999 17:25 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Revoke and claim > > > Anton Witzen wrote: > > >>>It is also possible that after one defender revokes, it is > not declarer who > >>>claims but the other defender who concedes all tricks > (i.e. makes a claim). > >>>In this case the revoke is definitely established and penalised. > > >> If partner makes a claim or concession, L63 says this > does establish > >>the revoke - fine. > > >Dont we have to use 68B then, if PD (and revoker) protests > against the > >claim ??? and conclude the revok still isnt established?? > > Yes, good point, I missed that. L68B says that the > concession has not > occurred if pd objects, so this does not establish the revoke. > > However, we decided in an earlier thread that if a defender concedes > some but not all of the remaining tricks then we deal with this as a > claim and a concession separately, and I don't think a defender can > contest his partner's claim. Thus a player can stop a revoke being > established if his partner concedes but only if he concedes *all* the > remaining tricks. > > -- > 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 Jan 9 03:51:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 03:51:05 +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 DAA16712 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 03:50:59 +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 LAA14011 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:50:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA18039 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:51:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:51:09 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901081651.LAA18039@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: privilige X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > Let me be one of the first to react on the 1H (1S) X case brought in by > Herman dW. Yes 25 lacks accuracy, we don't handle what to do in case of an > inadvertant call withdrawn. But putting 1H on the table when you want to bid > 1S is an infraction, regardless the reason. Thanks for the comment, but I confess I never would have guessed a simple mechanical mistake to be an infraction. Interpreting it as one has an advantage in this sort of case, of course. Perhaps it would be an improvement if the last word in the introductory paragraph of L16C were changed to "irregularity." (Grattan?) Actually, the whole paragraph may want a little tightening-up. Right now it seems to grant permission to withdraw an action to correct _any_ infraction, but I've always assumed it was meant to apply only when some other law specifically allowed the action to be withdrawn. > So North has unauthorized inf. > and there should be an adjusted score based on 4S - 1 with a disciplinary > penalty for north, may be doubled may be not. DP seems very harsh if North was not explicitly advised about the UI implications. (If he was, of course, shoot him!) Even if you cannot apply L16C, there's always L72B1. That's what I would have used for an Alcatraz coup in the bidding. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 03:58:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 03:58:18 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f243.hotmail.com [207.82.251.134]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA16728 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 03:58:13 +1100 Received: (qmail 17917 invoked by uid 0); 8 Jan 1999 16:57:37 -0000 Message-ID: <19990108165737.17916.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 08 Jan 1999 08:57:37 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: privilige Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 08:57:37 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A Kooijman wrote: "Now even David Burn disappointed me trying to proof that claims are difficult to handle." Now I've definitely missed something. I thought that David Burn was trying to prove that claims are difficult to handle only if you let them become so. They're not difficult to handle at all if you tell someone who has made a duff claim that they've screwed up. Sorry if that sounded terse - it's getting late! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 04:06:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 04:06:18 +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 EAA16781 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 04:06:11 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-87.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.87]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13845449 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:08:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36963AAF.34F5FB30@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 11:04:47 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It appears that there is an important point to be taken notice of. L25A requires that for no penalty to be applied, it is not enough the call must have been inadvertent. Further it must be corrected without pause for thought, presumably from the point of 'first discovery'. Therefore, if the discovery is because of thought initiated by outside influence, this criteria is not met. In this case the offender discovered their error and did not change their call immediately. They instead summoned the director. This reduces to practically nil the incontrovertible evidence that there was no pause for thought. I rule that the call was inadvertent. however, the discovery came after a take out double. In this case, it was the double that caused the wake up and not just the knowledge that they had bid 1H and wanted to actually open 1S. And I so rule. This is thought and as such, does not permit L25A to rule 'change without penalty'. Further, since the attempted change of call came too late to apply L25B to allow a change of call, and the first call was legal, it stands. Because UI has been created I must advise the table of its ramifications including the possibility of an adjusted score. I will point out that the OS is expected to adhere rigorously to their agreements in the bidding and play. I will monitor the play. The table ruling I think has missed the mark and has prevented the obtaining of a table result. Depending on the NS agreements, had there been no irregularity, they might have been headed for a score better that 3S making or a very bad score. Had the correct ruling been made, and no adjustment forthcoming, that would have been the rightful score. In such circumstances, L82 calls for adjusted scores treating both sides as non offending- It does not feel right, but to do otherwise seems to be wrong. An additional note. The actual auction seems to suggest that UI might have been used to arrive at a result. I think that result is not a bridge result and as such must be discarded due to director error and replaced by something else. It is therefore mute as to arriving at an adjusted score. However, it is not mute when it comes to maintaining the ethics of the game. If in fact the agreements of NS would often enough land them in 3S and not 4S, then I would not feel compelled to discipline, but I would investigate. Ton said that he feels that to bid 1H when it was intended to bid 1S is an infraction. I hold a different view. Right or wrong, I do not think it is an infraction to misbid. I think that the infraction, a very severe infraction, is to change a call or indicate that you want to change a call. Some changes of call carry no penalty, some do, and some are not permitted and carry a penalty. Welcome Ton, and best wishes, Roger Pewick Herman De Wael wrote: > > A fellow Belgian TD asks me the following : > > K J T 8 5 > 5 2 > A K 7 > Q T 5 > 4 Q 7 3 2 > J T 9 8 7 Q 6 > 8 5 3 Q J T 9 > 9 8 7 2 A K J > A 9 6 > A K 4 3 > 6 4 2 > 6 4 3 > > N E > 1He X > > North calls the TD and states he has pulled the wrong card. > The TD believes him and allows a L25A correction to 1Sp. > L25A does not say so, but obviously East can also change his > call. > He decides to pass. > > South now bids 3Sp and this is the final contract. Made, > because North is alerted to the fact the the spades are with > east. > > Absolute top. > > My friend TD has then changed the score to Av+, both sides, > since there is an obvious advantage, but he cannot punish > North for something which is after all "without penalty". > > Two questions : > > In order to change the score, we must be able to call the > information about the double UI to North-South. The only > way to do so is to apply L16C2, which talks about the > offending side. Can NS, despite there being no penalty, > still be regarded as "offending side". (IMO they can) > > When awarding the artificial adjusted score (and I don't > blame this TD for doing that here), one has to read L12C1, > which talks of "at fault". Is it possible for a player to be > an offending side and still not be "at fault"? (IMO he can) > > Would it not be possible to adjust the Av+ downwards again, > because player may be considered in breach of L90B7 (errors > in procedure) and L74B1 (insufficient attention), thus > making the player "partially at fault" and giving him Av or > even Av- ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 04:22:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 04:22:15 +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 EAA16844 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 04:22:08 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zyfbe-00047d-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 17:21:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:39:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >A fellow Belgian TD asks me the following : > > K J T 8 5 > 5 2 > A K 7 > Q T 5 >4 Q 7 3 2 >J T 9 8 7 Q 6 >8 5 3 Q J T 9 >9 8 7 2 A K J > A 9 6 > A K 4 3 > 6 4 2 > 6 4 3 > >N E >1He X > >North calls the TD and states he has pulled the wrong card. >The TD believes him and allows a L25A correction to 1Sp. >L25A does not say so, but obviously East can also change his >call. >He decides to pass. > >South now bids 3Sp and this is the final contract. Made, >because North is alerted to the fact the the spades are with >east. > >Absolute top. > >My friend TD has then changed the score to Av+, both sides, >since there is an obvious advantage, but he cannot punish >North for something which is after all "without penalty". > >Two questions : > >In order to change the score, we must be able to call the >information about the double UI to North-South. The only >way to do so is to apply L16C2, which talks about the >offending side. Can NS, despite there being no penalty, >still be regarded as "offending side". (IMO they can) Certainly. While there is nothing in the definitions the use of the term throughout the Laws and in other writings suggests that the term offending side means the side that created the problem. Thus declarer is not allowed to use his knowledge of the double and should be told so at the time. >When awarding the artificial adjusted score (and I don't >blame this TD for doing that here), one has to read L12C1, >which talks of "at fault". Is it possible for a player to be >an offending side and still not be "at fault"? (IMO he can) The Director is clearly at fault for not warning North. In my view there is no offending side because I would rule under L82C. Mind you, I cannot see any particular reason for an ArtAs, but I can see that the TD had lost his way. >Would it not be possible to adjust the Av+ downwards again, >because player may be considered in breach of L90B7 (errors >in procedure) and L74B1 (insufficient attention), thus >making the player "partially at fault" and giving him Av or >even Av- ? That is certainly legal. The correct ruling on the hand is to tell the players at the time that the double is AI to EW and UI to NS. Then, if North uses the information, the score is adjusted to 3S-1. Given that the TD did not do so, the correct ruling at the end is under L82C, giving NS 3S= and EW 3S-1. If you are unnecessarily going to give an ArtAS then A/A+ seems right: EW were blameless, NS partly at fault. -- 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 Jan 9 04:26:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 04:26:51 +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 EAA16874 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 04:26:40 +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 RAA07706 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 17:26:27 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 RAA17703 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 17:26:26 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA21733 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 17:26:23 GMT Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 17:26:23 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199901081726.RAA21733@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Revoke and claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Geoff > As to whether or not there is a claim (thus is the defender's revoke > established or not)when one defender objects to his partner's concession of > all remaining tricks, I'm really confused. One part of L68A ("A contestant > also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed") seems to suggest that > there is always a claim (albeit for zero tricks). And is "suggests that play > be curtailed" the same as "abandons his hand"? You weren't to know (being new to the list) but this opens up another can of worms. I'm sure Davids Burn or Stevenson will recall the gory details. Some people concluded that it is only practical to let play continue when one defender has claim zero tricks and his partner has objected. Otherwise the TD should rule on the defenders claim for one or more tricks. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 04:35:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 04:35:21 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA16925 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 04:35:12 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-87.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.87]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13923561 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:37:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3696417E.3280ED79@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 11:33:50 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Here's another one References: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> <3.0.1.32.19990108094326.006961bc@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's my story.... It had been drilled into my head for years that L70E meant no finesse for unstated lines. I finally was compelled to read it closely earlier this year when I did not understand a ruling discussed on the list which I thought was not only unfair, but wrong. It took about thirty tries before the scales were lifted from my eyes. I now see the logic, justice, and the fairness by interpreting those words exactly as written [even though it is difficult to understand the words without extremely close scrutiny]. Eric, thanx for bringing it up. Roger Pewick Eric Landau wrote: > > At 09:06 AM 1/7/99 -0500, I wrote: > > >He gets one spade, three or four hearts depending on whether they are 3-2, > >two or three diamonds depending on whether the queen drops in two rounds, > >and five clubs: 11, 12 or 13 tricks depending on the lie. > > There is an emerging consensus that this is incorrect; declarer, according > to most of us, gets three diamonds only if the queen is stiff, otherwise is > deemed to have cashed one round and taken the losing finesse. If this is > truly the consensus position, I will henceforth take a very different view > of L70E. L70E is headed "Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop)", and > says "The Director shall not accept... 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..." I have > always read this to mean that the claimer may not be deemed to take an > unproven finesse -- after all, isn't a losing finesse nonetheless a "play > the success of which depends on finding one opponent rather than the other > with a particular card"? -- and thus should be deemed to play for the drop > whenever it is consistent with the original claim statement (as it > generally is when the claimer claims top tricks that he doesn't actually > have). Comments? > > 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 Jan 9 05:10:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 05:10:44 +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 FAA17033 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 05:10:33 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.177]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA02264; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 20:10:17 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36964A1E.BD49D15D@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 20:10:38 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: David Burn , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: <003e01be3a43$cef2efc0$598a93c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I like this , because it would bring all of us , toghether , back to sanity and enjoying play bridge , including duplicate !!!! I hope this line will guide the WBF-LC along the ...next years. BUT even then , we must know that there is a HUMAN BEING under the robe of a TD -> always will be different judgement of specific situations and we would educate bridge players that it is a part of the game . Dany P.S. I think it would be included in the preface to the FLB >>?? Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott > "My gracious silence, hail!" - Coriolanus. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 07 January 1999 01:04 > Subject: Re: Claim > > =================== \x/ =================== > > I did this because it seems important to me that we, as a group, should be able > to produce an interpretation of the Laws relating to claims that will cover all > possible cases - "God's algorithm", for those who know what that means. As > those who, with inexhaustible patience, have followed this thread will know, > this group is a very long way from being able to lay down a single principle > that will serve as a guide in all possible cases. We cannot even resolve the > more or less trivial case that began this thread. > > ===================== \x/ ================== > > ++++ It may be of interest to note that leading WBF and zonal > personalities in Zones 1&2 are now looking at a proposal by which > under the umbrella of the WBF a 'jurisprudence' would be developed > that would be the basis for decisions of appeals committees > world-wide, in all NBOs and international organisations. > > ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 05:11:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 05:11:02 +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 FAA17041 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 05:10:55 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.177]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA02239; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 20:10:08 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36964A15.153C97D1@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 20:10:29 +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: Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Friends I think this discussion drove us out of .......(our minds??) I don't like to ask .."Should I be considered a Rat or a Dinosaurus if I"d have a hairless tail???" I try to conclude it and hope you'll be so kind to consider me a poor TD (neither a rat or a dinosaurus or a monkey...as many players think about us ..). The original question included a statement by the declarer, IMHO a bad wording statement. Now - the most important law is 68D - the PLAY CEASES !!! that's what a TD should never even think to do anything else . Because the declarer had a statement , Law 70D applies , not any other ! In spite of her/his discretional powers , the TD isn't allowed to overrule the rules and L70D doesn't allow him to accept a proposal of any new line of play....this is the real intention of the law (who would try to propose an unsuccessful line ??) >From now on it is a question of judgment - irrational or not may be judged in different ways , even by the best TDs or Players ; no definition will be able to avoid different opinions. I described my very specific way of ruling at the beginning of this thread and not repeat it here . Seasons Greetings to you all Dany Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > ".....yet happiest if ye seek > No happier state, and know to know no more." > - Paradise Lost > ======================================== > > --------- > > From: David Stevenson > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: Claim > > Date: 06 January 1999 03:16 > > > > Grattan wrote> > _____________________ David wrote ------------------- > > What we have disagreed over is whether you ask claimer for a fresh > > line. Of course, there are many cases where claimer has added things, > > made extraneous remarks and so on. As in any other situation, the TD > > uses all the information that comes his way, and L70D tells him how. > -------------------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > > > ++++ Tilting at windmills. Did I inadvertently say something about asking > claimer for a fresh line? I have been talking about his volunteering one, and > I think a couple of my posts make this clear enough. The Director does not > initiate a variation of the claimer's line, claimer does. ~ Grattan ~ > ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 05:37:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 05:37:39 +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 FAA17146 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 05:37:32 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-87.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.87]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA13771946 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:40:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3696501B.E0E0943F@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 12:36:11 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Here's another one References: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday I posted a ruling for this case which I thought was in strict accordance with the principles that Herman has elaborated. I asked for comments, which after reading the posts of others, I figured would come pouring in telling me where I was in error. Those posts seem to have not arrived so I am some what in the dark as to whether I grasp those principles correctly if at all. I now follow up that post with a ruling based on the principle of executing the original claim statement: Ruling B: Execute according to the claim statement The defenders protest saying that claimer will discover he can not take 5H because he does not have that many in one hand and that he will discover so after the third heart trick. That the only other source of the missing tricks is diamonds and that L70E requires that unstated play of the diamonds requires that the losing finesse must be enforced [if it is least advantageous]. Claimer did not state that he was playing any defender in particular for the DQ. They should receive the diamond Q, any spades and hearts. The claim statement is a promise to execute. The claimer receives the benefit or infamy of that execution in its most disadvantageous form. When points are unstated, the least advantageous normal line consistent with the original statement is adjudicated. Claimer stated that they were to take certain tricks, but not the order. The most disadvantageous order will be found that is normal. Claimer stated 2 diamond tricks. He has the AK, they can be cashed without finesse. It is inconsistent with the claim that diamond finesses be taken so therefore no diamond finesse shall be taken. The 'discovery that only four hearts exist makes it irrational to discard more than one diamond or block diamonds, therefore, claimer is not forced to. If the diamond Q does in fact fall, it would be irrational to not cash a third diamond [by default, this will only be permitted to occur should claimer have no heart losers when played from the top] so it will be cashed if it occurs in the least advantageous line. Claimer is not forced to discard irrationally [therefore-spades first, then diamonds]. Case A If hearts are not breaking.:, normal line 1 If the DQ would not drop: cash 2 diamonds, then play 4 rounds of hearts. The defenders win the fourth heart, they get any hearts, diamond, and spades they can cash. Case A If hearts are not breaking.:, normal line 2 If the DQ would drop, then play 4 hearts first. The defenders win the fourth heart, they get any hearts and spades they can cash. Case B If hearts are 3-2, normal lines 3a and 3b If hearts are 3-2: cash 4 hearts, five clubs, and two diamonds. If the DQ drops, 13 tricks; else 12 tricks. [When hearts break, it is a mute point whether to cash the fourth round, as well as the order of the suits.] Comments? Thank you David Burn. Cheers Roger Pewick David Burn wrote: > > Declarer in 7NT sees these cards: > > A > 5432 > K32 > AKQJ10 > > 432 > AKQJ6 > A109 > 32 > > The opening lead is the king of spades. He spreads his hand, announcing that he will win the ace, cash five hearts, two diamonds and five clubs. > > Unfortunately, declarer has mis-sorted his cards. The card that he believes to be the jack of hearts is in fact the jack of diamonds. How would you adjudicate his claim? (Show your working, assuming various diamond layouts, and be very sure that it is consistent with your views in the "Claim" thread, since these are now a matter of record.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 06:17:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:17:33 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA17228 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:17:27 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA16115; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:16:47 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.65) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma016079; Fri Jan 8 13:16:21 1999 Received: by har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE3B11.987C0520@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:17:17 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3B11.987C0520@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: blml , "'Jan Kamras'" Subject: RE: Interpretation Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:16:48 -0500 Encoding: 44 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Using this logic (?) perhaps we should not penalise revokes when they are caused by a player's attention being drawn to cleavage rather than cards? After all, it's all about... Craig ---------- From: Jan Kamras[SMTP:jkamras@home.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 4:35 AM To: blml Subject: Re: Interpretation Marvin L. French wrote: > Edgar Kaplan expressed the opposite opinion (*Bridge World* > editorial, July 93): "When we think of mistakes that would cancel > the usual protection, we think in terms of revokes, or other > *gross* errors." That would include such things as LOOTs, I > presume. I don't see EK saying revokes (or LOOTs) are "irrational", just that they are "mistakes" and "gross errors". By the way, why do I get a sense of deja vu from the EK statement above? Let's see ........ bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanours :-) Why don't we let the US Congress sort out if a revoke qualifies - and if the offender shall be banned from ACBL for life. But then again, both bribery and treason are normally either rational or irrational so........Ah well - I guess I have to give up on my idea that we "rationals" on BLML would handle the impeachment matter while congress with all it's lawyers interprets TFLB. A pity really, since the irrational behaviour they demonstrate is more suited to protecting us from revoking bridgeplayers than the american people from lying presidents, whereas our tendencies to dish out PPs and award "avg+/avg-" is ideal to handle the impeachment (we give a $40,000,000 PP to Congress but award the republicans 60 seats in the senate vs 40 for the democrats, while throwing Clinton in front of a C&E comittee and prohibiting him and his "partners" from using the "cigar-convention" for the duration of the tournament/presidency)! :-) Good night - I will now fall (rationally) asleep. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 06:17:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:17:21 +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 GAA17221 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:17:14 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA20969; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:16:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.65) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020935; Fri Jan 8 13:16:10 1999 Received: by har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE3B11.944B53C0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:17:10 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3B11.944B53C0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List , "'Eric Landau'" Subject: RE: Claim Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:54:09 -0500 Encoding: 35 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'll weigh in early on this one. I'm in the claims are GOOD camp wholeheartedly. (of course properly stated claims are BETTER) Maybe Herman will keep count? He is doing so well with all the other statistics. And let's not change the subject line...this thread is a record breaker! :-)) Craig Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] wrote: There seem to be two distinct and opposing points of view on the subject of claims in general: some players believe that claims are GOOD, they speed up the game and should be encouraged, while others believe that claims are BAD, they are a device by which stronger players take advantage of weaker ones, cause more problems for TDs/ACs than they're worth, and should be discouraged, perhaps even eliminated altogether. I wonder whether those of us who have been arguing for a more lenient view of faulty claims are, in general, in the pro-claim camp, while those who wish to take a harsh view and punish players for badly stated claims are more comfortable with the anti-claim view. I suspect that we will be unable to achieve a consensus on whether to treat over-hasty or sloppy claims leniently or harshly unless and until we reach a consensus on whether we hope, in the future, to see more claims or fewer. 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 Jan 9 06:20:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:20:26 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA17267 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:20:20 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA15172 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:19:44 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.65) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma015093; Fri Jan 8 13:19:21 1999 Received: by har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE3B12.06E873E0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:20:22 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3B12.06E873E0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Interpretation Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:19:20 -0500 Encoding: 33 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A combination of fatigue, carelessness, inattention/diversion, visual impairment and perhaps alcohol makes this far easier for many that you envision. And then there are the c flight players, who are seldom accused of rational thought in any case! :-)) ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 7:14 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Interpretation Jan Kamras wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: > >> If you accept that, then it's fair to describe a revoke as "irrational" >> because it would not be chosen as a result of a rational thought >> process > >nor of an irrational one. You, like DS, seem to think that all acts are >the result of *some* thought process while the rest of us seem to accept >that some acts are "unintentional", "accidents" or whatever. It is not easy to see how you can pull *any* card out of your hand without a thought process. -- 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 Jan 9 06:34:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:34:42 +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 GAA17306 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:34:31 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zyhfq-0006J5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 19:34:23 +0000 Message-ID: <67KX$IBJSll2Ewck@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 18:55:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: privilige References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C117@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C117@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >Let me be one of the first to react on the 1H (1S) X case brought in by >Herman dW. Yes 25 lacks accuracy, we don't handle what to do in case of an >inadvertant call withdrawn. But putting 1H on the table when you want to bid >1S is an infraction, regardless the reason. So North has unauthorized inf. >and there should be an adjusted score based on 4S - 1 with a disciplinary >penalty for north, may be doubled may be not. It might be reasonable to give >average-plus to EW but then NS should get average-minus or less (4SX-1) >still receiving the penalty as well. This is my personal, so strong, >opinion, nothing to do with WBFLC, though I would like to get support from >that side. SHOOT. I see no reason for the averages. If you believe that either North or South might have actually bid 4S without the UI, then the ruling should be 4S*-2. An obvious case for L12C3 since this is very harsh. But a DP? The TD did not warn the players! They called him, asked him for a ruling, and he apparently gave them one without telling them that the withdrawn call was unauthorised for NS. Surely this is Director Error? OK, if NS are very experienced, and might be expected to have some idea that the withdrawn call was UI, I suppose they might be at fault. It does not seem right, when the TD apparently did not know this. Personally, I have no difficulty with 1H being an infraction or the use of L16C2: that I believe to be clear, and English TDs have been so instructed. -- 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 Jan 9 06:34:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:34:44 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA17313 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:34:35 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zyhfp-0006J3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 19:34:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 18:09:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert References: <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> <199901061248.MAA20699@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990108083240.0071e12c@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990108083240.0071e12c@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >It's common practice around here, even among the most ethical players, to >take the liberty of technically violating L75D2 in failure-to-alert cases. >Typically, the player will, at the appropriate time, inform the opponents >that there has been a failure to alert, proffer the correct explanation, >and ask the opponents whether there is any possibility that they may have >done anything different had the alert been given, then call the director >only if they say that they might have. Strict adherence to L75D2 >notwithstanding, neither players nor TDs see much merit in calling the TD >when everyone at the table agrees that the failure to alert could have no >possible effect on the outcome. The problem with that approach is that it may work when everyone understands their rights. However, a common result of this approach is that declarer corrects his explanation before the opening lead is faced, the defence say "Right-oh!", lead, play the hand, and then call the TD because they might have doubled the contract. Of course, they auction could have been re-opened to let the player in the pass-out seat double, as the TD would have explained if called at the right 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 Sat Jan 9 06:34:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:34:44 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA17305 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:34:31 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zyhfp-0006J4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 19:34:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 18:26:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> <36963AAF.34F5FB30@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: <36963AAF.34F5FB30@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: >It appears that there is an important point to be taken notice of. L25A >requires that for no penalty to be applied, it is not enough the call >must have been inadvertent. Further it must be corrected without pause >for thought, presumably from the point of 'first discovery'. Therefore, >if the discovery is because of thought initiated by outside influence, >this criteria is not met. This seems incomprehensible to me. You realise that you have made the wrong call through an outside infuluence: that is the point of 'first discovery'. If you attempt to change the call at that moment then there has been no pause for thought and the criteria are met. >In this case the offender discovered their error and did not change >their call immediately. They instead summoned the director. This >reduces to practically nil the incontrovertible evidence that there was >no pause for thought. It seems reasonable that they indicated why they wanted the TD, and that is the attempt to change. I believe it to be in time. [s] >Because UI has been created I must advise the table of its ramifications >including the possibility of an adjusted score. I will point out that >the OS is expected to adhere rigorously to their agreements in the >bidding and play. I will monitor the play. Whether we allow the change under L25A or not, this is correct. Well, you do not have to monitor the play, but you warn them of their rights and explain that they should recall you if there was a problem. [s] >Ton said that he feels that to bid 1H when it was intended to bid 1S is >an infraction. I hold a different view. Right or wrong, I do not >think it is an infraction to misbid. I think that the infraction, a >very severe infraction, is to change a call or indicate that you want to >change a call. Some changes of call carry no penalty, some do, and some >are not permitted and carry a penalty. Without knowing the Law book and its interpretations, how is a player to know whether he can change a call? He calls the TD and asks him. It is not an infraction [certainly not severe!] to call the TD and ask! Yes, it may lead to UI, but the TD will deal with that. -- 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 Jan 9 06:48:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:48:26 +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 GAA17374 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:48:19 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA03333 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:45:48 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199901081945.NAA03333@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:45:48 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 12:23 PM 1/7/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: > > >The primary reason for our inability to do this appears to me to lie in our > >different interpretations of the word "irrational" as it occurs in the > >footnotes to Laws 68 through 70 (and perhaps beyond). I believe that if there > >existed a working definition for this word - by which I mean a definition > that > >is objective in the context of the Laws of the game - then real progress > could > >be made. > > Perhaps this is not the problem, but merely a symptom of it. There seem to > be two distinct and opposing points of view on the subject of claims in > general: some players believe that claims are GOOD, they speed up the game > and should be encouraged, while others believe that claims are BAD, they > are a device by which stronger players take advantage of weaker ones, cause > more problems for TDs/ACs than they're worth, and should be discouraged, > perhaps even eliminated altogether. I am in complete agreement, Eric--this seems to me to be exactly the issue here. > I wonder whether those of us who have been arguing for a more lenient view > of faulty claims are, in general, in the pro-claim camp, while those who > wish to take a harsh view and punish players for badly stated claims are > more comfortable with the anti-claim view. > > I suspect that we will be unable to achieve a consensus on whether to treat > over-hasty or sloppy claims leniently or harshly unless and until we reach > a consensus on whether we hope, in the future, to see more claims or fewer. Agreed, again. And, for whatever it matters, put me wholeheartedly in the pro-claim camp. I know a player who _never_ claims, no matter what she holds. Sitting there and playing out every card, even when they are all obviously top tricks, is time-consuming and annoying. I am strongly in favor of encouraging claims, and also [consequently] of a lenient reading of claim law. > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 06:54:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:54:35 +1100 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA17393 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:54:29 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n45.san.rr.com [204.210.46.69]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA10699; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:54:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901081954.LAA10699@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Here's another one Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:53:46 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > > >He gets one spade, three or four hearts depending on whether they are 3-2, > >two or three diamonds depending on whether the queen drops in two rounds, > >and five clubs: 11, 12 or 13 tricks depending on the lie. > > There is an emerging consensus that this is incorrect; declarer, according > to most of us, gets three diamonds only if the queen is stiff, otherwise is > deemed to have cashed one round and taken the losing finesse. If this is > truly the consensus position, I will henceforth take a very different view > of L70E. L70E is headed "Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop)", and > says "The Director shall not accept... 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..." I have > always read this to mean that the claimer may not be deemed to take an > unproven finesse -- after all, isn't a losing finesse nonetheless a "play > the success of which depends on finding one opponent rather than the other > with a particular card"? -- and thus should be deemed to play for the drop > whenever it is consistent with the original claim statement (as it > generally is when the claimer claims top tricks that he doesn't actually > have). Comments? > Take your different view, Eric, please. The lawmakers carefully (they thought) worded this law to ensure that successful finesses can't be taken unless proven, and a losing finesse must be taken. We had a case in a big team event where a player mistakenly thought he had the rest in high cards, but he actually needed to find a queen. TD ruled he could not finesse with his Kx opposite AJxxx, so the queen was dropped offside. That was an incorrect ruling, and that case shows why the lawmakers did not write "no finessing," as most people have believed, but which has not been true since the 1963 Laws were published (and maybe before). The partial title of the law (Finesse or Drop) should have been carried through into the text for the sake of clarity. That is speaking generally. When you get down to details, things get sticky. For instance: If an expert declarer has a definite count on the hand that says a finesse *must* win, this could be construed as being a proven finesse. However, the law does not use that term, saying that a defender must show void in the suit to allow such a finesse. Second "however": If not taking the finesse would be irrational, as is probably true in this case, the successful finesse can be taken. This exception language was added in 1997, and it leads to a lot of problems related to determining what is irrational for the particular player involved. However, it was necessary, for one reason because some losing finesse plays would be irrational (AKQ10xxx opposite x, Jxx offside, no adverse bidding). "Any normal line of play" in L70E should be "every normal line of play," "*n'importe quelle*," as the French translation puts it. The word "any" is ambiguous in the English language (one of many, or all of many), and should be avoided where its intent might be misconstrued. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 07:08:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 07:08:39 +1100 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA17429 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 07:08:34 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n45.san.rr.com [204.210.46.69]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA12044 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:08:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901082008.MAA12044@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Claim Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:07:12 -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 > Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] wrote: > There seem to > be two distinct and opposing points of view on the subject of claims in > general: some players believe that claims are GOOD, they speed up the game > and should be encouraged, while others believe that claims are BAD, they > are a device by which stronger players take advantage of weaker ones, cause > more problems for TDs/ACs than they're worth, and should be discouraged, > perhaps even eliminated altogether. > > I wonder whether those of us who have been arguing for a more lenient view > of faulty claims are, in general, in the pro-claim camp, while those who > wish to take a harsh view and punish players for badly stated claims are > more comfortable with the anti-claim view. > > I suspect that we will be unable to achieve a consensus on whether to treat > over-hasty or sloppy claims leniently or harshly unless and until we reach > a consensus on whether we hope, in the future, to see more claims or fewer. > I think it's a good idea not to claim until all the remaining tricks to be taken are in one hand, but I don't know how that could be turned into a Law or regulation. This would not cure the general problem, but would reduce it considerably. I've found that opponents often can't do the quick mental juggling necessary when tricks are in both hands, and it's a waste of time to expect it of them. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 07:40:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 07:40:09 +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 HAA17510 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 07:40:02 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa09348; 8 Jan 99 12:39 PST To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 08 Jan 1999 09:26:23 PST." <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 12:39:30 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901081239.aa09348@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > Perhaps this is not the problem, but merely a symptom of it. There seem to > be two distinct and opposing points of view on the subject of claims in > general: some players believe that claims are GOOD, they speed up the game > and should be encouraged, while others believe that claims are BAD, they > are a device by which stronger players take advantage of weaker ones, cause > more problems for TDs/ACs than they're worth, and should be discouraged, > perhaps even eliminated altogether. Well, I guess I don't fit into either camp. My feeling is that good claims are GOOD and bad claims are BAD. Good claims should be encouraged because they speed up the game, but this encouragement should not extend to showing tolerance for bad claims, which create a mess for everyone and should definitely be discouraged. And if someone doesn't know whether a claim is good or bad, we shouldn't be encouraging them to claim and create a possible problem. On the other hand, my tendency is to claim as quickly as possible once I can see that there's no reason to keep playing. And often I don't make any statement, especially if the opponents are decent. Heck, they can see just as well as I can that trumps are out and my two trumps in dummy will take care of two of the losers in my hand and dummy's A-Q in my side suit opposite my stiff, which are good because the king showed up earlier, will take care of the third loser. Also, I get irritated if my partner plays a couple tricks more than he or she needs to. (But that's probably because being a dummy is boring, and I don't like being the dummy any longer than I have to.) So which side of this battle should I sign up for? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 07:41:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 07:41:54 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA17530 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 07:41:46 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-160.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.160]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA14102111; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:44:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36966D2B.9750CAA8@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 14:40:11 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Senior , Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Claim References: <01BE3B11.944B53C0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I, for one am Pro Claim. I am NOT for harsh rulings. I am NOT for lenient rulings. I am FOR giving claimer what would result from executing what he said he was going to do [in concert with adjudicating unstated points]. Cheers, Roger Pewick Craig Senior wrote: > > I'll weigh in early on this one. I'm in the claims are GOOD camp > wholeheartedly. (of course properly stated claims are BETTER) > > Maybe Herman will keep count? He is doing so well with all the other > statistics. And let's not change the subject line...this thread is a record > breaker! :-)) > > Craig > Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] wrote: > There seem to > be two distinct and opposing points of view on the subject of claims in > general: some players believe that claims are GOOD, they speed up the game > and should be encouraged, while others believe that claims are BAD, they > are a device by which stronger players take advantage of weaker ones, cause > more problems for TDs/ACs than they're worth, and should be discouraged, > perhaps even eliminated altogether. > > I wonder whether those of us who have been arguing for a more lenient view > of faulty claims are, in general, in the pro-claim camp, while those who > wish to take a harsh view and punish players for badly stated claims are > more comfortable with the anti-claim view. > > I suspect that we will be unable to achieve a consensus on whether to treat > over-hasty or sloppy claims leniently or harshly unless and until we reach > a consensus on whether we hope, in the future, to see more claims or fewer. > > 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 Jan 9 07:58:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 07:58:42 +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 HAA17602 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 07:58:35 +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 PAA09343 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:58:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990108155935.0069f8b8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 15:59:35 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990107235948.006d7054@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990107092836.007260e4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990106214516.006cf01c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> <199901061248.MAA20699@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:59 PM 1/7/99 -0500, Michael wrote: >But there's a bigger problem here: on the one hand, you have identified the >burden of calling the TD as lying principally with the NOS, and yet on the >other, you have identified the failure of the OS to call the TD as the >"action...taken in ignorance". The logical conclusion is that the NOS is >_never_ entitled to redress if the TD is not summoned at the appropriate >time, since perforce the OS has taken the "action" of failing to call the >TD. I doubt that is your intent, although you do seem ready to deal harshly >with the NOS in this situation. "Never" is a bit strong, but I would say "except under unusual circumstances". I wouldn't deny redress if the NOs were novices who didn't understand that the TD must be called at least as soon as there is any possibility that the infraction might result in damage, or if the offenders clearly knew that they should call the TD but didn't in the hope of gaining some advantage. >Lots of reasons, but most likely exactly the same ignorance of his rights >which you have ascribed to the South player. East might reasonably be >concerned that such a comment would be a source of UI--everything before >'Director please!' is inappropriate in any event. Or East might be asleep >at the switch. Or perhaps it takes East a while to work up the nerve to >stand up for his rights. Certainly a planned double shot is one possible >explanation, and for a strong, experienced player it may well be the most >likely explanation. > >But even so, the Laws afford the NOS access to "double shots" in a number >of respects. The fact is, NS committed an infraction by failing to alert >their responsive double as required. If East had a fairly clear 4C bid but >chose to pass in light of the apparent penalty double of 3C, when in fact >4C is on, then his side has been damaged by the MI, and he is entitled to >redress. His failure to summon the TD at the time of comment does not cause >him to forfeit all rights to redress. It does cost him the immediate right >to change his final pass. That's a substantial penalty to pay, if 4C seems >like the likely choice, since he is in effect rolling the dice on the >decision of the TD. I'm in the camp that thinks that double shots should be a legitimate part of the game, but I recognize that I'm in the minority. I'm also on record as opposing the use of the Kaplan doctrine as a way to penalize/discourage double shots. Luckily, in a case like the current one, there's no need to resort to the Kaplan doctrine to deny redress to E-W if we think they're taking a blatant double shot; we can use L11A. My problem with Michael's analysis is that I don't see how forfeiting the right to change one's call at the table is "a substantial penalty to pay". Compared with the ability to only raise the issue of whether the the MI should entitle him to redress if and when he discovers that bidding 4C would have been a good idea. If he waits, and seeks redress later, he may get stuck with the score he might have achieved anyhow (had he decided, when put to it without the benefit of seeing all the hands, not to change his call), but he's 100% protected from making a bad decision to change his call at the appropriate time. Sounds to me like, if we don't deny redress, someone who made it a practice not to call the TD in such situations would come out ahead in the long run. 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 Jan 9 08:17:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 08:17:57 +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 IAA17641 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 08:17:49 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-160.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.160]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA14216345 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 16:20:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <369675AB.8D413E3F@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 15:16:27 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> <36963AAF.34F5FB30@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A difference of opinion I see! On one hand you say that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for not being subject to it and on the other, if you don't know the law- how do you know it is ok to change a call. it seems a bit cockeyed to me. If a player did not know it was ok to change a call, it can, but does not necessarily follow that they would not know to ask in the first place, so therefore nothing would have been done about the 1H call at all. I think that a requirement of playing is that the rules be followed. You do not need to know the rules to play, but when you break them, you receive the consequences. If you do not know the rules, the TD ought to be as gentle as the rules permit while not depriving the NOS of what they are due. When L25 was changed, it could have included a section about if you want to know if you may change your call, you may ask the director. It did not and does not. In fact, it says you must change the inadvertent call without pause for thought. To ask the TD if it is ok is certainly a pause. It is not even certain that you want to change your call without asking for guidance. The way the law is written, it says if it was inadvertent, then change it. If you did so without pause for thought, the TD ought to find that you met the criteria and rule so, with no penalty attached. To me this is plain, it makes reasonable sense, and appears to be a fair and best way to do it. Cheers Roger Pewick David Stevenson wrote: > > axeman wrote: > >It appears that there is an important point to be taken notice of. L25A > >requires that for no penalty to be applied, it is not enough the call > >must have been inadvertent. Further it must be corrected without pause > >for thought, presumably from the point of 'first discovery'. Therefore, > >if the discovery is because of thought initiated by outside influence, > >this criteria is not met. > > This seems incomprehensible to me. You realise that you have made the > wrong call through an outside infuluence: that is the point of 'first > discovery'. If you attempt to change the call at that moment then there > has been no pause for thought and the criteria are met. > > >In this case the offender discovered their error and did not change > >their call immediately. They instead summoned the director. This > >reduces to practically nil the incontrovertible evidence that there was > >no pause for thought. > > It seems reasonable that they indicated why they wanted the TD, and > that is the attempt to change. I believe it to be in time. > > [s] > > >Because UI has been created I must advise the table of its ramifications > >including the possibility of an adjusted score. I will point out that > >the OS is expected to adhere rigorously to their agreements in the > >bidding and play. I will monitor the play. > > Whether we allow the change under L25A or not, this is correct. Well, > you do not have to monitor the play, but you warn them of their rights > and explain that they should recall you if there was a problem. > > [s] > > >Ton said that he feels that to bid 1H when it was intended to bid 1S is > >an infraction. I hold a different view. Right or wrong, I do not > >think it is an infraction to misbid. I think that the infraction, a > >very severe infraction, is to change a call or indicate that you want to > >change a call. Some changes of call carry no penalty, some do, and some > >are not permitted and carry a penalty. > > Without knowing the Law book and its interpretations, how is a player > to know whether he can change a call? He calls the TD and asks him. It > is not an infraction [certainly not severe!] to call the TD and ask! > Yes, it may lead to UI, but the TD will deal with that. I said it was an infraction to change a call. In this instance, calling the director to ask breaks the criteria for change without pause for thought. It is ok to call the director to ask, but in this case, there is UI from calling the TD. > 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 Jan 9 08:46:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 08:46:13 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA17718 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 08:46:06 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990108214600.BRMB6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:46:00 -0800 Message-ID: <36967D70.BFB1D868@home.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 13:49:36 -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: Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > OK, so as a TD, what do you do if you decide that you are not going to > force declarer to play all the trumps? You have suggested that you seek > new information *from claimer*: I just make a decision *without* asking > claimer to state a fresh line. I'm with Grattan (I think) on this. I see no support in the law-text for the TD to chose any succesful line for claimer. My position here also seems to follow bridge-logic and furthermore I think the laws elsewhere explicitly prohibit the TD from bidding/playing the hand for declarer. The procedure seems trivial: (1) If declarer doesn't ask for anything once his original line breaks down - his problem - he is down whatever. (2) If he says "oops, if trumps don't break continuing is silly and instead I play as follows.....", you have 2 cases: (2.1) the new line doesn't produce any more tricks than the original one - again he is down whatever (NB the TD doesn't now come up saying "but wait, that new line is not "rational" due this and that so why don't you play so and so, which gives an extra trick?"). (2.2) the new line succeeds - only *now* does TD start exploring alternative normal lines, looking for one that fails. In other words, the TD is not the lawyer for the claimer but for the opposition! > > You are *now* suggesting you do not ask claimer for a fresh line. > Please explain what you meant by: > > >The Director is not to introduce and allow claimer a successful line > >that claimer has not proposed; the law does not give him that power. > > if you are not asking claimer He didn't say that, only that TD doesn't introduce lines. > and you are not allowing the TD to do > it, then who are you asking? You're asking noone :-) If claimer cannot come up with a succesful line on his own (knowing how trumps break and how the cards lie) he doesn't deserve, nor does the laws provide him, protection from his possibly inadequate skills. Or do you suggest TD's role is to level the playing field by assuming all declarers in the tournament have the same skills at the same time? > This is the basic disagreement. I believe the Law *does* give the TD > the power to introduce a fresh line. Let us go back to "A Strange > Claim" where the arguments eventually convinced me and the majority. > Declarer claimed a number of tricks in clubs, diamonds and spades, not > noticing a club blockage. For a variety of reasons, the final answer > that convinced some of us [and, to be fair, was the view of the majority > of posters all through] was that in practice declarer would discover the > club blockage and then would do the most logical thing, namely play a > heart towards KJ in dummy. That is what it was decided that the ruling > should have been - a fresh line introduced by the TD/AC. No-one [not > even you] suggested we should go back to declarer and say "When you > discover a club blockage, what do you do next?" All right, in this last > post you are saying you would not do so either - but the alternative is > that you *must* allow the TD to come up with his variation when the > original line breaks down, and that is what we have been arguing about > ever since the post quoted above. > > Even in this last post you say > >The Director does not > >initiate a variation of the claimer's line, claimer does. > and that is wrong. I am still missing any sensible reading of the law-text that allows you to so categorically claim that you are right and Grattan (and I) wrong. Maybe the other case was not quite comparable, or maybe the majority was wrong on that one. Unthinkable? :-) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 09:07:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 09:07:21 +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 JAA17834 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 09:07:15 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990108220709.CALJ6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:07:09 -0800 Message-ID: <36968265.568E91F7@home.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 14:10:45 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim References: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > I wonder whether those of us who have been arguing for a more lenient view > of faulty claims are, in general, in the pro-claim camp, while those who > wish to take a harsh view and punish players for badly stated claims are > more comfortable with the anti-claim view. Put me in the "Pro claim" camp, but in the faction of it that feels the onus is on the claimer to have thought-out the line of play,possibly with provisos in case a suit breaks badly if the line doesn't work irrespective of the lie of the cards. My basis for this qualification is simple: Bad, contested, claims **slows down** the play whereas the purpose was to speed it up (opponents figuring out if to dispute, wait for TD to arrive, wait for the repetition of the claim, wait for TD's determination on "rationality", wait for TD's adjudication possibly after searching alternative lines of play. Clearly declarer's play of another couple of tricks would normally have been faster overall.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 09:09:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 09:09:19 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA17860 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 09:09:12 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA11825 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 17:08:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990108171013.006d6b74@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 17:10:13 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990108083240.0071e12c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> <199901061248.MAA20699@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990108083240.0071e12c@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:09 PM 1/8/99 +0000, David wrote: > The problem with that approach is that it may work when everyone >understands their rights. However, a common result of this approach is >that declarer corrects his explanation before the opening lead is faced, >the defence say "Right-oh!", lead, play the hand, and then call the TD >because they might have doubled the contract. Of course, they auction >could have been re-opened to let the player in the pass-out seat double, >as the TD would have explained if called at the right time. So when the auction ends, before the opening lead is made, you say "My partner should have alerted my 3H bid; it shows shortness in hearts, not a suit. Do you think you might have done anything differently if you had known that when I made the bid?" and your opponents say "Right-oh, we're fine, let's play." Then, after the smoke clears and you go down, they examine all four hands and say "Well, now that I think about it, if I had known that 3H showed shortness I might have doubled the final contract. Director!" Unless your opponents are obviously confused novices (which, in real life, they aren't, because if they didn't think about calling the TD earlier they won't now), should I (the TD) really, or do the laws really require me to, show any sympathy for their position? Or should I inform them that if they had called me as soon as they became aware of the irregularity, I would have reopened the auction and given them a chance to double, but now that the play is over, the result is in, and they've seen all the hands, it's too late? Alternatively, when the auction ends, you call me immediately. You say to me "My partner should have alerted my 3H bid; it shows shortness in hearts, not a suit." I turn to your opponents and say "Do you think you might have done anything differently if you had known that when he made the bid?", and they say "Right-oh, we're fine, let's play." Then, after the smoke clears... As a matter of fairness or equity, should the NOs really have any more right to an adjustment after the hand in the first case than in the second? 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 Jan 9 09:52:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 09:52:14 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA17995 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 09:52:08 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA13098 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 17:51:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990108175310.006d3830@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 17:53:10 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <199901081945.NAA03333@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:45 PM 1/8/99 -0600, cfgcs wrote: > And, for whatever it matters, put me wholeheartedly in the >pro-claim camp. I know a player who _never_ claims, no matter what she >holds. Sitting there and playing out every card, even when they are all >obviously top tricks, is time-consuming and annoying. I am strongly in >favor of encouraging claims, and also [consequently] of a lenient reading >of claim law. As am I (as you've probably guessed). I've been playing duplicate bridge for well over 35 years, and for every bad claim I've seen, I've seen dozens of hands where declarer clearly had the rest of the tricks, and knew it, but didn't claim, for fear that the director would be called and something bad would happen. I've also seen people start to claim only to be told by their partner, in no uncertain terms, to play it out. If Grant only knows one player who never claims no matter what she holds, he should consider himself very lucky indeed. And I have never, in hundreds of thousands of hands of duplicate, seen a TD even so much as mention L74B4 to a player, much less issue a warning; a penalty would be beyond the pale. I recently sat in on a rubber game at a money club for the first time in almost 20 years. About half the hands involved claims. Something like a quarter of those were disputed. Everyone put their cards on the table, and, in every case, a sensible result was arrived at in less than a minute without benefit of a TD. I left the game after an hour and a quarter, having played 24 hands, wondering why I would ever want to return to my local duplicate club, where 24 hands take three and a half hours. If the real bottom line issue, as the ACBL keeps telling us, is how to attract and retain duplicate bridge players by making the game more pleasant, then we should do everything we can to encourage claims. 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 Jan 9 10:04:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:04:09 +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 KAA18042 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:04:03 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990108230358.CXYJ6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:03:58 -0800 Message-ID: <36968FB5.BA24F300@home.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 15:07:33 -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: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > A fellow Belgian TD asks me the following : > > K J T 8 5 > 5 2 > A K 7 > Q T 5 > 4 Q 7 3 2 > J T 9 8 7 Q 6 > 8 5 3 Q J T 9 > 9 8 7 2 A K J > A 9 6 > A K 4 3 > 6 4 2 > 6 4 3 > > N E > 1He X > > North calls the TD and states he has pulled the wrong card. > The TD believes him and allows a L25A correction to 1Sp. > L25A does not say so, but obviously East can also change his > call. I disagree from the start. It seems this should be a L25B case, not A. The very fact that A contains no provision for LHO to change his call whereas B does, initself implies A was not intended to apply when LHO had already called. In ruling per L25B it is up to LHO, not the TD, to allow or disallow a correction by opener. NS are quite likely to end up with a lousy score in case LHO choses L25B2b. > He decides to pass. > > South now bids 3Sp and this is the final contract. Made, > because North is alerted to the fact the the spades are with > east. And additionally that most of the hcps are as well! > Absolute top. > > My friend TD has then changed the score to Av+, both sides, > since there is an obvious advantage, but he cannot punish > North for something which is after all "without penalty". > > Two questions : > > In order to change the score, we must be able to call the > information about the double UI to North-South. Not neccesarily. We can simply apply L84E and 12A1. > When awarding the artificial adjusted score (and I don't > blame this TD for doing that here), You know *this* TD :-), but I violently disagree with awarding an ArtAS here. A table-result was reached and it is fairly simple to evaluate what results were "likely" and "probable" absent the infraction (the use of UI). If I have to rule under L25A, but thereafter invoking L84E/L12A1, I'd consider 3S-1 both "at all probable" and "likely" enough, thus awarding balancing scores accordingly. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 10:10:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:10:32 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA18062 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:10:25 +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 SAA30125 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 18:10:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA18695 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 18:10:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 18:10:40 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901082310.SAA18695@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25A and L16C X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jan Kamras > The very fact that [L25]A contains no provision for LHO to change his call > whereas B does, initself implies A was not intended to apply when LHO > had already called. Please explain how the first six words of L25A are to be interpreted. > Not neccesarily. We can simply apply L84E and 12A1. Yes, except I think you mean L12A2, not 12A1. These seem exactly right to me; much better than my suggestion of L72B1. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 10:29:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:29:33 +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 KAA18094 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:29:13 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h51.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id CAA06243; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 02:29:00 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36973E10.1D8B@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 03:31:28 -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: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_TRY2.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_TRY2.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Hi Herman:) I'll try to explain why I am disagree with Herman almost at any point:) Quotations from Herman's post are written in reverse commas. "After the DFLOP, Declarer can find himself in one of four positions : <... snip...> That is what a careful Declarer will do. However, every once in while, a careless Declarer will claim before he has finished the DFLOP." What you called DFLOP - is the problem of choice of decision in many-criterial task. There is neither sole nor clear way to find such a decision even in theory - and that's why usually there is possibility (with non-zero probability) that the decision will be wrong. Even made by ideal resolver:) Bridge in nice model of such a many-criterial task. And players are not ideal resolvers - that's why player's mistakes are an integral part of the game of bridge (not only in DFLOP: just in any bridge decision). Not only carelessness is the reason of mistakes. So: every your point (A,B,C,D or etc.) should include so true as wrong decision. The higher is player's level - the less is probability of his wrong decision, but it never becomes zero. And so: there are no differences between these Herman's points... The only difference is proportion between truth and false. "The case of a Declarer being in 4Sp where he thinks he has 13 tricks is a good example. Such a Declarer will quite often claim before the DFLOP." Not before - usually it does be DFLOP, but only wrong one. And I guess that it is neither rude, nor irrational: just wrong decision, not more - but not less:) "Well, such a Declarer will quite often fail to give a complete claim statement. That means we should find all "normal" lines, and that means we should do the DFLOP in place of Declarer. Again we might reach one of the four positions." For my opinion there are no four positions - but only one: claim with more or less proportion of false. And all of them should be judged in the same manner. "That, IMO, is the position that claimers in this original post, and in the strange claim of 2 years ago, were in." It is a pity that I did not take part in that dispute - I was out of BLML then. But I analysed this board in Russian bridge magazine (because it had happened at Russian tournament) - and my opinion was rather differ from BLML's majority. Though the L70E is named as "Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop)" - the header is not part of the Laws. And there is no mention of drop in this Law - so it is allowed. Such a position is agreed with one more principle from the Legend: play from top is always allowed. Poor claimer has rights for a bit of luck:) And at that board the 10 of Club was third - so the only problem for AC was: was the Declarer able to notice Club blockage before playing second Club from the Dummy? My personal answer was negative, but I would understand AC's positive decision. "Now I agree that if this Declarer DFLOPs, and then comes up with the strange statement, "I play all the hearts", then he should be held to that. But Occam's razor tells me that these Declarers did not DFLOP. After all, their statements make no sense if they have thought the case through." As I remember Occam's razor sounds like (sorry for wording, it is translation from Russian): "Thou shalt not create more Universes than it is needed". Then even staying at Herman's position it is more natural to consider that claimer knew what he was going to do - according with Occam's razor:) Contrary guessing creates new Universe: he did something and did not know what he was doing:) Another pair of shoes is problem of statement's sense: where in the Laws there is mentioned that players' actions (claims included) should have sense? I'd like to repeat once more: mistakes are integral part of bridge. And these mistakes may be made so with sense as without it. "I am convinced that he did not DFLOP at all." I hope Herman will change his position cause there are DFLOP before claims - true or wrong, as I tried to prove. "I don't see in any of this any kind of proof that the irrational line, as some would have this fellow play, now falls within the bounds of "careless or inferior for the class of player involved"." Let us read L70D and L70E once more: "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." This Law concerns with NEW lines only - and they says nothing about first claimer's statement. The first statement should be executed as it was said - rational or irrational - up to the point where it fails. Such a position is agreed with "Named - Played" principle of the Legend and does not contradict with the Laws. For my opinion only AFTER this line (of first claimer's statement) fails - TD/AC will use L70D and L70E, think about normal, careless or irrational play, etc. Sorry for long post - I tried to be shorter but could not:) Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 10:57:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:57:05 +1100 Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA18133 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:57:01 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn8p53.ozemail.com.au [203.108.79.53]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA09833 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:56:57 +1100 (EST) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 10:56:57 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199901082356.KAA09833@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:10 PM 8/01/99 +0200, you wrote: from Dany: >I like this , because it would bring all of us , toghether , >back to sanity and enjoying play bridge , including duplicate !!!! > >I hope this line will guide the WBF-LC along the ...next years. > I think this would make an excellent Q1 for the internet Director's quiz, floated last year which sank without trace, since it admits of two correct answers. For myself, I think it will allow me to rule against nasty Mr A, who always gives me a hard time, but to tell nice Miss B that it would be irrational to proceed with her claim statement after finding the bad break :). BTW, suppose I have AKQxx hearts in dummy, opposite xxxx in hand, and I say "run the hearts". Can I change tack when I find the hearts break 4:0 ? Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 11:19:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA18197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 11:19:34 +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 LAA18192 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 11:19:27 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zym7X-0007a0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 00:19:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 22:31:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <199901082008.MAA12044@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199901082008.MAA12044@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: >I think it's a good idea not to claim until all the remaining >tricks to be taken are in one hand, but I don't know how that could >be turned into a Law or regulation. This would not cure the general >problem, but would reduce it considerably. What general problem? Yes, I know some claims go wrong, but not enough to matter, surely? My experience of claims is that about one in fifteen or twenty require the TD, and I don't see that as a problem. -- 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 Jan 9 12:42:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA18310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 12:42:08 +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 MAA18299 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 12:41:58 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zynPI-0001Ha-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:41:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:15:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: MI/failure to alert References: <3.0.1.32.19990108083240.0071e12c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> <199901061248.MAA20699@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990106174054.00719580@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990108083240.0071e12c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990108171013.006d6b74@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990108171013.006d6b74@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 06:09 PM 1/8/99 +0000, David wrote: > >> The problem with that approach is that it may work when everyone >>understands their rights. However, a common result of this approach is >>that declarer corrects his explanation before the opening lead is faced, >>the defence say "Right-oh!", lead, play the hand, and then call the TD >>because they might have doubled the contract. Of course, they auction >>could have been re-opened to let the player in the pass-out seat double, >>as the TD would have explained if called at the right time. > >So when the auction ends, before the opening lead is made, you say "My >partner should have alerted my 3H bid; it shows shortness in hearts, not a >suit. Do you think you might have done anything differently if you had >known that when I made the bid?" and your opponents say "Right-oh, we're >fine, let's play." Then, after the smoke clears and you go down, they >examine all four hands and say "Well, now that I think about it, if I had >known that 3H showed shortness I might have doubled the final contract. >Director!" > >Unless your opponents are obviously confused novices (which, in real life, >they aren't, because if they didn't think about calling the TD earlier they >won't now), should I (the TD) really, or do the laws really require me to, >show any sympathy for their position? > >Or should I inform them that if they had called me as soon as they became >aware of the irregularity, I would have reopened the auction and given them >a chance to double, but now that the play is over, the result is in, and >they've seen all the hands, it's too late? That's the correct approach. Don't like it much. >Alternatively, when the auction ends, you call me immediately. You say to >me "My partner should have alerted my 3H bid; it shows shortness in hearts, >not a suit." I turn to your opponents and say "Do you think you might have >done anything differently if you had known that when he made the bid?", No: now you say "You may take back your last pass if it was affected by the misinformation and you would have done something different if you had known: do you want to take your pass back?" > and >they say "Right-oh, we're fine, let's play." Then, after the smoke clears... Now I am *quite happy* to give them nothing based on withdrawing that last pass. It was specifically offered and refused. >As a matter of fairness or equity, should the NOs really have any more >right to an adjustment after the hand in the first case than in the second? No, but in the second case they are far more likely to withdraw that pass if it was affected by the MI because they were specifically offered the chance to withdraw it. -- 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 Jan 9 12:42:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA18308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 12:42:05 +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 MAA18298 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 12:41:58 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zynPI-0001Hb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:41:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:32:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> <36968FB5.BA24F300@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36968FB5.BA24F300@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >I disagree from the start. It seems this should be a L25B case, not A. >The very fact that A contains no provision for LHO to change his call >whereas B does, initself implies A was not intended to apply when LHO >had already called. L25A starts "Until his partner makes a call, a player may ..." It does apply after LHO has called. [s] >Not neccesarily. We can simply apply L84E and 12A1. These Laws should be used *very* sparingly. They are not designed as a catchall for a TD who is vaguely dissatisfied but for the odd things that happen which no-one is likely to have thought of. But UI cases are not like that: there is a perfectly good UI Law, well more than one actually, so apply it. -- 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 Jan 9 12:42:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA18315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 12:42:13 +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 MAA18300 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 12:42:01 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zynPI-0001HZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:41:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:08:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <36967D70.BFB1D868@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36967D70.BFB1D868@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> OK, so as a TD, what do you do if you decide that you are not going to >> force declarer to play all the trumps? You have suggested that you seek >> new information *from claimer*: I just make a decision *without* asking >> claimer to state a fresh line. > >I'm with Grattan (I think) on this. I see no support in the law-text for >the TD to chose any succesful line for claimer. My position here also >seems to follow bridge-logic and furthermore I think the laws elsewhere >explicitly prohibit the TD from bidding/playing the hand for declarer. >The procedure seems trivial: (1) If declarer doesn't ask for anything >once his original line breaks down - his problem - he is down whatever. >(2) If he says "oops, if trumps don't break continuing is silly and >instead I play as follows.....", you have 2 cases: (2.1) the new line >doesn't produce any more tricks than the original one - again he is down >whatever (NB the TD doesn't now come up saying "but wait, that new line >is not "rational" due this and that so why don't you play so and so, >which gives an extra trick?"). (2.2) the new line succeeds - only *now* >does TD start exploring alternative normal lines, looking for one that >fails. > >In other words, the TD is not the lawyer for the claimer but for the >opposition! Oh penc! That shows what is wrong with this whole approach. The TD is an arbiter. He is not a lawyer. Let us try a simple one. K K K -- -- A -- QJ 2 2 2 -- Declarer claims, saying "All mine". I do not say "That is not correct: try again." *I* decide a new line for declarer without asking him, and *I* decide that since there are six normal lines for him [S-H-D, S-D-H, D-H-S, D-S-H, H-S-D, H-D-S] and two of them [H-S-D, H-D-S] give the defence all the tricks I give declarer none. If I followed the method advocated by others I would say "Well, your claim does not work, what are you going to do now?". Declarer [who normally has some idea of the problem once a claim is challenged] will say "I'll play the cards S-H-D". Now some of you have said I ask him again, and he will try D-S-H. "Not good enough", I'll say in a falsely cheerful voice, playing to the audience, and ....... I have real difficulty in believing that any of you actually mean it, but if you are suggesting the TD may not introduce a fresh line, it must come from somewhere. Grattan did not say that I should ask the player, but he said that I had no right to come up with a line, so what does that leave? Some of you have suggested that we ask the player, and some have suggested we ask the player for all normal lines. Well, we don't. -- 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 Jan 9 13:23:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:23:11 +1100 Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA18375 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:23:01 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka85g.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.176]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA16716 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:22:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990108210707.006da9bc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 21:07:07 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> References: <000701be3a3f$5a8b93c0$598a93c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:26 AM 1/8/99 -0500, Eric wrote: >Perhaps this is not the problem, but merely a symptom of it. There seem to >be two distinct and opposing points of view on the subject of claims in >general: some players believe that claims are GOOD, they speed up the game >and should be encouraged, while others believe that claims are BAD, they >are a device by which stronger players take advantage of weaker ones, cause >more problems for TDs/ACs than they're worth, and should be discouraged, >perhaps even eliminated altogether. > >I wonder whether those of us who have been arguing for a more lenient view >of faulty claims are, in general, in the pro-claim camp, while those who >wish to take a harsh view and punish players for badly stated claims are >more comfortable with the anti-claim view. > >I suspect that we will be unable to achieve a consensus on whether to treat >over-hasty or sloppy claims leniently or harshly unless and until we reach >a consensus on whether we hope, in the future, to see more claims or fewer. > I am definitely in the "lenient camp", but as for this other issue, I can only say that I would like to see more good claims and fewer bad ones. ;) Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 13:23:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:23:08 +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 NAA18374 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:23:00 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka85g.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.176]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA22525 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:22:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990108210158.006d9cc0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 21:01:58 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L25A and L16C In-Reply-To: <36968FB5.BA24F300@home.com> References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:07 PM 1/8/99 -0800, Jan wrote: > >I disagree from the start. It seems this should be a L25B case, not A. >The very fact that A contains no provision for LHO to change his call >whereas B does, initself implies A was not intended to apply when LHO >had already called. > Then why is the stipulated correction period given as "Until partner makes a call" ? L25A may be unwieldy and unworkable in its present form, but it is clear that it is intended to apply even after LHO has called. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 13:23:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:23:07 +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 NAA18373 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:22:59 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka85g.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.176]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA04835 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:22:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990108212244.006d9cc0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 21:22:44 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L25A and L16C In-Reply-To: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:24 AM 1/8/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >In order to change the score, we must be able to call the >information about the double UI to North-South. The only >way to do so is to apply L16C2, which talks about the >offending side. Can NS, despite there being no penalty, >still be regarded as "offending side". (IMO they can) > What, pray tell, is the offense? North has properly executed the option granted him under the Laws, at least if the TD has determined that he could change his call under 25A, which he apparently has. He has committed no offense, and hence cannot be regarded as the OS, in any useful sense of the term. I understand your friend's discomfort, and his consequent efforts to ameliorate the apparent injustice. But the Laws make it quite clear that changing one's call under L25A is done without prejudice. So BOTH sides are equally entitled to the information concerning the withdrawn double. In this case, North was able to make good use of that legal information. In another situation, it may be that West is better positioned to use the information. Tough luck. It may not seem completely equitable, but it is plain that when a right is granted "without penalty", that's what it means. >When awarding the artificial adjusted score (and I don't >blame this TD for doing that here), one has to read L12C1, >which talks of "at fault". Is it possible for a player to be >an offending side and still not be "at fault"? (IMO he can) > >Would it not be possible to adjust the Av+ downwards again, >because player may be considered in breach of L90B7 (errors >in procedure) and L74B1 (insufficient attention), thus >making the player "partially at fault" and giving him Av or >even Av- ? Of course it would be possible, and not necessarily less sensible than the actual score adjustment. But whether it would be legal is entirely a different matter. To do so requires that we completely ignore the "without penalty" clause in L25A. Of course TD's make rulings all the time which are contrary to the Laws, so your friend need not feel lonesome. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 13:46:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:46:34 +1100 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA18431 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:46:26 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.219] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zyoPd-0002Nh-00; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 02:46:06 +0000 Message-ID: <199901090246320750.04938049@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901081945.NAA03333@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <199901081945.NAA03333@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 02:46:32 +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 Grant wrote: [snip] [quoting Eric Landau] >> Perhaps this is not the problem, but merely a symptom of it. There seem= to >> be two distinct and opposing points of view on the subject of claims in >> general: some players believe that claims are GOOD, they speed up the= game >> and should be encouraged, while others believe that claims are BAD, they >> are a device by which stronger players take advantage of weaker ones,= cause >> more problems for TDs/ACs than they're worth, and should be discouraged, >> perhaps even eliminated altogether. > > I am in complete agreement, Eric--this seems to me to be exactly >the issue here. Not "exactly", though the point is a good one and worth addressing. There= have been occasions when, even though the eight-card ending is not= trivial, I have faced my cards and said nothing, or perhaps murmured= "drawing trumps". The opponents - experts both - have conceded after a= brief glance. There have been others when, even though I have the rest on= top in both hands, I know that it will be quicker to play some or all of= my remaining cards before tabling the rest of them (if any), for the= opponents - duffers both - will have more thinking time on the next board= than if I were to claim on this one. I am sure that all of us on BLML play= the game the same way, purely as a practical matter. >> I wonder whether those of us who have been arguing for a more lenient= view >> of faulty claims are, in general, in the pro-claim camp, while those who >> wish to take a harsh view and punish players for badly stated claims are >> more comfortable with the anti-claim view. Possibly. For myself, as Jan Kamras put it very well, I am pro good claims= and anti bad ones. If what DWS says is true - that one cliam in fifteen or= even twenty causes problems - then I would be in favour of fewer claims= rather than more. It isn't so much the complexities that I know I will= become involved in on the Appeals Committee that concern me. It's the= reaction of the players on both sides to the subsequent adjudication that= is the difficulty. If Herman's ruling on the original case was accepted by= the AC, the opponents would be (rightly) furious that a man who said he= would play "all trumps", and would have gone down had he done so, has been= allowed to play just one trump and then do something else (in particular,= something else that the TD has discovered for him!). If my ruling found= favour with the AC, declarer would be (rightly) furious that he had been= assumed to play like an idiot when he wasn't one. But - imagine how much greater the fury of the injured parties would be if= they discovered, from reading this list, that the ruling was in effect= completely arbitrary. If defenders had had me ruling instead of Herman,= they'd have won a slam swing; if declarer had had Herman ruling instead of= me, he'd have avoided losing one for his carelessness. Now, this simply *must not be*. I do not (though this may not have been= apparent from the vehemence of my arguments) actually care a hill of beans= what the "right" ruling in the actual case should have been. What I care= about very much is that there should be any kind of dispute about what the= ruling should have been. The Laws, as I have said before (and it upset DWS= more than somewhat) should be so drafted that disputes of this sort cannot= exist. I happen to believe that "my" way of dealing with bad claims is= "better" than Herman's - a man who claims like an idiot will be assumed to= play like an idiot. At least (or so I believe), this way will lead= (perhaps) to more good claims and (certainly) to fewer bad ones. I may be= wrong; if so, I will bow to the judgement of my peers. But, once that= judgement has been made, let us all concentrate on finding some way to set= it in tablets of stone whether we agree with it or not, so that "Strange= Claim 2000" does not occur on this list or anywhere else. What I guess I would like to ask Herman is: "how would you redraft the Laws= of bridge so that your judgement on the original case was unquestionably= the correct one?" I know what I would do in order to redraft them "my"= way, and I believe that mine is by far the easier task in that respect.= But, if we are to serve any purpose at all, it should be this one: that= anyone from Bob Hamman to Mrs Guggenheim should be able to sit down at any= bridge table anywhere and know what the rules of the game are. As this= thread and others have very clearly shown, we are a couple of thousand= parsecs away from that position at the moment. Yet other sports seem to= have managed it with very little difficulty - there is not, as I think I= have pointed out, an "Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List"... [Eric again] >> I suspect that we will be unable to achieve a consensus on whether to= treat >> over-hasty or sloppy claims leniently or harshly unless and until we= reach >> a consensus on whether we hope, in the future, to see more claims or= fewer. I don't, as I hope has become clear from the above, think that this is the= issue. More good claims, fewer bad claims. The simple way to achieve this= is to ensure that bad claimers go down. [Grant again] > Agreed, again. > And, for whatever it matters, put me wholeheartedly in the >pro-claim camp. I know a player who _never_ claims, no matter what she >holds. Sitting there and playing out every card, even when they are all >obviously top tricks, is time-consuming and annoying. I am strongly in >favor of encouraging claims, and also [consequently] of a lenient reading >of claim law. You could always concede the rest, you know. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 13:50:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:50:21 +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 NAA18462 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:50:15 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zyoTU-0006V4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 02:50:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 02:48:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990108175310.006d3830@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19990108175310.006d3830@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes > I left the game after an hour and a quarter, >having played 24 hands, wondering why I would ever want to return to my >local duplicate club, where 24 hands take three and a half hours. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not when I'm directing. I'd have 78% meself just on the slow play fines. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 14:07:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:07:43 +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 OAA18486 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:07:36 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa01976; 8 Jan 99 19:07 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 09 Jan 1999 02:46:32 PST." <199901090246320750.04938049@mail.btinternet.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 19:07:00 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901081907.aa01976@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Possibly. For myself, as Jan Kamras put it very well, I am pro good claims > and anti bad ones. If what DWS says is true - that one cliam in fifteen or > even twenty causes problems - then I would be in favour of fewer claims > rather than more. Actually, now that I think about it, one claim in 15 or 20 is an AWFUL LOT. I haven't done a statistical survey, but I'd guess that if I play in a 26-board session, at least 22 of the hands will result in claims at some point. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but it seems like most hands are settled at some point before trick 13 is started (many of them around trick 11 or 12). That would mean in a 15-table section, there would be about 16-21 problem claims in a single session. Perhaps DWS might want to rethink this number? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 14:08:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:08:20 +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 OAA18502 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:08:13 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.219] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zyolI-0003yQ-00; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 03:08:28 +0000 Message-ID: <199901090308180220.04A76C71@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C117@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C117@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 03:08:18 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: privilige Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman wrote: >what a privilige to be chairman of a worldwide committee dealing with the >laws of bridge, when this world is so inventive. Now even David Burn >disappointed me trying to proof that claims are difficult to handle. This >claim discussion tends to the conclusion that we need an automatic= treatment >in cases of disputed claims, punishing the claimer. As we do with revokes. >And then the other half starts screaming that we are too harsh. In my= bridge >experience claims - even difficult ones - are dealt with in a reasonable >way. No reason to change anything. My favourite quotation from the works of Bertrand Russell is: "I am sorry that I have had to leave so many problems unsolved. I always= have to make this apology, but the world is really rather puzzling, and I= cannot help it." Still, that is for philosophers only. I guess that a better dictum is that= adopted by the world's most eminent TDs - Ton, Kojak, Max, Claude being= the leading exponents, though there are many others. Trouble is, I don't= know who said: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." though it was almost certainly not Bertrand Russell. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 14:15:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:15:12 +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 OAA18538 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:15:06 +1100 Received: from modem82.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.82] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zyora-0002w2-00; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 03:14:59 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 02:18:48 -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 "Is it, then, irrational for a Scotsman to wear a kilt?" [Dictionary definition:- ' rational dress' - a style of women's dress characterized by the wearing of knickerbockers rather than a skirt.] ======================================== +++ Personally my feelings are all about the reading and the writing of the laws; I do think Kaplan's style was too subtle for a bridge community of mixed reading skills in English. I do want to do something about this. And I am sorry if that sounds holier than thou, but the difficulty is all too plain, the English style of the laws is not. We have been discussing a section of law where the true meaning is to be inferred - and, yes, I failed short-sightedly to deal with it in 1987. Kaplan was always a clever author who liked his inferences. For the time being we are stuck with them. ~ Grattan ~ +++ ---------- > From: Jan Kamras > To: blml > Subject: Re: Claim > Date: 08 January 1999 21:49 > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > OK, so as a TD, what do you do if you decide that you are not going to > > force declarer to play all the trumps? You have suggested that you seek > > new information *from claimer*: I just make a decision *without* asking > > claimer to state a fresh line. > > I'm with Grattan (I think) on this. I see no support in the law-text for > the TD to chose any succesful line for claimer. My position here also > seems to follow bridge-logic and furthermore I think the laws elsewhere > explicitly prohibit the TD from bidding/playing the hand for declarer. > The procedure seems trivial: (1) If declarer doesn't ask for anything > once his original line breaks down - his problem - he is down whatever. > (2) If he says "oops, if trumps don't break continuing is silly and > instead I play as follows.....", you have 2 cases: (2.1) the new line > doesn't produce any more tricks than the original one - again he is down > whatever (NB the TD doesn't now come up saying "but wait, that new line > is not "rational" due this and that so why don't you play so and so, > which gives an extra trick?"). (2.2) the new line succeeds - only *now* > does TD start exploring alternative normal lines, looking for one that > fails. > > In other words, the TD is not the lawyer for the claimer but for the > opposition! > > > > > You are *now* suggesting you do not ask claimer for a fresh line. > > Please explain what you meant by: > > > > >The Director is not to introduce and allow claimer a successful line > > >that claimer has not proposed; the law does not give him that power. > > > > if you are not asking claimer > > He didn't say that, only that TD doesn't introduce lines. > > > and you are not allowing the TD to do > > it, then who are you asking? > > You're asking noone :-) If claimer cannot come up with a succesful line > on his own (knowing how trumps break and how the cards lie) he doesn't > deserve, nor does the laws provide him, protection from his possibly > inadequate skills. Or do you suggest TD's role is to level the playing > field by assuming all declarers in the tournament have the same skills > at the same time? > > > This is the basic disagreement. I believe the Law *does* give the TD > > the power to introduce a fresh line. Let us go back to "A Strange > > Claim" where the arguments eventually convinced me and the majority. > > Declarer claimed a number of tricks in clubs, diamonds and spades, not > > noticing a club blockage. For a variety of reasons, the final answer > > that convinced some of us [and, to be fair, was the view of the majority > > of posters all through] was that in practice declarer would discover the > > club blockage and then would do the most logical thing, namely play a > > heart towards KJ in dummy. That is what it was decided that the ruling > > should have been - a fresh line introduced by the TD/AC. No-one [not > > even you] suggested we should go back to declarer and say "When you > > discover a club blockage, what do you do next?" All right, in this last > > post you are saying you would not do so either - but the alternative is > > that you *must* allow the TD to come up with his variation when the > > original line breaks down, and that is what we have been arguing about > > ever since the post quoted above. > > > > Even in this last post you say > > >The Director does not > > >initiate a variation of the claimer's line, claimer does. > > and that is wrong. > > I am still missing any sensible reading of the law-text that allows you > to so categorically claim that you are right and Grattan (and I) wrong. > Maybe the other case was not quite comparable, or maybe the majority was > wrong on that one. Unthinkable? :-) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 14:17:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:17:06 +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 OAA18552 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:16:59 +1100 Received: from modem82.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.82] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zyotR-0002w2-00; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 03:16:53 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: privilige Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 03:12:19 -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 "Is it, then, irrational for a Scotsman to wear a kilt?" [Dictionary definition:- ' rational dress' - a style of women's dress characterized by the wearing of knickerbockers rather than a skirt.] ======================================== Hi ton! and others................. > From: Kooijman, A. > To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' > Subject: privilige > Date: 08 January 1999 12:49 > > what a privilige to be chairman of a worldwide committee dealing with the > laws of bridge, when this world is so inventive. Now even David Burn > disappointed me trying to proof that claims are difficult to handle. This > claim discussion tends to the conclusion that we need an automatic treatment > in cases of disputed claims, punishing the claimer. As we do with revokes. > And then the other half starts screaming that we are too harsh. In my bridge > experience claims - even difficult ones - are dealt with in a reasonable > way. No reason to change anything. > > Let me be one of the first to react on the 1H (1S) X case brought in by > Herman dW. Yes 25 lacks accuracy, we don't handle what to do in case of an > inadvertant call withdrawn. But putting 1H on the table when you want to bid > 1S is an infraction, regardless the reason. So North has unauthorized inf. > and there should be an adjusted score based on 4S - 1 with a disciplinary > penalty for north, may be doubled may be not. It might be reasonable to give > average-plus to EW but then NS should get average-minus or less (4SX-1) > still receiving the penalty as well. This is my personal, so strong, > opinion, nothing to do with WBFLC, though I would like to get support from > that side. SHOOT. +++ Someone remarked to me, in a private email, that "ton tends to use the English language in such strong terms that people can easily take him wrongly." Now I wonder where they got that from? :-))) [I thought they must be getting us confused! - or did I?] I think you mean Procedural, by the way, not Disciplinary. You are right, it is an infraction, or an irregularity at least. You are right it can create UI. The TD *does* have the power to award a PP but that is harsh and will not help towards dealing with players more easily when they need the TD. We must always remember that our committee and the directors are all servants of the players (that was the theme of my first ever remarks to one of Kojak's master classes - in Perth, and look how humble the Western Aussie TDs have become). The 'privilege' was handed to you with the left hand, perhaps. We have our problems. The decisions of a largely American WBFLC have not gone down all that well in a largely American ACBL. We are needing concordant dialogue and some thoughts are circulating on that. No doubt we shall be hearing more! Let us pray for mutual sympathy and understanding on all sides, even if our common language does get in the way.~ Grattan ~ +++ > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 14:19:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:19:50 +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 OAA18573 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:19:44 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa02562; 8 Jan 99 19:19 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 09 Jan 1999 02:46:32 PST." <199901090246320750.04938049@mail.btinternet.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 19:19:06 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901081919.aa02562@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > What I guess I would like to ask Herman is: "how would you redraft the Laws= > of bridge so that your judgement on the original case was unquestionably= > the correct one?" I know what I would do in order to redraft them "my"= > way, and I believe that mine is by far the easier task in that respect.= > But, if we are to serve any purpose at all, it should be this one: that= > anyone from Bob Hamman to Mrs Guggenheim should be able to sit down at any= > bridge table anywhere and know what the rules of the game are. As this= > thread and others have very clearly shown, we are a couple of thousand= > parsecs away from that position at the moment. Yet other sports seem to= > have managed it with very little difficulty - there is not, as I think I= > have pointed out, an "Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List"... Actually, this may not be entirely true about other sports. In baseball, for example, the rules specify exactly where a ball must be pitched in order to be called a strike, but the strike zone still varies from one umpire to the next. Major league players eventually learn which umpires have wider strike zones than others, and they adjust. (From what I've read, the late Lee Weyer had a very wide strike zone, so batters would swing at just about anything when he was the umpire.) The key, I think, is that the rules say that the referees' decision in a judgment case is final, so players just have to accept whatever they say (*), even if a pitch in the exact same location is a strike for one umpire and a ball for another, or even if the same umpire calls the same pitch differently on different days. (* Not that they always accept it gracefully, e.g. Robbie Alomar, Nick Van Exel, etc.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 16:51:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA18995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 16:51:35 +1100 Received: from pm1-33.dial.qual.net (root@pm1-33.dial.qual.net [205.212.1.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA18990 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 16:51:27 +1100 Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by pm1-34.dial.qual.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA04526 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 00:50:18 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pm1-34.dial.qual.net: moorebj owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 00:50:18 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings, Thank you, Eric. Finally a voice of reason. Count me in the "claims are GOOD" camp. I see no reason to argue whether the Law actually says to stick it to anyone foolish enough to ever claim. I do believe I'm entitled to an opinion about what's good and bad for the game. Claims *are* good for the game. Take a decent intermediate player, basically ignorant of the Laws. He knows that claims are good and he's heard a rumor that not claiming on an obvious hand is actually "against the rules". He discounts the possiblity of a 4-0 break on a hand with 12 tops (13 if the suit breaks). Even a novice recounts if an opponent shows out on the first round! When you rule that he gets 10 tricks on a hand with which any novice can cash 12 top tricks, he will not be pleased. And it will be a month of Sundays before he claims again. "No, I never claim; the last time I did it I said the wrong words and the director penalized me two tricks -- I'll never do that again!". Several years ago I put my hand down (I had all tops and there was a trump out of which I was aware) and started to make my claim statement; before I could do so RHO shushes me and calls the director. The director "sticks it to me". Believe me, this is not the way to encourage claims. Rather, it's a way to slow down the game for months to come. This can't be good for the game. So, by all means follow the Law. But adding a little common sense can improve the game without resorting to anarchy. Bruce On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Eric Landau wrote: > At 12:23 PM 1/7/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: > > >I did this because it seems important to me that we, as a group, should be > able > >to produce an interpretation of the Laws relating to claims that will > cover all > >possible cases - "God's algorithm", for those who know what that means. As > >those who, with inexhaustible patience, have followed this thread will know, > >this group is a very long way from being able to lay down a single principle > >that will serve as a guide in all possible cases. We cannot even resolve the > >more or less trivial case that began this thread. > > > >The primary reason for our inability to do this appears to me to lie in our > >different interpretations of the word "irrational" as it occurs in the > >footnotes to Laws 68 through 70 (and perhaps beyond). I believe that if there > >existed a working definition for this word - by which I mean a definition > that > >is objective in the context of the Laws of the game - then real progress > could > >be made. > > Perhaps this is not the problem, but merely a symptom of it. There seem to > be two distinct and opposing points of view on the subject of claims in > general: some players believe that claims are GOOD, they speed up the game > and should be encouraged, while others believe that claims are BAD, they > are a device by which stronger players take advantage of weaker ones, cause > more problems for TDs/ACs than they're worth, and should be discouraged, > perhaps even eliminated altogether. > > I wonder whether those of us who have been arguing for a more lenient view > of faulty claims are, in general, in the pro-claim camp, while those who > wish to take a harsh view and punish players for badly stated claims are > more comfortable with the anti-claim view. > > I suspect that we will be unable to achieve a consensus on whether to treat > over-hasty or sloppy claims leniently or harshly unless and until we reach > a consensus on whether we hope, in the future, to see more claims or fewer. > > > 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 Jan 9 23:04:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:04:23 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19516 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:04:16 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-18.uunet.be [194.7.13.18]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA05866 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:04:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36973BD6.D4361401@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 12:21:58 +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 - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <36973E10.1D8B@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No, No, No, Vitold, you have absolutely misunderstood what I am saying. vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > I'll try to explain why I am disagree with Herman almost at any > point:) Quotations from Herman's post are written in reverse > commas. > > "After the DFLOP, Declarer can find himself in one of four > positions : > <... snip...> > That is what a careful Declarer will do. > > However, every once in while, a careless Declarer will claim > before he has finished the DFLOP." > > What you called DFLOP - is the problem of choice of decision > in many-criterial task. There is neither sole nor clear way to > find such a decision even in theory - and that's why usually > there is possibility (with non-zero probability) that the decision > will be wrong. Even made by ideal resolver:) > Of course some DFLOPs are very difficult. If they are, no sane declarer will claim before DFLOPping. And an insane one will be stuck with a TD saying, "this may well be too difficult for you, I don't allow it". But some DFLOPs are amazingly simple. The TD will have no doubt that this declarer would have come to the one possible line following the DFLOP. > Bridge in nice model of such a many-criterial task. And players > are not ideal resolvers - that's why player's mistakes are an > integral part of the game of bridge (not only in DFLOP: just in > any bridge decision). Not only carelessness is the reason of > mistakes. So: every your point (A,B,C,D or etc.) should include > so true as wrong decision. The higher is player's level - the > less is probability of his wrong decision, but it never becomes > zero. And so: there are no differences between these Herman's > points... The only difference is proportion between truth and false. > Of course if there is any doubt, this "shall be resolved against claimer". But please follow me when I say that some DFLOPs are absolutely without doubt. Sidebar : Some of you have the knack of turning things someone says completely around. You think some particular case is a generalisation of some statement that has NOT been made, nor inntended. > "The case of a Declarer being in 4Sp where he thinks he has > 13 tricks is a good example. Such a Declarer will quite often claim > before the DFLOP." > > Not before - usually it does be DFLOP, but only wrong one. And > I guess that it is neither rude, nor irrational: just wrong decision, > not more - but not less:) > NO, a declarer who intuitively sees 13 tricks has NOT performed the DFLOP. He has at that time not even decided in chat order he shall attack the suits. But I did not say that ALL declarers who carelessly claim have not performed DFLOP. I am saying that some declarers will claim before DFLOP. Their claim shall be judged differently from some other declarers who have DFLOPped wrong. That is all I am saying. Please don't turn my words around. > "Well, such a Declarer will quite often fail to give a > complete claim statement. That means we should find all > "normal" lines, and that means we should do the DFLOP in > place of Declarer. Again we might reach one of the four > positions." > > For my opinion there are no four positions - but only one: > claim with more or less proportion of false. And all of them > should be judged in the same manner. > NO, NO, NO. Not all claims can be judged in the same manner. That would be rule 201 : IF YOU CLAIM, YOU AUTOMATICALLY LOOSE 2 TRICKS, and be shot and quartered besides. Every claim should be judged on the basis of the evidence. If the evidence points to the fact that claimer has claimed before DFLOPping, then his claim should be judged accordingly. If the evidence suggests claimer did in fact DFLOP, but did so incorrectly, he will be judged against. > "That, IMO, is the position that claimers in this original > post, and in the strange claim of 2 years ago, were in." > > It is a pity that I did not take part in that dispute - I was out > of BLML then. But I analysed this board in Russian > bridge magazine (because it had happened at Russian > tournament) - and my opinion was rather differ from > BLML's majority. > Well, I suppose you should read the resume on David's pages then and see why you would be in a minority. > Though the L70E is named as "Unstated Line of Play > (Finesse or Drop)" - the header is not part of the Laws. And > there is no mention of drop in this Law - so it is allowed. > Such a position is agreed with one more principle from the > Legend: play from top is always allowed. Poor claimer has > rights for a bit of luck:) And at that board the 10 of Club was > third - so the only problem for AC was: was the Declarer > able to notice Club blockage before playing second Club > from the Dummy? My personal answer was negative, but > I would understand AC's positive decision. > Of course declarer would notice the club blockage. What sane person wouldn't ? Remember that I am presuming from the evidence that that declarer did not DFLOP. He did not state a sequence of play. He had not noticed the blockage because he had not made up his mind which suit to attack first. He had not noticed the blockage because he had not yet worked out which of the clubs to play first. But he would not - if he had not claimed - have played any single card before noticing the blockage. It was our opinion that claimer could not have not noticed the claim being faulty, and thus have changed his line. Of all the "normal" lines, there was one which would have failed, so his claim was bad. > "Now I agree that if this Declarer DFLOPs, and then comes up > with the strange statement, "I play all the hearts", then he > should be held to that. > But Occam's razor tells me that these Declarers did not > DFLOP. After all, their statements make no sense if they > have thought the case through." > > As I remember Occam's razor sounds like (sorry for wording, > it is translation from Russian): "Thou shalt not create more > Universes than it is needed". Then even staying at Herman's > position it is more natural to consider that claimer knew what > he was going to do - according with Occam's razor:) Contrary > guessing creates new Universe: he did something and did > not know what he was doing:) > If he did know what he was doing, and stated what he did, he is a lunatic. So I conclude that he did not know what he was doing, in the sense that he had not worked it out completely, not in the sense that he was unable to count to 13. > Another pair of shoes is problem of statement's sense: where > in the Laws there is mentioned that players' actions (claims > included) should have sense? I'd like to repeat once more: > mistakes are integral part of bridge. And these mistakes may > be made so with sense as without it. > Nowhere is this mentioned, apart from the fact that after a claim, a normal line does not include an irrational one. We all know that some players will sometimes perform irrational plays, but the claim prevents them from doing so afterwards. > "I am convinced that he did not DFLOP at all." > > I hope Herman will change his position cause there are > DFLOP before claims - true or wrong, as I tried to prove. > I repeat again : IF PLAYER DFLOPS, AND PRODUCES A FAULTY STATEMENT, HE SHALL BE HELD TO IT ---- IF PLAYER DOES NOT DFLOP, HE SHALL NOT BE HELD TO IRRATIONAL LINES ---- I BELIEVE THIS PLAYER DID NOT DFLOP. Can I be any clearer ? > "I don't see in any of this any kind of proof that the > irrational line, as some would have this fellow play, now > falls within the bounds of "careless or inferior for the > class of player involved"." > > Let us read L70D and L70E once more: > > "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." > > This Law concerns with NEW lines only - and they says > nothing about first claimer's statement. The first statement > should be executed as it was said - rational or irrational - up > to the point where it fails. Indeed, but it fails when one opponent shows out ! > Such a position is agreed with > "Named - Played" principle of the Legend and does not > contradict with the Laws. > For my opinion only AFTER this line (of first claimer's > statement) fails - TD/AC will use L70D and L70E, think about > normal, careless or irrational play, etc. Well, your opionion is WRONG. A line is deemed to fail when one opponent shows out. > > Sorry for long post - I tried to be shorter but could not:) > Neither could I, sorry. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 23:04:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:04:17 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19505 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:04:10 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-18.uunet.be [194.7.13.18]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA05856 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:04:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <369735D7.C88EDE3A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 11:56:23 +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: <199901081945.NAA03333@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <199901090246320750.04938049@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn posed me some challenges when he wrote: > > > Not "exactly", though the point is a good one and worth addressing. There have been occasions when, even though the eight-card ending is not trivial, I have faced my cards and said nothing, or perhaps murmured "drawing trumps". The opponents - experts both - have conceded after a brief glance. There have been others when, even though I have the rest on top in both hands, I know that it will be quicker to play some or all of my remaining cards before tabling the rest of them (if any), for the opponents - duffers both - will have more thinking time on the next board than if I were to claim on this one. I am sure that all of us on BLML play the game the same way, purely as a practical matter. > Indeed I do. > >> I wonder whether those of us who have been arguing for a more lenient view > >> of faulty claims are, in general, in the pro-claim camp, while those who > >> wish to take a harsh view and punish players for badly stated claims are > >> more comfortable with the anti-claim view. > > Possibly. For myself, as Jan Kamras put it very well, I am pro good claims and anti bad ones. If what DWS says is true - that one cliam in fifteen or even twenty causes problems - then I would be in favour of fewer claims rather than more. I don't think the TD should be anti bad claims. The partner should be anti bad ones. Most bad claims WILL fail, despite what you may think of some of our rulings. When a ruling reaches blml, it is probably because due to the lie of the cards, a "bad" claim cannot be ruled against. Don't worry about that - it is a minority case. And in cases like that, not a single declarer, whether claiming or not, whether claiming well or badly, will fail in his contract. That's just the cards, not the claim. Yesterday, I was thinking for 5 minutes about the last "important" card to play in a 3NT. It depended either on the Spade Queen, or on Hearts being 4-4. In the end, both lines were correct. If I had done a very foolish thing and claimed at the time, I would also have got my contract. Of course I didn't, because by playing, I had a 50% chance of the contract (and probably something more), while by claiming, I would have only 25%. Bad claims are inferior ways of playing your contract, but they should not automatically lead to bad results. > It isn't so much the complexities that I know I will become involved in on the Appeals Committee that concern me. It's the reaction of the players on both sides to the subsequent adjudication that is the difficulty. If Herman's ruling on the original case was accepted by the AC, the opponents would be (rightly) furious that a man who said he would play "all trumps", and would have gone down had he done so, has been allowed to play just one trump and then do something else (in particular, something else that the TD has discovered for him!). If my ruling found favour with the AC, declarer would be (rightly) furious that he had been assumed to play like an idiot when he wasn't one. > Exactly. > But - imagine how much greater the fury of the injured parties would be if they discovered, from reading this list, that the ruling was in effect completely arbitrary. If defenders had had me ruling instead of Herman, they'd have won a slam swing; if declarer had had Herman ruling instead of me, he'd have avoided losing one for his carelessness. > I don't think this is the case. I believe that David and I both have a completely correct view of what the Laws say. David would rule that for this player, this normally irrational line now becomes careless. I would not. Against each TD, the player has a chance to prove to the AC that he is not a lunatic. I don't find that so bad. > Now, this simply *must not be*. I do not (though this may not have been apparent from the vehemence of my arguments) actually care a hill of beans what the "right" ruling in the actual case should have been. What I care about very much is that there should be any kind of dispute about what the ruling should have been. The Laws, as I have said before (and it upset DWS more than somewhat) should be so drafted that disputes of this sort cannot exist. I happen to believe that "my" way of dealing with bad claims is "better" than Herman's - a man who claims like an idiot will be assumed to play like an idiot. At least (or so I believe), this way will lead (perhaps) to more good claims and (certainly) to fewer bad ones. I may be wrong; if so, I will bow to the judgement of my peers. But, once that judgement has been made, let us all concentrate on finding some way to set it in tablets of stone whether we agree with it or not, so that "Strange Claim 2000" does not occur on this list! or anywhere else. As I said, I don't believe that we think the Laws are any different. You have a strange concept of what becomes careless play "for the class of player involved" (please note : CLASS of player, not player), but I feel that this is a dispute about table presence, not Law or ruling. > > What I guess I would like to ask Herman is: "how would you redraft the Laws of bridge so that your judgement on the original case was unquestionably the correct one?" I know what I would do in order to redraft them "my" way, and I believe that mine is by far the easier task in that respect. But, if we are to serve any purpose at all, it should be this one: that anyone from Bob Hamman to Mrs Guggenheim should be able to sit down at any bridge table anywhere and know what the rules of the game are. As this thread and others have very clearly shown, we are a couple of thousand parsecs away from that position at the moment. Yet other sports seem to have managed it with very little difficulty - there is not, as I think I have pointed out, an "Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List"... I don't think the Laws need be changed. The TD shall decide whether some particular failing line is an irrational one or not. If he finds it irrational, he should not count it, if he doesn't, he should count it and the claim is invalid. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 23:04:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:04:49 +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 XAA19535 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:04:43 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-18.uunet.be [194.7.13.18]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA05897; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:04:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36973E6D.142CDA17@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 12:33:01 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: axeman , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> <36963AAF.34F5FB30@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry Roger, if it seems I am picking on you, but axeman wrote: > > The table ruling I think has missed the mark and has prevented the > obtaining of a table result. The table ruling is quite possible under the Laws, and shall be deemed correct. It was an inadvertent call, wishing to be changed without pause for thaught. The interesting thing comes afterwards. Don't pick on things that I say don't matter. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 23:04:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:04:28 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19525 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:04:22 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-18.uunet.be [194.7.13.18]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA05871 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:04:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36973D4E.C099372F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 12:28:14 +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: Here's another one References: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> <3.0.1.32.19990108094326.006961bc@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 09:06 AM 1/7/99 -0500, I wrote: > > truly the consensus position, I will henceforth take a very different view > of L70E. L70E is headed "Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop)", and > says "The Director shall not accept... 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..." I have > always read this to mean that the claimer may not be deemed to take an > unproven finesse -- after all, isn't a losing finesse nonetheless a "play > the success of which depends on finding one opponent rather than the other > with a particular card"? -- and thus should be deemed to play for the drop > whenever it is consistent with the original claim statement (as it > generally is when the claimer claims top tricks that he doesn't actually > have). Comments? > No, the claimer shall be deemed to play for the finesse to the wrong side when this fails, or to play for the drop when that fails, if those lines would be called "normal". Playing for the drop of the king holding only 5 cards would be irrational, so I would award 2 tricks in the following position : AQ4 K? ?? 32 If declarer needs two tricks from that, and would have no other option but to play it for two tricks. There is only one "normal" line. Similarly, if the position is AQ4 JT98765 K 32 player will be down. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 9 23:04:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:04:19 +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 XAA19506 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:04:11 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-18.uunet.be [194.7.13.18]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA05862 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:04:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <369736BF.288CB4CE@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 12:00:15 +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: <01BE3B11.944B53C0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > I'll weigh in early on this one. I'm in the claims are GOOD camp > wholeheartedly. (of course properly stated claims are BETTER) > > Maybe Herman will keep count? He is doing so well with all the other > statistics. And let's not change the subject line...this thread is a record > breaker! :-)) > > Agreed, again. > And, for whatever it matters, put me wholeheartedly in the > pro-claim camp. I know a player who _never_ claims, no matter what she > holds. Sitting there and playing out every card, even when they are all > obviously top tricks, is time-consuming and annoying. I am strongly in > favor of encouraging claims, and also [consequently] of a lenient reading > of claim law. > > > -Grant Sterling "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > I think it's a good idea not to claim until all the remaining > tricks to be taken are in one hand, but I don't know how that could > be turned into a Law or regulation. This would not cure the general > problem, but would reduce it considerably. I've found that > opponents often can't do the quick mental juggling necessary when > tricks are in both hands, and it's a waste of time to expect it of > them. (I'll count that as a BAD) Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > Well, I guess I don't fit into either camp. My feeling is that good > claims are GOOD and bad claims are BAD. Good claims should be > encouraged because they speed up the game, but this encouragement > should not extend to showing tolerance for bad claims, which create a > mess for everyone and should definitely be discouraged. (one abstention) Jan Kamras wrote: > > > Put me in the "Pro claim" camp, but in the faction of it that feels the > onus is on the claimer to have thought-out the line of play,possibly > with provisos in case a suit breaks badly if the line doesn't work > irrespective of the lie of the cards. (isn't that what the Laws in fact say ?) Eric Landau wrote: > > > As am I (as you've probably guessed). I've been playing duplicate bridge > for well over 35 years, and for every bad claim I've seen, I've seen dozens > of hands where declarer clearly had the rest of the tricks, and knew it, > but didn't claim, for fear that the director would be called and something > bad would happen. "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > > I am definitely in the "lenient camp", but as for this other issue, I can > only say that I would like to see more good claims and fewer bad ones. ;) (aren't we all ? - but then, if there are no bad claims, where would we get our money's worth directing from ?) "Bruce J. Moore" wrote: > > Thank you, Eric. Finally a voice of reason. Count me in the > "claims are GOOD" camp. > GOOD : 7 (CS,HDW,GS,JK,EL,MD,BM) BAD : 1 (MF) abst : 1 (AB) I am not counting DB's answer - I could not determine where he stands. Seems quite clear to me, especially since the lone BAD voter is not very convinced either. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 01:29:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:29:45 +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 BAA22047 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:29:34 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-171.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.171]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA14767887 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 09:32:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3697677A.80E9B30D@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 08:28:10 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: [Fwd: Here's another one] References: <3694D895.6BC0129C@freewwweb.com> <3695E5AE.C48CFC25@village.uunet.be> <3696329F.7FA0D7B5@freewwweb.com> <3697296E.86D97FCD@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman and all, In a private post Herman has told me that even though I applied the principle that he has set forth, that my reasoning was incorrect and that even though we arrived at the same result on this hand, it was not by my reasoning but by coincidence: When making my post, I stated the principles that I applied and the reasoning used in applying the principles. I did this to test whether I was able to apply the principle that you have described. You say that I arrived at the same result as you did [after you changed your ruling]. Your analysis of my ruling was that the similarity of my result with your result was more of a coincidence rather than design- kind of like one pellet out of many from a shotgun hitting the bulls eye. I take it to mean that in applying that principle, my reasoning was incorrect and that in a different case, my reasoning might easily miss the mark. In this way, the test was successful because I have found out that no matter how hard I try, I am unable to successfully apply the principle that you hold to be the correct one. My analysis is that I do not understand the principle so I am therefore unable to utilize the correct reasoning. This is useful to know. Thank you Herman. Roger Pewick From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 01:39:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:39:25 +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 BAA22094 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:39:19 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-171.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.171]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA14556009 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 09:42:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <369769C4.A84DFCF3@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 08:37:56 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <36973E10.1D8B@elnet.msk.ru> <36973BD6.D4361401@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have a much better definition of a line failing: A line fails at the point when the cards will not execute what claimer has said he will execute with the cards. Cheers Roger Pewick Herman De Wael wrote: -s- > vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: -s > Indeed, but it fails when one opponent shows out ! > > > Such a position is agreed with > > "Named - Played" principle of the Legend and does not > > contradict with the Laws. > > For my opinion only AFTER this line (of first claimer's > > statement) fails - TD/AC will use L70D and L70E, think about > > normal, careless or irrational play, etc. > > Well, your opionion is WRONG. > > A line is deemed to fail when one opponent shows out. > > > > > Sorry for long post - I tried to be shorter but could not:) > > > > Neither could I, sorry. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 01:46:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:46:24 +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 BAA22123 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:46:16 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-171.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.171]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA14957839 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 09:48:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36976B66.43D0CDA9@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 08:44:54 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> <36963AAF.34F5FB30@freewwweb.com> <36973E6D.142CDA17@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Sorry Roger, if it seems I am picking on you, but Hardly > axeman wrote: > > > > The table ruling I think has missed the mark and has prevented the > > obtaining of a table result. > > The table ruling is quite possible under the Laws, and shall > be deemed correct. It was an inadvertent call, wishing to > be changed without pause for thaught. > > The interesting thing comes afterwards. > > Don't pick on things that I say don't matter. I think there is an issue that is so serious that it is silly. I don't have time to develop it now, but if I remember in about two weeks... Roger Pewick > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 04:23:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 04:23:23 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA22603 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 04:23:15 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zz26N-0007Du-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 17:23:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:54:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> <36968FB5.BA24F300@home.com> <3.0.1.32.19990108210158.006d9cc0@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990108210158.006d9cc0@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>I disagree from the start. It seems this should be a L25B case, not A. >>The very fact that A contains no provision for LHO to change his call >>whereas B does, initself implies A was not intended to apply when LHO >>had already called. >Then why is the stipulated correction period given as "Until partner makes >a call" ? L25A may be unwieldy and unworkable in its present form, but it >is clear that it is intended to apply even after LHO has called. L25A is a good Law because it works easily and the players are happy with it. With the advent of bidding boxes players are actually coming to *know* it - there's a step forward. Just because one TD made a pig's breakfast of one occasion doesn't mean the Law is wrong - there are *far* worse Laws. It is neither unwieldy nor unworkable. -- 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 Jan 10 05:56:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 05:56:48 +1100 Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA22803 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 05:56:34 +1100 Received: from default ([195.89.178.95]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 5849500 ; Sat, 09 Jan 1999 19:57:22 -0000 Message-ID: <001001be3c01$a204a5c0$5fb259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 18:50:24 -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 magda.thain@cookbury.purplenet.co.uk we think it strange to play more trumps after you pull the other side's trumps. Trumps give control of the hand if something goes wrong. So we would not expect a player making a claim to play all his trumps, which could be very silly. Does this mean we are wrong? -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 07 January 1999 04:23 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 06:27:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 06:27:52 +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 GAA22845 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 06:27:45 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id TAA17317 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 19:26:52 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 9 Jan 99 19:27 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Claim 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: <199901090246320750.04938049@mail.btinternet.com> David Burn Wrote: > I don't, as I hope has become clear from the above, think that this is > the issue. More good claims, fewer bad claims. The simple way to > achieve this is to ensure that bad claimers go down. To me a good claim is a) Prompt b) Economically worded c) Not patronising to your opponents d) Correct I consider all of these important and if the language necessary to achieve b) and c) sometimes leads to an apparent breach of d) that is life. The overriding consideration should be for the TD to attempt equity - which to me means ignoring possible outcomes which he regards as highly unlikely given the ability of the player concerned (eg by allowing obvious wake-ups). I believe the approach embraced by DB would lead to far fewer claims (both good and bad) and that overall this would be bad for the game - but perhaps he is right and I am wrong. > > [Grant again] > > > Agreed, again. > > And, for whatever it matters, put me wholeheartedly in the > >pro-claim camp. I know a player who _never_ claims, no matter what she > >holds. Sitting there and playing out every card, even when they are > all > >obviously top tricks, is time-consuming and annoying. I am strongly in > >favor of encouraging claims, and also [consequently] of a lenient > reading > >of claim law. > > You could always concede the rest, you know. You could, but all too often you do not *know* that partner does not have a potential trick. Tim West-Meads (Pro-claim on behalf of smokers and rubber bridge players). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 07:35:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 07:35:16 +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 HAA22939 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 07:35:10 +1100 Received: from ip214.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.214]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990109203503.KCZJ324.fep4@ip214.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 21:35:03 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 21:35:04 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36adb42b.15226354@post12.tele.dk> References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 15:32:53 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >At this moment in time, the careful declarer will embark on >a thought process which I will call the DFLOP - the >"Determination of the Final Line Of Play". >This DFLOP will include the determination of the order in >which the different suits will be played, taking care of >blockages and so on. >Sometimes the DFLOP is easy, but every once in a while, it >takes some careful planning. [snip] >However, every once in while, a careless declarer will claim >before he has finished the DFLOP. > >Jesper calls this "rude",=20 No. I call it rude to claim without taking the trouble to convince yourself that your claim is valid. For instance, I have nothing against claims where the claimer has not determined the precise unblocking sequence needed to take the tricks - but he should not claim unless he is sure that there _exists_ such a sequence. >David finds it is irrational, but >it quite often happens nevertheless. The case of a declarer >being in 4Sp where he thinks he has 13 tricks is a good >example. Such a declarer will quite often claim before the >DFLOP. It seems to me that the only reason for claiming before thinking in that situation is that he is so irritated that he doesn't care whether he gets 11 or 12 or 13 tricks. If he did care, he would check before claiming. If he does not care before claiming, why should we assume he would care if he played it out? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 07:35:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 07:35:05 +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 HAA22926 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 07:34:58 +1100 Received: from ip214.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.214]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990109203451.KCZA324.fep4@ip214.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 21:34:51 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 21:34:51 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36a4a330.10878923@post12.tele.dk> References: <01BE3B11.944B53C0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE3B11.944B53C0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:54:09 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: >Maybe Herman will keep count? He is doing so well with all the other=20 >statistics. And let's not change the subject line...this thread is a = record=20 >breaker! :-)) Is "keeping count" really interesting? Voting on BLML does not seem to me to make much sense. I'm interested in reading arguments from everybody who wants to participate. If the arguments cannot convince me, then I just may suspect that I'm wrong anyway if all the people who I know best and respect most disagree with me - but not just because there is a majority in numbers against me. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 07:35:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 07:35:23 +1100 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA22947 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 07:35:16 +1100 Received: from ip214.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.214]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990109203509.KCZM324.fep4@ip214.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 21:35:09 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: blml Subject: Re: Here's another one Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 21:35:10 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36aeb70c.15963083@post12.tele.dk> References: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> <36948097.6218D7DA@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36948097.6218D7DA@home.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 01:38:31 -0800, Jan Kamras wrote: >I'm sure Jesper will have no problems with this one=20 I haven't got the time for all these claims, so I think I'll skip this one. >(a sloppy claimer is >a sloppy player)! :-)) No. But a player who makes a sloppy claim must expect that the TD will not easily be convinced that he would be _certain_ to not play that hand sloppily. And all we need is doubt (L70A). >Finally, is it only I who think L70B2 should be changed so that >opponents don't face their cards b4 TD has exhausted eventual new lines >of play from claimer?=20 I think that it is an essential part of the claims rules that when the claim has been made, the result is adjucated in a way that makes it clear that the claimer will not gain from seeing the hands or noting the opponents' reactions. We cannot separate the two: if we don't let him see the hands, we more or less accept that he may gain from noting the opponents' reactions. >It would make L70D much easier to apply if claimer >had to state a new line single-dummy. As it is, I feel we have to be >(unneccesarily?)suspicious of any new, succesful, line. >Grattan?! Would such a change have any drawbacks? Very many claimers realize exactly what is wrong with their claim as soon as any opponent even looks as if he doubts it. They should not be allowed to gain by that under the excuse of not having seen the hands. And the opponents should not be subjected to the problem of how to contest a claim without giving information to the claimer. When my opponents claim and I am confident that the claim statement is finished, I immediately show my hand. This makes it clear to everybody that (a) play has definitely stopped and (b) the claimer can no longer change his mind about his stated line of play. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 07:35:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 07:35:29 +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 HAA22954 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 07:35:23 +1100 Received: from ip214.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.214]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990109203516.KCZS324.fep4@ip214.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 21:35:16 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 21:35:16 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36acb325.14964638@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk All those (including myself) who use the words "lenient" and "harsh" about claims rulings should also remember that to be lenient to the claimer is the same as being harsh to his opponents. And it is actually the claimer who has caused a problem with his bad claim. I prefer a line that gives the completely innocent opponents the benefit of every doubt - this also happens to be what the laws say. On Fri, 08 Jan 1999 09:26:23 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >Perhaps this is not the problem, but merely a symptom of it. There seem= to >be two distinct and opposing points of view on the subject of claims in >general: some players believe that claims are GOOD, they speed up the = game >and should be encouraged, while others believe that claims are BAD, they >are a device by which stronger players take advantage of weaker ones, = cause >more problems for TDs/ACs than they're worth, and should be discouraged, >perhaps even eliminated altogether. I don't think I know a single non-novice player who generally believes claims to be a bad thing. I think everybody is "pro-claim". The question is not whether or not to claim, but whether or not the claimer should spend a few seconds thinking about his claim and stating a proper line of play. Good claims are good and should be encouraged. Bad claims are bad and should be discouraged. My degree of irritation over bad claims depends very much on the type of bad claim: The "honest" bad claim: If the claimer thought the DJ was the HJ or had miscounted his hearts or his tricks, then I have lots of sympathy for him - he thought he had a 100% claim, and he was doing his best to speed up the game, but something went wrong. The ruling will assume the claimer's play to be based on the miscount or misunderstanding that he had when claiming, and will often give him a really bad score (despite the sympathy) - but it should not come as a surprise to a player that he risks a really bad score when he doesn't know how many hearts he has. The "lazy" bad claim: If the claimer makes his claim even though he knows perfectly well that his claim is valid only if a suit is not 4-0, then I have no sympathy at all for him. Playing bridge is all about handling bad breaks on hands where nothing else can go wrong - claiming without worrying about bad breaks is not playing bridge. It also loses much more time every tenth time when the suit is 4-0 than it would take to try a round of trumps first (or mention the possibility of a 4-0 break) all the other 9 times out of 10. My generally "harsh view" is based on my assumption that all claims are "honest" claims: players simply should not make "lazy" bad claims, and if they do it anyway they must be prepared to pay the price of the TD assuming that it was an "honest" bad claim and that they therefore had miscounted or misunderstood something. >I wonder whether those of us who have been arguing for a more lenient = view >of faulty claims are, in general, in the pro-claim camp, while those who >wish to take a harsh view and punish players for badly stated claims are >more comfortable with the anti-claim view. I certainly am pro-claim. But I'm strongly against badly stated claims. It is not at all difficult to learn to claim properly, and the solution to many of the problems we've been discussing is that players should learn to do so. >I suspect that we will be unable to achieve a consensus on whether to = treat >over-hasty or sloppy claims leniently or harshly unless and until we = reach >a consensus on whether we hope, in the future, to see more claims or = fewer. I hope to see fewer bad claims and more good claims. I have only very rarely met players who refuse to claim. It is my impression that almost everybody around here (except novices) do claim when it is reasonable to claim - i.e., when the claimer is convinced that he has a valid claim that he can state well enough. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 07:35:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 07:35:11 +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 HAA22933 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 07:35:05 +1100 Received: from ip214.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.214]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990109203458.KCZC324.fep4@ip214.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 21:34:58 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 21:34:58 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36a8acd8.13350757@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990108175310.006d3830@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990108175310.006d3830@pop.cais.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 08 Jan 1999 17:53:10 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >As am I (as you've probably guessed). I've been playing duplicate = bridge >for well over 35 years, and for every bad claim I've seen, I've seen = dozens >of hands where declarer clearly had the rest of the tricks, and knew it, >but didn't claim, for fear that the director would be called and = something >bad would happen. Somebody should teach shose declarers that if they really _know_ they have the rest (and are right) then something bad will not happen. >I've also seen people start to claim only to be told by >their partner, in no uncertain terms, to play it out. This can happen for defenders, but surely dummy does not stop declarer from claiming? Call the TD if he tries. >If Grant only knows >one player who never claims no matter what she holds, he should consider >himself very lucky indeed. I don't think I know any - except novices. >I recently sat in on a rubber game at a money club for the first time in >almost 20 years. About half the hands involved claims. Something like = a >quarter of those were disputed. Everyone put their cards on the table, >and, in every case, a sensible result was arrived at in less than a = minute >without benefit of a TD. You had about 12 claims, and about 3 disputed, the disputes taking (less than) 3 minutes total. If the claimer had spent 10 seconds more on checking that he had a valid claim every time, then you would probably have had at most one disputed claim, and the time spent would be the same. But the risk of needing a complicated ruling (taking much more than a minute) would be much less. > I left the game after an hour and a quarter, >having played 24 hands, wondering why I would ever want to return to my >local duplicate club, where 24 hands take three and a half hours. I think our club plays slower than most clubs in Denmark, but we still do manage 8 boards an hour. We are 8 tables, we have no "never-claimers" in the club, and I think that a TD is needed to rule a claim about once every two sessions (there are more bad claims - most trivial ones are solved without the TD). >If the real bottom line issue, as the ACBL keeps telling us, is how to >attract and retain duplicate bridge players by making the game more >pleasant, then we should do everything we can to encourage claims. Yes, but we should also do everything we can to encourage the proper way of claiming: ensure you have the tricks and state which tricks and (unless they're just top tricks) in which order. It is not really difficult, and L68C requires it. We should also attract and retain those who are now novices - and they will not be attracted to a game where the TD needs to adjucate their opponents' bad claims all the time, especially not if they get the impression that the TD takes tricks away from them in order to encourage claims by being "lenient" to the claimers. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 08:48:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 08:48:44 +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 IAA23179 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 08:48:39 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990109214833.LWWF6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:48:33 -0800 Message-ID: <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 13:52:09 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Well, such a declarer will quite often fail to give a > complete claim statement. That means we should find all > "normal" lines, and that means we should do the DFLOP in > place of declarer. This is apparently how you think it should go, and how it is done in Belgium. The problem is that this is not supported by the law-text. You might favour a law-change, but you'll have to get in line and wait for it (like everyone else). Take 10 deap breaths, step back and assume you haven't written one single opinion on this matter yet, and take a fresh look at the law *as it is* (not as you'd like it to be). L70C describes exactly what to do when trump(s) is outstanding at time of claim. L70A forces you to adjudicate *any* doubtful point against claimer, not for him. This is what governs *if the claimer has followed the laws when claiming*, ie has followed L68C. L68C uses "should" which means an offender loses any protection the laws might otherwise give him. That's the law, and logically what this says is: "if you claim properly, doubt goes against you. if you claim inproperly, almost anything goes against you". Finally, "new lines" are mentioned only in L70D and L70E. In both cases it clearly specifies "not accept from claimer". There is no reasom to assume that the lawmakers didn't intend it to mean what it says, or that they intended something additional which they did not say. So pls stop putting your own twist on the laws when they for once are rather clear, and logical, and adjudicate the cases we discuss accordingly. Thanks. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 08:58:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 08:58:14 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA23211 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 08:58:07 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-132.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.132]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA15278444; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 17:00:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3697D09A.E0F52F67@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 15:56:42 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws CC: "magda.thain" Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <001001be3c01$a204a5c0$5fb259c3@default> 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 RAA15278444 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Magda, Glad you are here. A query: Do all the following mean the same thing? A] I claim. =20 B] I play one round of trump.=20 C] I test trump.=20 D] I take my trump winners.=20 E] I pull trump. =20 F] I play trump. =20 G] I play all the trump. =20 To me it would seem quite strange if you felt they did. Each statement, by itself, does not take a lot of effort to speak. But why else would one be said instead of another unless it conveyed a meaning distinct from the other? Why take the trouble to say something one way if an authority will impose a different meaning to the words which depends upon whether they like you or not?. Here is a translation: A] I claim. [You find my worst normal line.] B] I play one round of trump. [One trump exactly.] C] I test trump. [Play at least one round.] D] I take my trump winners. [Play trumps up to the point one would be lost.] E] I pull trump. [Play trump until the opponents are exhausted of trump.] F] I play trump. [Play at least two rounds if possible, until?.] G] I play all the trump. [Don't stop playing trump.] All of the above statements except A,C, and F are quite specific in what the listener would expect. A, C, and F do in fact leave something unsaid. David Burn and I feel that BDE and G are quite plain in their meaning and leave nothing to be interpreted. It does not matter to us whether it was stupid, or brilliant, or good technique. It does not matter what the state of mind of the claimer is or was or will be. It does not matter whether we adjudicate ABCDEFor G. What matters to us is how it is adjudicated. The known points are known, and the fuzzy points are resolved against the claimer. We do not put stock into mind reading, or whether the claim breaks down, we adjudicate uncertain points. The entire premise that allows the claim in the first place is that the laws provide how tricks are won and lost. If the claimer can not depend with total certainty how his claim will be adjudicated, it would be an act of total stupidity to open oneself to a capricious adjudication. The principles elaborated upon by Herman and others depend on mind reading. They depend on taking away from claimer the force of his claim clarification and substituting a fabrication. A fabrication that may score more tricks or may score fewer tricks- but not in accordance with the claimer's own words. A fabrication which could be based on what the TD says he believes to be in the heart and mind of the claimer, or whatever. Such policy makes it possible for the TD to justify almost ruling he cares to give. I feel this not only creates ill feelings, but is wrong. Tony Musgrove appears to be of similar mind: Tony Musgrove wrote: >=20 > At 08:10 PM 8/01/99 +0200, you wrote: > from Dany: > >I like this , because it would bring all of us , toghether , > >back to sanity and enjoying play bridge , including duplicate !!!! > > > >I hope this line will guide the WBF-LC along the ...next years. > > > I think this would make an excellent Q1 for the internet Director's qui= z, > floated last year which sank without trace, since it admits of two corr= ect > answers. For myself, I think it will allow me to rule against nasty Mr= A, > who always gives me a hard time, but to tell nice Miss B that it would = be > irrational to proceed with her claim statement after finding the bad br= eak :). >=20 > BTW, suppose I have AKQxx hearts in dummy, opposite xxxx in hand, and = I say > "run the hearts". Can I change tack when I find the hearts break 4:0 ? >=20 > Cheers, >=20 =D8 Tony Cheers Roger Pewick magda.thain wrote: >=20 > magda.thain@cookbury.purplenet.co.uk >=20 > we think it strange to play more trumps after you pull the other > side's trumps. Trumps give control of the hand if something goes wrong. > So we would not expect a player making a claim to play all his trumps, > which could be very silly. Does this mean we are wrong? >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 07 January 1999 04:23 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 10:36:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 10:36:44 +1100 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net ([194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA23396 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 10:36:37 +1100 Received: from modem94.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.222] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zz7vc-0004oA-00; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:36:25 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Interpretation Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 07:40:11 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "Is it, then, irrational for a Scotsman to wear a kilt?" [Dictionary definition:- ' rational dress' - a style of women's dress characterized by the wearing of knickerbockers rather than a skirt.] ====================================== ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Interpretation > Date: 06 January 1999 12:14 > > Jan Kamras wrote: > >Steve Willner wrote: --------------------------------- \x/ --------------------------- > It is not easy to see how you can pull *any* card out of your hand > without a thought process. +++ To pull a card you do not intend out of the hand may be careless, but the thinking is rational and nothing nonsensical has occurred so far as I am concerned. I have now deleted this thread. ~~~Grattan +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 11:16:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:16:33 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f261.hotmail.com [207.82.251.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA23555 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:16:27 +1100 Received: (qmail 22569 invoked by uid 0); 10 Jan 1999 00:15:52 -0000 Message-ID: <19990110001552.22568.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.133.36 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 09 Jan 1999 16:15:50 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.133.36] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 16:15:50 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Perhaps it's time for another of my "in my neck of the woods" posts (trademark applied for): >From: Jesper Dybdal >I don't think I know a single non-novice player who generally >believes claims to be a bad thing. I think everybody is >"pro-claim". > At one of our average sectionals (county-sized?) I would expect to get 26-30 tables in the Stratified Pairs on Saturday and the Stratified Swiss Teams on Sunday. In the 110-odd hands I will play, it will be more likely than not that I will have the following happen: "ok, two rounds of trump, then CK, C to board and cross-ruff." (or similar claim statement) "Play it out." "I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to." "I said, play it out." "Director, please." ..."yes?" "We have a contested claim. I said (repeat claim statement)." "And what problem do you have with this?" "I want him to play it out." ...TFLB usually gets R about here. I also remember the hand (and it was three years ago, so I must have been annoyed) where opponents were in 6NT having gone through blackwood. At trick 5, dummy was high provided that declarer hadn't lied in his blackwood response, yet he kept playing one card after another...with 10 seconds to think between every trick... Both declarer and dummy had been playing for at least 20 years. As a side note, partner and I flagrantly violated several laws at T9 when I finally said "Do you have the spade ace?" and partner said "no" - at which point we conceded. However I agree with you Jesper - I know of no non-novice who thinks that claims are a bad thing. But we have this special category here, with unfortunately too many members: LN, or Life Novice. I think that this thread has almost moved off-topic for the list - we are not talking any more about execution or interpretation of Laws, but of education, of bridge players of their rights and responsibilities. Even this particular strain of the thread is asking the question "how best do we adjudicate claims in order to discourage un-thought-out claims without fostering a 'claiming is bad' mentality (which none of us want, I'm sure)." While I do believe that education is part of a TD's activities (even when at the table), I don't think that this question is solvable solely by adjudication style. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 11:45:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:45:57 +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 LAA23607 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:45:52 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990110004542.MWQH6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 16:45:42 -0800 Message-ID: <3697F90D.8D7A1E6A@home.com> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 16:49:17 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <36973E10.1D8B@elnet.msk.ru> <36973BD6.D4361401@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > I am saying that some declarers will claim before DFLOP. > Their claim shall be judged differently from some other > declarers who have DFLOPped wrong. > > That is all I am saying. Herman - you should be a magician. You know, the kind that pulls rabbits out of a hat. You express interesting opinions with complete disregard for what TFLB says. TFLB *does not* mention the concept of "DFLOP". Consistent with how it treats actions in face of UI, it cleverly doesn't force a TD/AC to enter a players mind to determine their intent, what they would have done, whether or not they DFLOPed, etc. etc. i.e. it doesn't force us to base our decisions on possibly self-serving statements by players. The combination of L68 and the general guidelines for the word "should" tells us to differentiate between claims that are accompanied by a clarifying statement, and those that are not. It does *not* tell us to differentiate between the extent of deliberation that went on in a players mind prior to the claim, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 12:00:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:00:39 +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 MAA23622 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:00:34 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990110010029.MYXH6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 17:00:29 -0800 Message-ID: <3697FC85.4E84D993@home.com> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 17:04:05 -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: Is this a L12c2 case? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > A "gentleman" may lie to his wife, his boss, or indeed > his electorate but bridge is matter of honour and higher ethics must > apply. > > Tim West-Meads I fully agree. Had Clinton lied about a bridge-hand (e.g. saying *he* declared 6H making on a complicated squeeze when it was actually Monica who played it) I'd have him impeached him. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 12:01:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:01:37 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f141.hotmail.com [207.82.251.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA23641 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:01:31 +1100 Received: (qmail 7446 invoked by uid 0); 10 Jan 1999 01:00:56 -0000 Message-ID: <19990110010056.7445.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.133.36 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 09 Jan 1999 17:00:55 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.133.36] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 17:00:55 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Jan Kamras wrote: >>I'm with Grattan (I think) on this. I see no support in the law-text for >>the TD to chose any succesful line for claimer. My position here also >>seems to follow bridge-logic and furthermore I think the laws elsewhere >>explicitly prohibit the TD from bidding/playing the hand for declarer. >>The procedure seems trivial: (1) If declarer doesn't ask for anything >>once his original line breaks down - his problem - he is down whatever. >>(2) If he says "oops, if trumps don't break continuing is silly and >>instead I play as follows.....", you have 2 cases: (2.1) the new line >>doesn't produce any more tricks than the original one - again he is down >>whatever (NB the TD doesn't now come up saying "but wait, that new line >>is not "rational" due this and that so why don't you play so and so, >>which gives an extra trick?"). (2.2) the new line succeeds - only *now* >>does TD start exploring alternative normal lines, looking for one that >>fails. >> >>In other words, the TD is not the lawyer for the claimer but for the >>opposition! > > Oh penc! > That's an expression I haven't heard before... David, I think you are confusing the two jobs required of a TD in a disputed claim (though I will admit that they are easy to confuse). > That shows what is wrong with this whole approach. The TD is an >arbiter. He is not a lawyer. > > Let us try a simple one. > > K > K > K > -- -- > A > -- > QJ 2 > 2 > 2 > -- > > Declarer claims, saying "All mine". > > I do not say "That is not correct: try again." > > *I* decide a new line for declarer without asking him, and *I* decide >that since there are six normal lines for him [S-H-D, S-D-H, D-H-S, >D-S-H, H-S-D, H-D-S] and two of them [H-S-D, H-D-S] give the defence all >the tricks I give declarer none. > Here, you are "resolving doubtful points in favour of the non-claimer." The other thing we have to do as TD's is "not accept from claimer any new lines when any other normal line does less well." - which we haven't got to yet, claimer not having provided a new line, nor has the original line yet been proved irrational (see below). As I see the argument, we are trying to decide whether a "proven irrational" claim statement can be modified, and when (if ever) a claimer can be said to wake up, and therfore automatically supply a new line. At that point, it makes sense that we can shortcut the process and start working out the least-effective "normal" line. I hope I'm clearing up the arguments, not making them worse...because I don't intend to become more than a very occasional part of this discussion (because, frankly, I'm in the "claims are good, disputed claims that are this complicated to resolve are once-a-year, throughout-the-world situations" camp. I'm also in, as you have seen/will see, the camp that says that we need to educate good claim procedure independently of (as well as) TD's rulings at the table.) Michael. P.S. David: apologies for the double-posting. Place me also in the "reply-to: blml" camp :-) mdf ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 12:15:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:15:07 +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 MAA23657 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:14:54 +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 QAA15789 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 16:03:17 -0900 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 16:03:17 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Eric Landau wrote: [snip] > > Perhaps this is not the problem, but merely a symptom of it. There seem to > be two distinct and opposing points of view on the subject of claims in > general: some players believe that claims are GOOD, they speed up the game > and should be encouraged, while others believe that claims are BAD, they > are a device by which stronger players take advantage of weaker ones, cause > more problems for TDs/ACs than they're worth, and should be discouraged, > perhaps even eliminated altogether. > > I wonder whether those of us who have been arguing for a more lenient view > of faulty claims are, in general, in the pro-claim camp, while those who > wish to take a harsh view and punish players for badly stated claims are > more comfortable with the anti-claim view. > > I suspect that we will be unable to achieve a consensus on whether to treat > over-hasty or sloppy claims leniently or harshly unless and until we reach > a consensus on whether we hope, in the future, to see more claims or fewer. > I think I am probably in a small minority for saying this, but I will say it anyway. In my experience, it has been more frequent that an opponent makes a claim one trick too soon than that an opponent refuses to claim when it is obvious. (I do not think claiming "one trick too late" is a problem; I am quite willing to buy ten seconds' worth of insurance against having to call the director over a bad claim.) It is also my opinion that it is a bad thing that so many people make questionable claims, are awarded their contracts because the cards happen to lie favourably, and go on to make more questionable claims. It is thus my opinion that we should be actively discouraging people from claiming unless they are ***sure*** of what they are claiming. I am not sure what the best way to do this is -- draconian readings of L70 don't appeal to me, and ZT-style "sloppy claim penalties" would certainly be even worse. After all, if my opponent is wasting my time by playing on when he obviously has all the rest of the trikcs -- there is a simple remedy. I can concede, and make him stop. So, anyway - cast my vote in favour of fewer claims./ In principle I agree with Adam Beneschan, "good claims are good and bad claims are bad." But too many bad claims is worse than not enough good claims. A lot worse. IMO, of course. Feel free to have your own opinion; I'm not expecting much company. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 23:16:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:16:45 +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 XAA24521 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:16:36 +1100 Received: from modem120.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.120] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zzJnC-0007sZ-00; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:16:30 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bruce Moore" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Claim Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 00:52:04 -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 "The accursed power which stands on Privilege (And goes with Women and Champagne and Bridge) Broke - and Democracy resumed her reign (Which goes with Bridge and Women and Champagne). - Hilaire Belloc ============================================= ---------- > From: Bruce J. Moore > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: Claim > Date: 09 January 1999 05:50 > > Greetings, > > Thank you, Eric. > ----------------------------- \x/ -------------------------- > > On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Eric Landau wrote: > > > At 12:23 PM 1/7/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: > > > > >I did this because it seems important to me that we, as a group, should [ Who??? Me???] From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 23:16:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:16:47 +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 XAA24523 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:16:39 +1100 Received: from modem120.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.120] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zzJnF-0007sZ-00; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:16:34 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "blml" Subject: Re: Here's another one Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:44:57 -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 accursed power which stands on Privilege (And goes with Women and Champagne and Bridge) Broke - and Democracy resumed her reign (Which goes with Bridge and Women and Champagne). - Hilaire Belloc ===============================================---------- From: Jesper Dybdal To: blml Subject: Re: Here's another one Date: 09 January 1999 20:35 On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 01:38:31 -0800, Jan Kamras wrote: >I'm sure Jesper will have no problems with this one ============================================= >It would make L70D much easier to apply if claimer >had to state a new line single-dummy. As it is, I feel we have to be >(unneccesarily?)suspicious of any new, succesful, line. >Grattan?! Would such a change have any drawbacks? ++++ Maybe it depends what would be considered a drawback. Amongst expert players, very few I suspect. But do you really want to fix Mrs.Billings at the weekly duplicate with this? (Sorry, Mrs B., not you - the other one.) We do tend to talk the expert game here, don't we? What we might consider doing is to create scope for Regulating Authorities to regulate such a requirement where it is deemed appropriate. ++++ ======================================== \x/ ======================================== When my opponents claim and I am confident that the claim statement is finished, I immediately show my hand. This makes it clear to everybody that (a) play has definitely stopped and (b) the claimer can no longer change his mind about his stated line of play. ++++ Oh? We don't apply Laws 68D and 70 then? - another of EK's little inferences occurs in 70. ++++ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Author's note: "Regulating Authority" - whatever body, sponsoring, national, international, is the actual body that provides the regulations for the competition. I think "Sponsoring Organisation" inferior because unspecific. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ~~~~~~~~ Grattan ~~~~~~~~ inferences. ++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 10 23:16:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:16:46 +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 XAA24522 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:16:38 +1100 Received: from modem120.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.120] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02SEGV #3) id 0zzJnE-0007sZ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:16:32 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: L25A and L16C Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:12:37 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "There is a perfectly good UI law" (D.W. Stevenson) ==================================== Grattan's comments here represent a personal view of the law unless otherwise stated. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L25A and L16C > Date: 09 January 1999 02:22 > > At 10:24 AM 1/8/99 +0100, Herman wrote: > > > >In order to change the score, we must be able to call the > >information about the double UI to North-South. The only > >way to do so is to apply L16C2, which talks about the > >offending side. Can NS, despite there being no penalty, > >still be regarded as "offending side". (IMO they can) > > > What, pray tell, is the offense? North has properly executed the option > granted him under the Laws, at least if the TD has determined that he could > change his call under 25A, which he apparently has. He has committed no > offense, and hence cannot be regarded as the OS, in any useful sense of the > term. ++++ If you come to the position that N/S are not an 'offending' side, it does not follow that there can be no UI in the possession of one or both of them. The generality of Law 16 still applies. I would wish to determine whether North or South has based an action on anything other than "information from legal calls or plays, and mannerisms of opponents". If the answer were "yes", the next questions would be "where did this extraneous information come from?" and "is there anything in the laws that authorizes the player to use it?" There is a problem if you wish to quote Law 16C (to which you are referred by 25B but not by 25A). The problem is that Law 16C is constructed to require that there be one "offending side" and one "non-offending" side. This is the grammatical effect of the use of "the" rather than "a" in C1 and C2; another of Kaplan's niceties I think. If you do not have two sides, one offending and one not, Law 16C gives you no answer. If your argument is sound then it is to 16A and B that the Director will look., and my immediate unmeditated impression is that you could perhaps find that it is with 12B3 that you come to rest. I have found no recorded WBFLC position on this. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ ----------------- \x/ --------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 00:54:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:54:15 +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 AAA26951 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:54:08 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-101.uunet.be [194.7.13.101]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA16054 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 14:53:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3697815E.2B1C9EBF@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 17:18:38 +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 - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <36973E10.1D8B@elnet.msk.ru> <36973BD6.D4361401@village.uunet.be> <369769C4.A84DFCF3@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: > > I have a much better definition of a line failing: > > A line fails at the point when the cards will not execute what claimer > has said he will execute with the cards. > Well sorry, but that definition is WRONG. L70E : "or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play". It is this principle we are applying when we say that a line fails, so we must adopt that principle into the definition of "failing line". > > > > Well, your opionion is WRONG. > > > > A line is deemed to fail when one opponent shows out. > > > > > Believe me, this is not me ranting, this is the generally held view, and I trust you can consider the silence of David S, Grattan and Ton on this subject to be proof that I know what I am saying. Roger, Vitold, believe me ! This mailing list has a few functions, but one of them is to correct the misapprehentions of some TD's. If they continue to argue against the grain, I will have to give up. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 01:56:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 01:56:40 +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 BAA27032 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 01:56:33 +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 JAA01815 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 09:56:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA16190; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 09:56:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 09:56:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901101456.JAA16190@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a L12c2 case? Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Tim West-meads wrote: > >> A "gentleman" may lie to his wife, his boss, or indeed >> his electorate but bridge is matter of honour and higher ethics must >> apply. >> >> Tim West-Meads > >I fully agree. Had Clinton lied about a bridge-hand (e.g. saying *he* >declared 6H making on a complicated squeeze when it was actually Monica >who played it) I'd have him impeached him. > Would we be able to impeach if the "lie" depended on the meaning of "declare"? :-) Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 02:13:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:13:59 +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 CAA27257 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:13:52 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-215.uunet.be [194.7.9.215]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA23630 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:13:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3698B56C.E0DD766@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 15:13:00 +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 - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <36adb42b.15226354@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 15:32:53 +0100, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > > >However, every once in while, a careless declarer will claim > >before he has finished the DFLOP. > > > >Jesper calls this "rude", > > No. I call it rude to claim without taking the trouble to > convince yourself that your claim is valid. For instance, I have > nothing against claims where the claimer has not determined the > precise unblocking sequence needed to take the tricks - but he > should not claim unless he is sure that there _exists_ such a > sequence. > IMO, exactly the same thing. If he is sure there exists such a thing, he has DFLOPped (well, that's my definition anyway). I stand by my statement that Jesper calls claiming without DFLOPping rude. 1997's strange claimer had not DFLOPped, which is why he had not noticed the club blockage. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 02:14:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:14:04 +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 CAA27261 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:13:55 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-215.uunet.be [194.7.9.215]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA23639 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:13:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 15:23:23 +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 - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk before commenting on the general terms in Jan's post, I would liek to highlight that Jan Kamras wrote: > So pls stop putting your own twist on the laws when they for once are > rather clear, and logical, and adjudicate the cases we discuss > accordingly. > Thanks. Is that why we are spending so much time on this law - because it is clear ? Anyway, > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > Well, such a declarer will quite often fail to give a > > complete claim statement. That means we should find all > > "normal" lines, and that means we should do the DFLOP in > > place of declarer. > > This is apparently how you think it should go, and how it is done in > Belgium. The problem is that this is not supported by the law-text. You > might favour a law-change, but you'll have to get in line and wait for > it (like everyone else). > I believe (and with me many others) it is completely conforming to the Laws. > Take 10 deap breaths, step back and assume you haven't written one > single opinion on this matter yet, and take a fresh look at the law *as > it is* (not as you'd like it to be). > I have taken quite a few breaths already, believe me > L70C describes exactly what to do when trump(s) is outstanding at time > of claim. > L70A forces you to adjudicate *any* doubtful point against claimer, not > for him. Who says I am not doing that ? > This is what governs *if the claimer has followed the laws when > claiming*, ie has followed L68C. L68C uses "should" which means an > offender loses any protection the laws might otherwise give him. That's > the law, and logically what this says is: > "if you claim properly, doubt goes against you. if you claim inproperly, > almost anything goes against you". > And who says I am not doing that ? > Finally, "new lines" are mentioned only in L70D and L70E. In both cases > it clearly specifies "not accept from claimer". There is no reasom to > assume that the lawmakers didn't intend it to mean what it says, or that > they intended something additional which they did not say. > Yet that same L70E does state that the TD need NOT accept an irrational line. We are trying to determine the scope of this irrationality here. Nothing to do with the scope of the Laws, or their interpretation. Please don't quote L70 anymore, we all know what it says, and my interpretation (which I still believe to be the silent majority's one) is the correct one. Jan and Roger are the ones with the wrong interpretation. The Laws do NOT say that the TD should stick the claimer to his claim statement. The Laws say that the claimer gets the "benefit" of the worst of his "normal" lines. Irrational lines are not normal. If the stated line is judged to be an irrational one, then claimer shall not be held to it. THAT is the Law, nothing else. Now let's return to our discussion (much more interesting IMO) about whether or not, in some particular case, a stated line becomes an irrational one. My belief is that if a claimer states an irrational line before DFLOPping, he is allowed to notice so, and the line remains irrational. How are you going to find the "normal" lines without DFLOPping ? And since claimer did not do so, indeed TD shall do the DFLOP for him. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 02:14:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:14:05 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA27269 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:13:58 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-215.uunet.be [194.7.9.215]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA23658 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:13:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3698BD6A.BBAD70B7@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 15:47:06 +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 - bigger example References: <001001be3c01$a204a5c0$5fb259c3@default> <3697D09A.E0F52F67@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Roger, You have at last joined the real question. Declarer has stated a line which turns out to be irrational. Does that mean the irrational line now becomes "normal" for this declarer - meaning he shall be stuck with it. axeman wrote: > > Do all the following mean the same thing? > > A] I claim. > > B] I play one round of trump. > > C] I test trump. > > D] I take my trump winners. > > E] I pull trump. > > F] I play trump. > > G] I play all the trump. > > To me it would seem quite strange if you felt they did. Each statement, > by itself, does not take a lot of effort to speak. But why else would > one be said instead of another unless it conveyed a meaning distinct > from the other? Why take the trouble to say something one way if an > authority will impose a different meaning to the words which depends > upon whether they like you or not?. > OK. If you believe that this declarer was speaking in earnest when he stated what he did, you are right. This is a lunatic, he has stated something irrational, this is apparently a line this declarer would actually follow, so it is a normal line for this declarer. The claim will fail miserably. If OTOH you believe that this declarer had not actually observed all the possibilities, and was using bad language to convey that he will play trumps first (quite unnecessarily, I have already once added), then you can conclude that the line you are suggesting to have him play, is and stays an irrational one, and thus a non-normal one. Declarer is not supposed to follow that one and gets instead the worst of all normal lines. I believe the second. You may believe the first. That's not a bad thing. The AC will decide, and besides, neither of us have heard the real statement and it's tone. > Here is a translation: > Provided you believe claimer spoke in earnest, you are right to translate. I don't believe this declarer spoke in full possession of the facts of the case. > A] I claim. [You find my worst normal line.] > Would you award the claim ? - you should ! > B] I play one round of trump. [One trump exactly.] > Would you award the claim ? - you should ! > C] I test trump. [Play at least one round.] > Would you award the claim ? - you should ! > D] I take my trump winners. [Play trumps up to the point one would be > lost.] > Would you award the claim ? - this one is tricky - it proves declarer is crazy IMO. > E] I pull trump. [Play trump until the opponents are exhausted of > trump.] > Would you award the claim ? - you should ! > F] I play trump. [Play at least two rounds if possible, until?.] > Would you award the claim ? - you should ! > G] I play all the trump. [Don't stop playing trump.] > Would you award the claim ? - you should ! (IMO) The word all is (IMO) just an addition to the previous statement, and does not prove (IMO) that declarer is a lunatic. > All of the above statements except A,C, and F are quite specific in > what the listener would expect. A, C, and F do in fact leave something > unsaid. David Burn and I feel that BDE and G are quite plain in their > meaning and leave nothing to be interpreted. It does not matter to us > whether it was stupid, or brilliant, or good technique. It does not > matter what the state of mind of the claimer is or was or will be. It > does not matter whether we adjudicate ABCDEFor G. What matters to us is > how it is adjudicated. The known points are known, and the fuzzy points > are resolved against the claimer. We do not put stock into mind > reading, or whether the claim breaks down, we adjudicate uncertain > points. > Please note that all these claim statements are actually just as defectuous. None of them deals with a 4-0 break, and it would always be better to play the actual trump round first. So in fact all these claims should be judged the same, since none of them (including A and the silent one) leave any doubt that a high trump will be played first. L70E then allows that claimer will notice the bad break and eliminate the irrational lines. The only point to your argument is that somehow, the statement proves that declarer is wrong somewhere. He might be, and further questioning should resolve this. If declarer tells the TD that he thought he had 10 trumps, or something of that sort, he will lose the case. But I will not accept the mere statement "I play all the trumps" as proof that claimer thought he had 10 trumps. > The principles elaborated upon by Herman and others depend on mind > reading. Not really, you can ask player and believe what he says (or not). > They depend on taking away from claimer the force of his claim > clarification and substituting a fabrication. They take away from declarer a statement which was not made fully rationally, and substitute it with a silence. > A fabrication that may > score more tricks or may score fewer tricks- but not in accordance with > the claimer's own words. A fabrication which could be based on what the > TD says he believes to be in the heart and mind of the claimer, or > whatever. > Such policy makes it possible for the TD to justify almost > ruling he cares to give. I feel this not only creates ill feelings, but > is wrong. > Clearly if 100% of declarers will make a particular contract, you need no justification to rule the claim sound. You confuse leniency with "anything goes". You seem to think that this ruling equates to giving declarer the benefit of the doubt. It is not. This type of ruling will only matter when several conditions are met : A- there are a number of normal lines, all of which will work B- there is one other line that will fail C- this line is irrational (given the class of the player) D- the player has actually stated this line E- he has stated this in an unthought of manner (before DFLOPping) I don't care to be seeming harsh, in this manner. Besides, the same type of argument was used in the strange claim, and there it worked out against declarer ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 02:14:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:14:15 +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 CAA27277 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:14:04 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-215.uunet.be [194.7.9.215]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA23668 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:13:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3698BF3A.B6C590BC@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 15:54:50 +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 - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <36973E10.1D8B@elnet.msk.ru> <36973BD6.D4361401@village.uunet.be> <3697F90D.8D7A1E6A@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jan, Jan Kamras wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > I am saying that some declarers will claim before DFLOP. > > Their claim shall be judged differently from some other > > declarers who have DFLOPped wrong. > > > > That is all I am saying. > > Herman - you should be a magician. You know, the kind that pulls rabbits > out of a hat. You express interesting opinions with complete disregard > for what TFLB says. > I don't believe so. > TFLB *does not* mention the concept of "DFLOP". Of course not. TFLB does mention (L70E) that a "line of play would be irrational". We should try and determine what that means. My particular example of a player claiming before DFLOPping is just an attempt to clarify this. > Consistent with how it > treats actions in face of UI, it cleverly doesn't force a TD/AC to enter > a players mind to determine their intent, what they would have done, > whether or not they DFLOPed, etc. etc. i.e. it doesn't force us to base > our decisions on possibly self-serving statements by players. > Indeed it doesn't. But TFLB does want us to determine what irrational lines there are ? I believe there are two types of "normal" lines : A - normal ones for any declarer of the same class B - normal ones for this declarer, given what he knows of the cards How will you determine A- without DFLOPping ? How will you determine B- without trying to enter the player's mind ? > The combination of L68 and the general guidelines for the word "should" > tells us to differentiate between claims that are accompanied by a > clarifying statement, and those that are not. It does *not* tell us to > differentiate between the extent of deliberation that went on in a > players mind prior to the claim, your assertion to the contrary > notwithstanding. OK, then rule the case three times : - without any statement (let's assume the claim turns out valid) - with the statement, but with claimer stating afterwards, "yes I know that was what I said, but I had not worked it out and all I meant was that I would start with trumps first", and you believe him. - with the statement, but with claimer stating afterwards, "yes I thought I had 10 hearts" See what I mean ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 02:14:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:14:17 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA27279 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:14:05 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-215.uunet.be [194.7.9.215]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA23675 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:13:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3698BF9C.114F8D8E@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 15:56:28 +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: Here's another one References: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> <36948097.6218D7DA@home.com> <36aeb70c.15963083@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 01:38:31 -0800, Jan Kamras > wrote: > > > No. But a player who makes a sloppy claim must expect that the > TD will not easily be convinced that he would be _certain_ to not > play that hand sloppily. And all we need is doubt (L70A). > If I agree that your ruling is correct if there is doubt (something which I have often said already), will you then agree that my ruling is possible if there is no doubt whatsoever ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 02:58:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:58:24 +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 CAA27442 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:58:18 +1100 Received: from ip208.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.208]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990110155810.MWBP324.fep4@ip208.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:58:10 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "blml" Subject: Re: Here's another one Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:58:10 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <369dcdb8.3505500@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:44:57 -0000, "Grattan" wrote: >On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 01:38:31 -0800, Jan Kamras >wrote: > >>It would make L70D much easier to apply if claimer >>had to state a new line single-dummy. As it is, I feel we have to be >>(unneccesarily?)suspicious of any new, succesful, line. >>Grattan?! Would such a change have any drawbacks? > >++++ Maybe it depends what would be considered a drawback.=20 >Amongst expert players, very few I suspect. But do you really=20 >want to fix Mrs.Billings at the weekly duplicate with this? (Sorry,=20 >Mrs B., not you - the other one.) We do tend to talk the expert=20 >game here, don't we? =20 > What we might consider doing is to create scope for=20 >Regulating Authorities to regulate such a requirement where it=20 >is deemed appropriate. > = =20 >++++ Declarer can state lines in two situations: * as part of the claim: a L68C statement, and * after the claim has been contested. It is important to keep these two separate: The first one is the primary basis for the TD's ruling, and it must be made by the claimer alone without seeing the opponents' hands and without knowing whether any opponent is going to object to the claim. The second one must be accepted only as allowed by L70D and L70E, and it therefore does not matter if the claimer has seen the cards - in effect, such a later line of play is just a way of helping the TD with the analysis that he will have to do anyway. (As you may have guessed by now, I agree with David S that it is not the claimer's job to make up new lines - though he is welcome to do so and to have them evaluated by the L70D/E requirements if he likes.) I think it would be very dangerous to allow declarer to state a new line in a situation where (because of its "single-dummy" nature) it might somehow be confused with the L68C statement. Jesper: >When my opponents claim and I am confident that the claim >statement is finished, I immediately show my hand. This makes it >clear to everybody that (a) play has definitely stopped and (b) >the claimer can no longer change his mind about his stated line >of play. Grattan: >++++ Oh? We don't apply Laws 68D and 70 then? - another=20 > of EK's little inferences occurs in 70. ++++ =20 Do you seriously mean that the last sentence in L68D is intended to make it illegal to show your hand before the claim is contested and the TD has been called? That would mean an incredible lot of TD calls of the type "Director, my partner and I are unable to determine whether we should contest declarer's claim without seeing each other's hands. A perfect bridge player remembering the play could deduce his partner's hand from declarer's, but we are unfortunately less than perfect bridge players." L68D says that "play ceases". Is there any law that forbids showing your hand when play has ceased? The last sentence of L68D applies when the claim has been contested - but we need to see all the hands before the claim is contested or acquiesced in. As for L70, please explain what you mean - I have no idea what you are talking about. L70B2 does not say that the cards may not already be face up on the table. > > >inferences. ++++ ~ Grattan = ~=20 Something seems to have gone wrong editing the text here. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 03:07:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 03:07:08 +1100 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA27461 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 03:07:01 +1100 Received: from ip108.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.108]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990110160655.MXHO324.fep4@ip108.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 17:06:55 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Here's another one Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 17:06:54 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <369ece51.3658170@post12.tele.dk> References: <199901070223580350.0270D57B@mail.btinternet.com> <36948097.6218D7DA@home.com> <36aeb70c.15963083@post12.tele.dk> <3698BF9C.114F8D8E@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3698BF9C.114F8D8E@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, 10 Jan 1999 15:56:28 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> No. But a player who makes a sloppy claim must expect that the >> TD will not easily be convinced that he would be _certain_ to not >> play that hand sloppily. And all we need is doubt (L70A). >If I agree that your ruling is correct if there is doubt >(something which I have often said already), will you then >agree that my ruling is possible if there is no doubt >whatsoever ? Yes. If I'm really convinced that declarer would have won 13 tricks if he had chosen to play out the hand instead of claiming, he gets 13 tricks. That is the law, and it is also reasonable. I think we disagree about what constitutes doubt, but not about what the laws mean. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 03:56:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 03:56:38 +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 DAA27598 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 03:56:31 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zzOA0-000167-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:56:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:44:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <36973E10.1D8B@elnet.msk.ru> <36973BD6.D4361401@village.uunet.be> <369769C4.A84DFCF3@freewwweb.com> <3697815E.2B1C9EBF@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3697815E.2B1C9EBF@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Believe me, this is not me ranting, this is the generally >held view, and I trust you can consider the silence of David >S, Grattan and Ton on this subject to be proof that I know >what I am saying. Naughty, Herman, naughty. :))))) >This mailing list has a few functions, but one of them is to >correct the misapprehentions of some TD's. If they continue >to argue against the grain, I will have to give up. *coff* -- 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 Jan 11 04:04:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 04:04:33 +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 EAA27622 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 04:04:26 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-81.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.81]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA15900865 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:07:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:03:01 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > before commenting on the general terms in Jan's post, I > would liek to highlight that Jan Kamras wrote: > > > So pls stop putting your own twist on the laws when they for once are > > rather clear, and logical, and adjudicate the cases we discuss > > accordingly. > > Thanks. > > Is that why we are spending so much time on this law - > because it is clear ? > > Anyway, > > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: -s- > > Finally, "new lines" are mentioned only in L70D and L70E. In both cases > > it clearly specifies "not accept from claimer". There is no reasom to > > assume that the lawmakers didn't intend it to mean what it says, or that > > they intended something additional which they did not say. Maybe not trivial, but nowhere is New Line mentioned in L70. > Yet that same L70E does state that the TD need NOT accept an > irrational line. We are trying to determine the scope of > this irrationality here. > Nothing to do with the scope of the Laws, or their > interpretation. > > Please don't quote L70 anymore, we all know what it says, > and my interpretation (which I still believe to be the > silent majority's one) is the correct one. > > Jan and Roger are the ones with the wrong interpretation. > The Laws do NOT say that the TD should stick the claimer to > his claim statement. We say that the TD should stick to the claim statement. > The Laws say that the claimer gets the "benefit" of the > worst of his "normal" lines. Irrational lines are not > normal. If the stated line is judged to be an irrational > one, then claimer shall not be held to it. Herman. You just said it and I quote: "....his "normal" lines." as in HIS, not SOMEONE else's. > THAT is the Law, nothing else. No comment yet. Roger Pewick From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 04:10:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 04:10:12 +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 EAA27639 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 04:10:06 +1100 Received: from michael (user-38lcisd.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.141]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA00134 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:09:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990110120943.006cf840@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:09:43 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L25A and L16C In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:12 AM 1/10/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: >++++ If you come to the position that N/S are not an 'offending' side, it >does not follow that there can be no UI in the possession of one or both >of them. The generality of Law 16 still applies. I would wish to determine >whether North or South has based an action on anything other than >"information from legal calls or plays, and mannerisms of opponents". >If the answer were "yes", the next questions would be "where did this >extraneous information come from?" and "is there anything in the laws >that authorizes the player to use it?" North has based his action on East's double, a legal call. Does the fact that the double was subsequently withdrawn imply that as a legal matter, it never happened? I don't think so; it was a legal call at the time it was made. But if so, then the fact of East's withdrawn double is equally UI to both sides. > There is a problem if you wish to quote Law 16C (to which you >are referred by 25B but not by 25A). The problem is that Law 16C is >constructed to require that there be one "offending side" and one >"non-offending" side. This is the grammatical effect of the use of "the" >rather than "a" in C1 and C2; another of Kaplan's niceties I think. If you >do not have two sides, one offending and one not, Law 16C gives you >no answer. Exactly so. The application of L16C necessarily effects a penalty against one side, the offending side, by making certain information UI for them and AI for their opponents, contrary to the specific protection afforded by 25A ("without penalty"). > If your argument is sound then it is to 16A and B that the >Director will look., and my immediate unmeditated impression is that >you could perhaps find that it is with 12B3 that you come to rest. ^^^^^ Either you have committed a typo with respect to this reference or my version of the Laws (downloaded from the ACBL web site) is incomplete. L12B has no numbered subsection in my version. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 04:37:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 04:37:06 +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 EAA27765 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 04:37:01 +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 MAA18382 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:36:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA19714 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:36:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:36:54 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901101736.MAA19714@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25A and L16C Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > But UI cases are not like that: there is a perfectly good UI Law, well > more than one actually, so apply it. Except that not everybody is entirely happy with calling an accidental mispull of a bid card an infraction. That is what is now needed to apply L16C. Perhaps the law ought to say "irregularity," but it doesn't. On the other hand, equity clearly requires that the opponents not be disadvantaged by the accidental mispull. In fact, I can see at least three reasonable ways to rule (and as I write this, I've just thought of a fourth). In order of decreasing severity: 1. Call the mispull an infraction. Then L16C applies, and any information gained is UI to the OS, AI to the NOS. The problem with this -- aside from the very idea of calling an accident an infraction -- is that L16 is very severe, and the "OS" will be unable to take even normal bridge actions if there is a LA. 2. Call the board unplayable, and give an artificial score. Presumably it would be avg- to the perpetrators, avg+ to the innocent side. The disadvantage is that both sides lose the opportunity to play the board. 3. Treat information arising from the mispull as accidental UI under L16B. This gives the TD several options, one of which is an artificial adjusted score. Or the TD can let the board be played, deciding later whether the information was material or not. (Or is this not an option?) The problem is that the examples given in L16B aren't really the same as the situation under discussion, even though "accidental UI" seems a fair characterization. 4. Rule under the "no indemnity" laws like 12B1 and 84E, possibly bringing in 72B1 if it seems relevant. This amounts to pretty much the same as letting the board be played out in option 3, but both sides are advised that an adjusted score may be given. We have several votes for options 1 and 4; is there any support for 2 or 3? I do rather think that the supporters of 1 have not met the burden of proof of showing that the mispull is an infraction. Just which Law did it violate? And what are we to make of the "without penalty" provision of L25A? And I have a question about L16B that I hope David will answer. Suppose in a generic L16B "nobody at fault" case -- not the present situation -- the TD cannot tell whether the UI will be relevant or not. How should he proceed? Would it ever be possible to allow the board to be played, then decide that the information was relevant after all, and give avg+ to both sides? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 06:11:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 06:11:06 +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 GAA27952 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 06:11:00 +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 OAA19249 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 14:10:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA20085 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 14:10:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 14:10:52 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901101910.OAA20085@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > As I remember Occam's razor sounds like (sorry for wording, > it is translation from Russian): "Thou shalt not create more > Universes than it is needed". The usual phrasings in English are different, but I like Vitold's version best. > mistakes are integral part of bridge. Yes. But the Laws forgive certain kinds of mistakes and not others. For example, pulling the wrong card from a bidding box is forgiven (L25A), whereas the very similar act of pulling the wrong card from hand on defense is not (L45C1). But if it is declarer who has the accident during play, it might be forgiven after all (L45C2). With claims, the usual approach is to forgive faulty claim statements but not logically flawed claims. (At least I think and hope this is the usual approach.) The trick, of course, is determining which are which. Some people want to parse every syllable of the claim statement and force claimer to play accordingly even though no rational person would believe the claimer intended the statement that way or would act that way in actual play. I am afraid I have no sympathy for that approach. So count me firmly in the "claims are good" camp. If the game is played in what I consider the proper spirit, even bad claims are good. Bridge is for fun, and it's boring to keep playing when the result can no longer be affected. Most claims are correct. A small minority have an obvious flaw -- declarer has lost track of something -- and the further play can go only one way or at least there is a quite normal losing line. These claims are usually rectified by instant agreement. A tiny fraction are the ones we hear about on BLML. I do agree with David Burn, however, that the highest priority is to make the rules clear. If the authorities decide that stating claims in proper and thorough form is an integral part of bridge, I can go along, even though I dislike the effect that might have. At the very least, I'd like to see clearer language about what to do in a "finesse or drop" situation. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 06:46:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 06:46:56 +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 GAA28053 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 06:46:50 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990110194644.RYTN6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:46:44 -0800 Message-ID: <3699047C.51885459@home.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:50:20 -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: L25A and L16C References: <199901082310.SAA18695@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Jan Kamras > > > The very fact that [L25]A contains no provision ***for LHO*** to > > change his call > > whereas B does, initself implies A was not intended to apply when > > LHO had already called. > > Please explain how the first six words of L25A are to be interpreted. I highlighted "for LHO" above from my original post. L25A tells us when a player may change his call, and says nothing abt what his LHO can or cannot do. L25B describes other scenarios when 25A does *not* apply, and describes what LHO can then do. Had the law-makers intended 25A changes to be allowed even when LHO has called, it seems reasonable to assume they would mention *something* about how LHO's actions would be affected (or at least made a reference such as "see B below"). I said: > > Not neccesarily. We can simply apply L84E and 12A1. You responded: > Yes, except I think you mean L12A2, not 12A1. These seem exactly > right to me; much better than my suggestion of L72B1. I am of the "european"(?) school that loathes the excessive L12A2/C1 rulings and prefer every attempt at L25A1/C2 before giving up :-) In the case at hand, I find it fairly easy to determine the likely and possible results absent LHO's X of the "inadvertant call", so awarding an ArtAS seems just laziness to me. Anyway, this is an area that we have debated extensively and where I doubt agreement will be reached absent some wording-adjustment in the law, but this doesn't prevent us from agreeing that TD can fall back on L84E to apply L12A. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 06:54:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 06:54:55 +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 GAA28073 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 06:54:49 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990110195444.SADK6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:54:44 -0800 Message-ID: <3699065C.4196C3DD@home.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:58:20 -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: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19990108210158.006d9cc0@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > Then why is the stipulated correction period given as "Until partner makes > a call" ? L25A may be unwieldy and unworkable in its present form, but it > is clear that it is intended to apply even after LHO has called. I'm working of my old 1987 rulebook here (no mention in 25A of "until partner...." If this was added in the 1997 version, I agree we have ambiguity. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 07:19:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 07:19:06 +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 HAA28147 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 07:19:00 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990110201855.SDSR6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:18:55 -0800 Message-ID: <36990C07.344C4212@home.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:22:31 -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: L25A and L16C References: <3.0.1.32.19990108212244.006d9cc0@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > I understand your friend's discomfort, and his consequent efforts to > ameliorate the apparent injustice. But the Laws make it quite clear that > changing one's call under L25A is done without prejudice. So BOTH sides are > equally entitled to the information concerning the withdrawn double. In > this case, North was able to make good use of that legal information. In > another situation, it may be that West is better positioned to use the > information. Tough luck. It may not seem completely equitable, but it is > plain that when a right is granted "without penalty", that's what it means. You still (conveniently?) forget that TD can restore equity with support of L84E. The lawmakers realized they couldn't cover every single case, so don't undo their good work! Btw, the adjusted score is not a "penalty", simply a restoration of equity. The logic should be obvious to you: L25A does the player a favour by not holding him to an accidental mechanical mistake. Surely he should not be entitled to benefit from info about opponents hand that was gained from his mistake. > To do so requires that we completely ignore the "without > penalty" clause in L25A. Since you insist on "lawyering" on this one I repeat - Read L84E 10 times b4 continuing on this track. Clearly, not one but *two* withdrawn and substituted calls is an "irregularity", and the text specifies 84E to be used in cases "..for which no penalty is provided..". Don't get stuck in L16 arguments here just because that's how Herman started it. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 08:00:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:00:21 +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 IAA28243 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:00:16 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990110210010.SKLS6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 13:00:10 -0800 Message-ID: <369915B2.3844201C@home.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 13:03:46 -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: Strange Claim Revisited References: <368A0405.5E51B05C@freewwweb.com> <199812310804190370.09EA40C3@mail.btinternet.com> <369ffda6.9118541@post12.tele.dk> <368E59CB.CFAEB4D4@freewwweb.com> <368F4B1A.FF1D840B@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Oh no, he's dug it up ! > > axeman wrote: > > > > Strange Claim Revisited > > > > > >E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > > > > Jx > > > > Axx > > > > Jxxx > > > > 8642 > > > >AQTxx Kx > > > >xx KJxxx > > > >AKQ2 xx > > > >KQ AJ97 > > > > 9xxx > > > > Qxx > > > > xxx > > > > T53 > > > > > > > >Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of > > > >Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. > In the strange claim, I (and many others) find that the > stated line breaks down even before any further trick is > played, since claimer cannot fail to notice the blockage the > moment he thinks about which card to play next. I didn't participate in this one but would just like to question this. "B4 any further trick is played" is at the moment he claims. At that moment - since he did claim - he didn't notice the blockage! A lot depends on the level of player involved but I suggest that only after rattling off the 5 s-tricks would a decent player *clearly* notice the problem, and a lesser player might frankly not notice b4 having cashed the CK and Q, without overtaking it! Anyway, what happens is fairly complicated since it seems all normal lines start by running the spades. If N goes down to the singleton HA all normal lines will succeed, and if he keeps HAx a good declarer will start D if N discarded one, otherwise overtake C, so I beleive above a certain level claimer would "always" succeed. Very tough one to adjudicate if claimer an expert or close to. Any less and I resolve doubt against him and award 11 tricks. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 09:04:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:04:36 +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 JAA28384 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:04:27 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zzSxy-0005Hp-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:04:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:55:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example In-Reply-To: <3697815E.2B1C9EBF@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3697815E.2B1C9EBF@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes > > >axeman wrote: >> >> I have a much better definition of a line failing: >> >> A line fails at the point when the cards will not execute what claimer >> has said he will execute with the cards. >> > >Well sorry, but that definition is WRONG. > >L70E : "or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on >any normal line of play". > This only applies in the matter of the finding of a "particular" card. If I say drawing all trump and can't, then the line has failed. If I claim saying "finessing for the Q" then that finesse is permitted. If I do not include that statement then I can apply L70E to 'that part of the claim only'. >It is this principle we are applying when we say that a line >fails, so we must adopt that principle into the definition >of "failing line". > >> > >> > Well, your opionion is WRONG. >> > >> > A line is deemed to fail when one opponent shows out. >> > >> > > > >Believe me, this is not me ranting, this is the generally >held view, and I trust you can consider the silence of David >S, Grattan and Ton on this subject to be proof that I know >what I am saying. > >Roger, Vitold, believe me ! > >This mailing list has a few functions, but one of them is to >correct the misapprehentions of some TD's. If they continue >to argue against the grain, I will have to give up. > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 10:38:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:38:47 +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 KAA28601 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:38:41 +1100 Received: from ip110.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.110]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990110233834.OVZV324.fep4@ip110.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:38:34 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:38:34 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <369c3131.1310764@post12.tele.dk> References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <36adb42b.15226354@post12.tele.dk> <3698B56C.E0DD766@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3698B56C.E0DD766@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, 10 Jan 1999 15:13:00 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >I stand by my statement that Jesper calls claiming without >DFLOPping rude. Which as far I can see means one of two things: (a) You now use the abbreviation DFLOP for something different than your original detailed definition, or (b) You consider your knowledge of what Jesper calls rude superior to mine. The process that you call DFLOP, as defined by you recently, includes some elements of thought that I do consider it rude to not to go through before claiming; it also contains some elements of thought that I do not consider it rude to not to go through before claiming. You yourself posted (early in this thread) an excellent example of a hand with lots of top tricks (more than 13) where it is obvious at a glance that there exists an (or rather several) unblocking sequence(s), but where I would not find it necessary to work one out in details before claiming or to mention it as part of the claim. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 11:05:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:05:07 +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 LAA28749 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:05:01 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 0zzUqY-00009e-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 01:04:42 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990111005802.00a2ec90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:58:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: L25A and L16C In-Reply-To: <199901101736.MAA19714@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:36 10-01-99 -0500, you wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> But UI cases are not like that: there is a perfectly good UI Law, well >> more than one actually, so apply it. > >Except that not everybody is entirely happy with calling an accidental >mispull of a bid card an infraction. That is what is now needed to >apply L16C. Perhaps the law ought to say "irregularity," but it >doesn't. On the other hand, equity clearly requires that the opponents >not be disadvantaged by the accidental mispull. > why dont we use here 21B2. Thern we see that the retracted D is UI (16c) perhaps too simple i guess??? >In fact, I can see at least three reasonable ways to rule (and as I >write this, I've just thought of a fourth). In order of decreasing >severity: >1. Call the mispull an infraction. Then L16C applies, and any >information gained is UI to the OS, AI to the NOS. The problem with >this -- aside from the very idea of calling an accident an infraction -- >is that L16 is very severe, and the "OS" will be unable to take even >normal bridge actions if there is a LA. > >2. Call the board unplayable, and give an artificial score. Presumably >it would be avg- to the perpetrators, avg+ to the innocent side. The >disadvantage is that both sides lose the opportunity to play the board. > ACBL method. Dont like this iedea. TD should not fall for this i think >3. Treat information arising from the mispull as accidental UI under >L16B. This gives the TD several options, one of which is an artificial >adjusted score. Or the TD can let the board be played, deciding later >whether the information was material or not. (Or is this not an >option?) The problem is that the examples given in L16B aren't really >the same as the situation under discussion, even though "accidental UI" >seems a fair characterization. > dont think 16B is made for this type of problems >4. Rule under the "no indemnity" laws like 12B1 and 84E, possibly bringing >in 72B1 if it seems relevant. This amounts to pretty much the same as >letting the board be played out in option 3, but both sides are advised >that an adjusted score may be given. > you mean 12A1 perhaps. Then still you have to decide if there is a violation of the laws >We have several votes for options 1 and 4; is there any support for 2 or >3? I do rather think that the supporters of 1 have not met the burden >of proof of showing that the mispull is an infraction. Just which Law >did it violate? And what are we to make of the "without penalty" >provision of L25A? > not mine :) see 21 again >And I have a question about L16B that I hope David will answer. >Suppose in a generic L16B "nobody at fault" case -- not the present >situation -- the TD cannot tell whether the UI will be relevant or >not. How should he proceed? Would it ever be possible to allow the >board to be played, then decide that the information was relevant after >all, and give avg+ to both sides? > dont think so regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 11:12:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:12:15 +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 LAA28782 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:12:09 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka832.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.98]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA16074 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 19:12:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990110191145.006d2d04@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 19:11:45 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L25A and L16C Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: >In fact, I can see at least three reasonable ways to rule (and as I >write this, I've just thought of a fourth). In order of decreasing >severity: >1. Call the mispull an infraction. Then L16C applies, and any >information gained is UI to the OS, AI to the NOS. The problem with >this -- aside from the very idea of calling an accident an infraction -- >is that L16 is very severe, and the "OS" will be unable to take even >normal bridge actions if there is a LA. > >2. Call the board unplayable, and give an artificial score. Presumably >it would be avg- to the perpetrators, avg+ to the innocent side. The >disadvantage is that both sides lose the opportunity to play the board. > "Perpetrators"? Wouldn't you have to be guilty of something at least a bit naughty to deserve that label? >3. Treat information arising from the mispull as accidental UI under >L16B. This gives the TD several options, one of which is an artificial >adjusted score. Or the TD can let the board be played, deciding later >whether the information was material or not. (Or is this not an >option?) The problem is that the examples given in L16B aren't really >the same as the situation under discussion, even though "accidental UI" >seems a fair characterization. > >4. Rule under the "no indemnity" laws like 12B1 and 84E, possibly bringing >in 72B1 if it seems relevant. This amounts to pretty much the same as >letting the board be played out in option 3, but both sides are advised >that an adjusted score may be given. > How about 5: The result stands. There has been no infraction, since North has exercised a right pursuant to 25A "without penalty.". North has no UI; his information about East's hand derives from a legal call (East's double), which both sides may rely upon in making bids or plays. I know this feels wrong, but it feels more wrong to pervert the clear meaning of Laws 25 and 16 in order to arrive at a more appealing outcome. >We have several votes for options 1 and 4; is there any support for 2 or >3? I do rather think that the supporters of 1 have not met the burden >of proof of showing that the mispull is an infraction. Just which Law >did it violate? And what are we to make of the "without penalty" >provision of L25A? Law 25A invites players to correct their bids under conditions (such as the present case) in which the correction may cause serious problems of adjudication, and the only guidance offered in resolving such issues is that the correction is to be allowed "without penalty". It is _in no way_ an infraction for a player to exercise this right, any more than it is an infraction to misbid one's hand (also a specifically protected action). To penalize a player for exercising this right, as by imposing upon his side limitations of information not applicable to the opponents, is a transparent violation of the plain meaning of the phrase "without penalty." A related case: North opens 1S, East passes, and North suddenly notices he has pulled the wrong card and immediately seeks to change his call to 1C. You (the TD) determine that North has met the requirements of 25A and so rule. Now East changes his call to 1H (Can he?). Is either side restricted in relying upon the inference that East's hand is too weak for a 2-level overcall? I think not, but I am wholly convinced that any such limitation should apply to both sides equally. The problem lies in the correction time "until his partner makes a call" stipulated in L25A. Once LHO makes any call whatsoever, potential problems arise if the original call is corrected. As Herman pointed out, it is not even explicitly spelled out that LHO has an option to change his call as well, but I don't think anyone wants to go there. :) Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 11:20:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:20:17 +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 LAA28799 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:20:10 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka832.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.98]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA21827 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 19:20:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990110191947.006d495c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 19:19:47 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L25A and L16C In-Reply-To: <3699047C.51885459@home.com> References: <199901082310.SAA18695@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:50 AM 1/10/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >> >> > From: Jan Kamras >> >> > The very fact that [L25]A contains no provision ***for LHO*** to > > change his call >> > whereas B does, initself implies A was not intended to apply when >> > LHO had already called. >> >> Please explain how the first six words of L25A are to be interpreted. > >I highlighted "for LHO" above from my original post. L25A tells us when >a player may change his call, and says nothing abt what his LHO can or >cannot do. L25B describes other scenarios when 25A does *not* apply, and >describes what LHO can then do. Had the law-makers intended 25A changes >to be allowed even when LHO has called, it seems reasonable to assume >they would mention *something* about how LHO's actions would be affected >(or at least made a reference such as "see B below"). > Jan, this is not responsive to Steve's question. You have drawn an inference about the intent of the law-makers based on the absence of certain instructions you (and I) would expect to see if their intent were to allow such corrections. This inference seems completely reasonable, except that it runs smack up against unambiguous, contrary instructions: "Until his partner makes a call...". What is this, a typo? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 11:37:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:37:56 +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 LAA28845 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:37:51 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990111003744.TRVS6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:37:44 -0800 Message-ID: <369948B0.18CF327B@home.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:41:20 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Please don't quote L70 anymore, we all know what it says, > and my interpretation (which I still believe to be the > silent majority's one) I hate it when one party to a discussion makes these type of statements, to appear more "in the right". > Jan and Roger are the ones with the wrong interpretation. > The Laws do NOT say that the TD should stick the claimer to > his claim statement. Let us disagree where we disagree Herman but pls, whatever else you do, don't put words in my mouth that I haven't uttered! For whatever it's worth, in this thread I have agreed with some but also disagreed with other, of Roger's opinions. > The Laws say that the claimer gets the "benefit" of the > worst of his "normal" lines. Irrational lines are not > normal. If the stated line is judged to be an irrational > one, then claimer shall not be held to it. If it became obviously irrational during it's execution, whereas it was merely "sloppy" or "careless" when stated, yes. > THAT is the Law, nothing else. > My belief is that if a claimer states an irrational line > before DFLOPping, he is allowed to notice so, and the line > remains irrational. Next time, with you as the TD, I will make an irrational claim statement but will then tell you "Herman, I didn't DFLOP" upon which you will do my thinking for me and I can save energy for the next board. I love it! :-) (but don't think it's bridge). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 12:08:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:08:47 +1100 Received: from smtp0.mindspring.com (smtp0.mindspring.com [207.69.200.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA29024 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:08:40 +1100 Received: from michael (user-38lcis2.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.130]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA27005 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 20:08:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990110200214.006d8568@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 20:02:14 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L25A and L16C In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990111005802.00a2ec90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> References: <199901101736.MAA19714@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:58 AM 1/11/99 +0100, you wrote: >At 12:36 10-01-99 -0500, Anton wrote: >>> From: David Stevenson >>> But UI cases are not like that: there is a perfectly good UI Law, well >>> more than one actually, so apply it. >> >>Except that not everybody is entirely happy with calling an accidental >>mispull of a bid card an infraction. That is what is now needed to >>apply L16C. Perhaps the law ought to say "irregularity," but it >>doesn't. On the other hand, equity clearly requires that the opponents >>not be disadvantaged by the accidental mispull. >> > >why dont we use here 21B2. Thern we see that the retracted D is UI (16c) >perhaps too simple i guess??? > Because L21 specifically applies only when a player wishes to change a call due to misinsformation, which is to say: a mis-description of opponents' methods, including a failure to alert as required. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 12:16:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:16:06 +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 MAA29054 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:16:00 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.194] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zzVxF-0007NG-00; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 01:15:42 +0000 Message-ID: <199901110115220400.0E8D224F@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <001001be3c01$a204a5c0$5fb259c3@default> References: <001001be3c01$a204a5c0$5fb259c3@default> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 01:15:22 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: cookbury@purplenet.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Magda On 09/01/99, at 19:44, magda.thain wrote: >magda.thain@cookbury.purplenet.co.uk > >we think it strange to play more trumps after you pull the other >side's trumps. Trumps give control of the hand if something goes wrong. >So we would not expect a player making a claim to play all his trumps, >which could be very silly. Does this mean we are wrong? I don't think that you're wrong - there is some linguistic confusion here.= What declarer apparently said was: "I play all trumps". I don't know= whether they were his actual words, or a translation of his actual words= by the poster of the original message; what is clear is that either= declarer or the original poster (or both) is not a native English speaker.= I expect that declarer's intent was that he would draw all the enemy= trumps in as many rounds as necessary. Since his trump holding was AKQxx= facing xxxx, it is not clear whether: (a) he thought three rounds would be all that was necessary; or (b) he thought he could draw them all without loss by playing four rounds= if necessary. In passing, some posters have argued that (a) is careless while (b) is= irrational, a view to which I do not subscribe - to believe that you have= ten hearts when you actually have nine is, in my opinion, neither more nor= less rational than to believe that you can draw trumps in four rounds= without loss even though they should break 4-0. I have, however, some= sympathy for the view - but I have not addressed the point in great detail= since is it not at all central to my argument. The fact remains, though, that after declarer had "drawn trumps" as he= believed, the rest of his cards were top tricks. Now, while it would be= unusual for a declarer with some surplus trumps in each hand, plus the= rest in top winners, to cash the trumps before the rest of the winners, it= would not (in my view) be an irrational thing to do. So, whether he= thought he had ten hearts or thought that his fourth highest heart could= beat the jack, it would still (again, in my opinion) not be irrational for= declarer to play a fourth round of hearts - just as if he were in a no= trump contract. However, in principle I agree with the notion that a declarer who has= announced that he will draw trumps should not be assumed to carry on= drawing them till Kingdom Come. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 12:43:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:43:42 +1100 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA29122 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:43:34 +1100 Received: from modem18.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.146] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zzWO1-0006SD-00; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 01:43:22 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "blml" Subject: Re: Here's another one Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:23:29 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "There is a perfectly good UI law" (D.W. Stevenson) ===================================================---------- From: Jesper Dybdal To: blml Subject: Re: Here's another one Date: 10 January 1999 15:58 On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:44:57 -0000, "Grattan" wrote: -------------------- \x/ -------------------- Jesper: Do you seriously mean that the last sentence in L68D is intended to make it illegal to show your hand before the claim is contested and the TD has been called? ++++ I would have said that "no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival" is one of the plainest English statements in the laws; and I would have said that the statement in 70B2 emphasises no player should have faced his hand. and it is not without consideration that the Director is required to apply 70B1 *before* 70B2; and I think the Committee's reasons for this should be respected. It is also my opinion that for a player to face his hand is a gratuitous action and that the Director should apply the law exactly as he would had the hand not been faced - in other words that your action should not be allowed any effects. And I just do not believe it would have any material effect on the number of Director calls to apply this law as written; players know whether they have a problem with the claim without showing up the hands. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 12:43:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:43:39 +1100 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA29121 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:43:32 +1100 Received: from modem18.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.146] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 0zzWO5-0006SD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 01:43:25 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 01:39:37 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "What we began in gross error, we persist in through habit". - Edgar Allan Poe ======================================== > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example > Date: 10 January 1999 16:44 > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Believe me, this is not me ranting, this is the generally > >held view, and I trust you can consider the silence of David > >S, Grattan and Ton on this subject to be proof that I know > >what I am saying. ++ My, My! did he really say that?! Well, my silence can mean no more than boredom, or that I have nothing to say, or even that, having something to say I think it might be wasted on deaf ears. ++ ===================================== > > >This mailing list has a few functions, but one of them is to > >correct the misapprehentions of some TD's. ++ "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap".++ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 13:20:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:20:33 +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 NAA29257 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:20:27 +1100 Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id NAA21019; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:20:21 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma020983; Mon, 11 Jan 99 13:20:16 +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 NAA29300 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:20:15 +1100 Received: from newmanpm by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA11595; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:30:09 +1100 Message-Id: <4.1.19990111125426.0093e690@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:18:55 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> References: <000701be3a3f$5a8b93c0$598a93c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What an amazing thread! Back from summer holidays to learn all about DFLOPS! A couple of things: 1) I am glad my opponents do not claim against me with the 'liberal' approach to claim analysis. While it would be irrational for them to not count to 13 it does not stop them in real life! I dont think letting them claim to avoid their real life play of the hand is the solution. If we go all the way back to the original suit AKQxx opposite xxxx. If declarer says something equivalent to "I have the rest" then they clearly haven't counted and I see no reason to start doing it for them (If this sounds like DB it is because I think he makes a lot of sense on this issue). Assume one (or two off depending on SK location). If they put their hand down and say "Looks like this one is making" then I would give them the 12 tricks that are there on any rational line (assuming there is no untimely ruff in a minor when disposing of the Spade). I would prefer a declarer who pulled one round of trump worked out the problem on the hand and then solved it! The director (or more likely the players) would know which is appropriate and decide accordingly. In real life these things are *usually* pretty clear. Bridge should be won or lost "at the table" *not* in later analysis. 2) For those who do not subscribe to Australian Bridge. The latest issue (Dec 1998) in a column entitled "Bridge for the Majority" by Greg Quittner (a local club owner) says: "A problem with the law Law 68(d) states that no further play of the cards shall take place after a claim has been made. As a director of a session I have found this to be quite a problem in the following situtation. An experienced player makes a claim at trick six, stating his line of play at 100 miles per hour to his less-than-experienced opponents. One of these opponents musters up the courage to call me to the table. The declarer once again explains his line of play at a slightly slower pace, but the opposistion still find this too hard to follow. They would like the hand to be played out, but I explain to them that the laws do not allow it. The usual reply is "Oh, then let him have it, we can't be bothered" or words to that effect. As one cannot ask the more experienced players not to claim against weaker opponents, the situation does present a problem. Nove players are not capable of coping with claims made early in the hand. As the law is unlikely to make any concessions on their behalf, I feel that this will continue to be a problem under such circumstances" Comments would be appreciated. IMHO I try not to claim against novices unless one of the hands (preferably dummy) is high. This seems to save time and keeps everyone happy. In a high level game usually putting the cards on the table keeps everyone happy. BTW I have now rebuilt the New South Wales Bridge Association (NSWBA) Home Page. http://www.nettrade.com.au/nswba All appeals of the NSWBA will be published on the site and feedback is welcome. -- Peter Newman bridge is not a game - it is a way of life From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 13:20:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:20:55 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA29266 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:20:47 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zzWy7-0007Er-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:20:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:13:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <199901101736.MAA19714@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199901101736.MAA19714@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> But UI cases are not like that: there is a perfectly good UI Law, well >> more than one actually, so apply it. >And I have a question about L16B that I hope David will answer. >Suppose in a generic L16B "nobody at fault" case -- not the present >situation -- the TD cannot tell whether the UI will be relevant or >not. How should he proceed? Would it ever be possible to allow the >board to be played, then decide that the information was relevant after >all, and give avg+ to both sides? Errr. I have my doubts about whether it is legal, and I have certainly done it. *coff* In practical terms it is the common solution: generally you let the players decide afterwards whether there was a problem. Note that my colleagues are split very firmly into two camps: [1] People have paid their money to play not to get averages [2] It is easier to avoid problems to cancel the board Count me as a [1]. -- 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 Jan 11 13:20:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:20:55 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA29265 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:20:47 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zzWy7-0007Es-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:20:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:14:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <199901082310.SAA18695@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3699047C.51885459@home.com> In-Reply-To: <3699047C.51885459@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >I highlighted "for LHO" above from my original post. L25A tells us when >a player may change his call, and says nothing abt what his LHO can or >cannot do. L25B describes other scenarios when 25A does *not* apply, and >describes what LHO can then do. Had the law-makers intended 25A changes >to be allowed even when LHO has called, it seems reasonable to assume >they would mention *something* about how LHO's actions would be affected >(or at least made a reference such as "see B below"). If you are going to argue Lawmakers' intent, then you *cannot* be correct. Unless we assume the Lawmakers are out of their minds, it is not credible that they would say "Until his partner makes a call, ..." - that is too stupid. If they meant until LHO called, then why would they not say "Until LHO makes a call, ..."? Of course they would. Furthermore, this is one area where BLML hopes they had positive input into the current Laws. Quite late on, the drafts of the 1997 Laws had no time limit, as there was in the 1987 Laws. We realised that some members of BLML were allowing L25A changes until LHO called, some until partner called, and some later than that. Herman gave a ruling under the 1987 Laws where he allowed a call to be changed after dummy had appeared [Declarer said "Please put the trumps on the left" to which Dummy replied "We are in 7NT"]. After discussion, there was a feeling that until partner called was fairest, and we hope that the fact that this went into the next draft was because of this suggestion. BLML only got really going as the 1997 Laws were nearing completion, and we do not think we had much other input. Furthermore, you seem to be assuming there is a difficulty without looking into it very carefully. Why did L25A not tell you what to do about LHO's call? Because there is no need. It may be withdrawn without penalty under L21B1: putting the wrong bidding card on the table [or saying or writing the wrong thing] is misinformation. So, is there any difficulty? Yes, we do seem to have found one. If you assume that the player who made the wrong call is not an offender then you have a UI problem. To me, it is no problem, because to me he is obviously an offender, so L16C2 applies. Grattan disagrees with me but lets L16B come to the rescue. OK, it is worth discussing. But it is not correct to assume the Lawmakers meant the exact opposite of what they said, because there may or may not be a tiny problem with a common and effective procedure. >Anyway, this is an area that we have debated extensively and where I >doubt agreement will be reached absent some wording-adjustment in the >law, but this doesn't prevent us from agreeing that TD can fall back on >L84E to apply L12A. This is certainly not true. Either the player is allowed to use the information, in which case you are not allowed to penalise him for doing so, or the player is not allowed to use the information, in which case there is a Law saying so and giving details of the action to be followed. -- 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 Jan 11 16:12:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA29696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 16:12:39 +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 QAA29691 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 16:12:31 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-5.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.5]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA16030442 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:15:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <369987E0.275267FB@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:10:56 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <199901082310.SAA18695@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3699047C.51885459@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Jan Kamras wrote: > Furthermore, you seem to be assuming there is a difficulty without > looking into it very carefully. Why did L25A not tell you what to do > about LHO's call? Because there is no need. It may be withdrawn > without penalty under L21B1: putting the wrong bidding card on the table > [or saying or writing the wrong thing] is misinformation. > > So, is there any difficulty? Yes, we do seem to have found one. If > you assume that the player who made the wrong call is not an offender > then you have a UI problem. To me, it is no problem, because to me he > is obviously an offender, so L16C2 applies. Grattan disagrees with me > but lets L16B come to the rescue. OK, it is worth discussing. For reference, the view in the ACBL in early 1997 was that if L25A was applied, L16C2 does not. I do not know the reasoning other than if the call was inadvertant, it did not happen- am only going by a handout. Roger Pewick > But it is not correct to assume the Lawmakers meant the exact opposite > of what they said, because there may or may not be a tiny problem with a > common and effective procedure. > > >Anyway, this is an area that we have debated extensively and where I > >doubt agreement will be reached absent some wording-adjustment in the > >law, but this doesn't prevent us from agreeing that TD can fall back on > >L84E to apply L12A. > > This is certainly not true. Either the player is allowed to use the > information, in which case you are not allowed to penalise him for doing > so, or the player is not allowed to use the information, in which case > there is a Law saying so and giving details of the action to be > followed. > > -- > 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 Jan 11 19:38:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:38:05 +1100 Received: from spartacus (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA00137 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:37:59 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by spartacus with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 0zzcrA-0003If-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:37:52 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990111093114.00a3c4a0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:31:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: L25A and L16C In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990110200214.006d8568@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19990111005802.00a2ec90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <199901101736.MAA19714@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 20:02 10-01-99 -0500, you wrote: >At 12:58 AM 1/11/99 +0100, you wrote: >>At 12:36 10-01-99 -0500, Anton wrote: >>>> From: David Stevenson >>>> But UI cases are not like that: there is a perfectly good UI Law, well >>>> more than one actually, so apply it. >>> >>>Except that not everybody is entirely happy with calling an accidental >>>mispull of a bid card an infraction. That is what is now needed to >>>apply L16C. Perhaps the law ought to say "irregularity," but it >>>doesn't. On the other hand, equity clearly requires that the opponents >>>not be disadvantaged by the accidental mispull. >>> >> >>why dont we use here 21B2. Thern we see that the retracted D is UI (16c) >>perhaps too simple i guess??? >> > >Because L21 specifically applies only when a player wishes to change a call >due to misinsformation, which is to say: a mis-description of opponents' >methods, including a failure to alert as required. > >Mike Dennis > > This looks to me like a standard example of misinformation (retracting your bid of 1X and the bidding of 1Y) Look also what David says about this. please reread what you say and think again. regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 21:47:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:47:44 +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 VAA00594 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:47:36 +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 KAA04761 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:47:20 GMT Received: by nlxrtd1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:46:56 +0100 Message-ID: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF4EE8D8@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> From: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: L25A and L16C Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:46:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Seems quite simple: 1. N can change his call until his partner calls "without penalty". (25A) but is still an offender since he has done something which is not part of the "correct procedure" (e.g. 17C) 2. E can change his call (21B1 seems appropriate) 3. NS cannot use the fact that E has a take-out double (16C2). NS are the offending side although they didn't actually get penalised for their offence. Geoff. > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Sent: Friday, 08 January, 1999 10:25 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: L25A and L16C > > > A fellow Belgian TD asks me the following : > > K J T 8 5 > 5 2 > A K 7 > Q T 5 > 4 Q 7 3 2 > J T 9 8 7 Q 6 > 8 5 3 Q J T 9 > 9 8 7 2 A K J > A 9 6 > A K 4 3 > 6 4 2 > 6 4 3 > > N E > 1He X > > North calls the TD and states he has pulled the wrong card. > The TD believes him and allows a L25A correction to 1Sp. > L25A does not say so, but obviously East can also change his > call. > He decides to pass. > > South now bids 3Sp and this is the final contract. Made, > because North is alerted to the fact the the spades are with > east. > > Absolute top. > > My friend TD has then changed the score to Av+, both sides, > since there is an obvious advantage, but he cannot punish > North for something which is after all "without penalty". > > Two questions : > > In order to change the score, we must be able to call the > information about the double UI to North-South. The only > way to do so is to apply L16C2, which talks about the > offending side. Can NS, despite there being no penalty, > still be regarded as "offending side". (IMO they can) > > When awarding the artificial adjusted score (and I don't > blame this TD for doing that here), one has to read L12C1, > which talks of "at fault". Is it possible for a player to be > an offending side and still not be "at fault"? (IMO he can) > > Would it not be possible to adjust the Av+ downwards again, > because player may be considered in breach of L90B7 (errors > in procedure) and L74B1 (insufficient attention), thus > making the player "partially at fault" and giving him Av or > even Av- ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 23:35:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:35:51 +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 XAA00990 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:35:44 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-83.uunet.be [194.7.13.83]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29284 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:35:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:15:36 +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 - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote yet another interesting contribution: (I mean it ! - no smileys - I have great admiration for Roger's constant plodding, and I believe he will in the end see the light) > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > The Laws say that the claimer gets the "benefit" of the > > worst of his "normal" lines. Irrational lines are not > > normal. If the stated line is judged to be an irrational > > one, then claimer shall not be held to it. > > Herman. You just said it and I quote: > > "....his "normal" lines." > > as in HIS, not SOMEONE else's. > Indeed, and I have quite often so far resisted the temptation of calling in the footnote and quote "careless or inferior for the CLASS OF player involved, but not irrational". This line, which may be called irrational for any class of player but the extreme beginner, can still count for this claimer if we believe he made the statement in earnest. I would call that under the "equity" of L70A. Which is precisely why I did write HIS "normal" lines. I still believe there are cases where a claimer can state an irrational line and not be deemed to be irrational himself. Which would make the line irrational for him too, thus non-normal. I believe this case to be in that class. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 11 23:35:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:35:53 +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 XAA00991 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:35:46 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-83.uunet.be [194.7.13.83]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29303 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:35:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3699EC37.A053944A@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:19:03 +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 - bigger example References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > >L70E : "or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on > >any normal line of play". > > > This only applies in the matter of the finding of a "particular" card. > If I say drawing all trump and can't, then the line has failed. If I > claim saying "finessing for the Q" then that finesse is permitted. If I > do not include that statement then I can apply L70E to 'that part of the > claim only'. > Indeed that is true. But what is the harm in using the definition that L70E gives us to control what are irrational lines for the use in L70D ? Besides, the new lines suggested do depend on finding one side with the other three trumps, don't they ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 00:07:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:07:11 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA01086 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:07:04 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA22691 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:06:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990111080824.0068bd78@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:08:24 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <9901081239.aa09348@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:39 PM 1/8/99 PST, Adam wrote: >Well, I guess I don't fit into either camp. My feeling is that good >claims are GOOD and bad claims are BAD. Good claims should be >encouraged because they speed up the game, but this encouragement >should not extend to showing tolerance for bad claims, which create a >mess for everyone and should definitely be discouraged. And if >someone doesn't know whether a claim is good or bad, we shouldn't be >encouraging them to claim and create a possible problem. On the other >hand, my tendency is to claim as quickly as possible once I can see >that there's no reason to keep playing. And often I don't make any >statement, especially if the opponents are decent. Heck, they can see >just as well as I can that trumps are out and my two trumps in dummy >will take care of two of the losers in my hand and dummy's A-Q in my >side suit opposite my stiff, which are good because the king showed up >earlier, will take care of the third loser. Also, I get irritated if >my partner plays a couple tricks more than he or she needs to. (But >that's probably because being a dummy is boring, and I don't like >being the dummy any longer than I have to.) > >So which side of this battle should I sign up for? The unrealistic middle. If it were possible to encourage good claims while not extending this to showing tolerance for bad claims, we'd all be for it. Might as well want to encourage potentially good players to join the club, but without extending this to showing tolerance for potentially bad players. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 01:28:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:28:41 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA03535 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:28:33 +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 JAA25390 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:27:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990111092957.006dddd8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:29:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Subsequent/Consequent In-Reply-To: <199901101943.LAA22491@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:42 AM 1/10/99 -0800, mlfrench wrote: >Is your opinion a very simple one then? All damage is considered >consequent, forget what happens afterward? I kind of like that. Let >the double-shot seekers have their fun at the expense of the >offenders! You break the law against me, I'm going to get even in >any way I can. Not all damage would be considered consequent. Only all damage that could not have occurred had there been no infraction. The latter, however, would include the outcome of the double shot. >What about revokes and such? Isn't it within the range of "most >favorable result that was likely" or at least "most unfavorable >result that was at all probable" that the revoke or whatever would >not have occurred? Maybe the NOs were upset about the use of UI, >calling the TD, etc., and lost concentration? Most revokes are not consequent, in that they could have occurred had there been no infraction. If that's the case, they should be counted in the determination of the adjudicated result. Being upset or losing concentration is not a mitigating factor. That, absent the infraction, the player who revoked would have been dummy is. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 01:29:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:29:12 +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 BAA03544 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:29:06 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.51] by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zziLE-0000RD-00; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:29:17 +0000 Message-ID: <199901111429000220.1163D553@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:29:00 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 11/01/99, at 13:15, Herman De Wael wrote: [snip] >Indeed, and I have quite often so far resisted the >temptation of calling in the footnote and quote "careless or >inferior for the CLASS OF player involved, but not >irrational". > >This line, which may be called irrational for any class of >player but the extreme beginner, can still count for this >claimer if we believe he made the statement in earnest. I >would call that under the "equity" of L70A. > >Which is precisely why I did write HIS "normal" lines. > >I still believe there are cases where a claimer can state an >irrational line and not be deemed to be irrational himself. >Which would make the line irrational for him too, thus >non-normal. Of courser a bridge player - just as any other human being - make make an= irational statement (or more than one) without being a lunatic. I suppose,= though, that there is a basic difference between "our" two camps as to= what a claim actually is. I regard it as a statement to the effect that:= "I will play the cards I have stated in the order in which I have stated= them, and thereafter any cards about which I have made no statement in any= order. I do not care what cards my opponents might play while I am= following the above course of action - I will make X tricks in any case." I prefer this definition because it becomes possible to carry out an= objective test as to the validity of the claim, without needing to= psychoanalyse the claimant or apply any subjective tests as to the merits= of his stated line of play. I do not subscribe to Herman's view of what a claim is - he, as far as I= can see, appears to regard a claim as an opening statement that can form a= basis for negotiation between the claimant, his opponents, and the= Director. The reason I do not like it is that it becomes impossible to= carry out any kind of objective test, and renders it necessary to enquire= into the mental state of the claimant. The Laws of bridge, and of any= other game, should not require its administrators to be mind-readers, nor= should the referee be called upon to play the game on behalf of the= participants. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 02:25:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 02:25:41 +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 CAA03885 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 02:25:31 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 0zzjDW-00047I-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:25:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 03:26:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19990108210158.006d9cc0@pop.mindspring.com> <3699065C.4196C3DD@home.com> In-Reply-To: <3699065C.4196C3DD@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >I'm working of my old 1987 rulebook here (no mention in 25A of "until >partner...." Hehehehehehehehehe. Well, in the 1935 Laws, we could .... -- 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 Jan 12 02:51:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 02:51:44 +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 CAA04017 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 02:51:37 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-174.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.174]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA16616712 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:54:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <369A1DB6.C872E704@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:50:14 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman, Herman De Wael wrote: > > axeman wrote yet another interesting contribution: > (I mean it ! - no smileys - I have great admiration for > Roger's constant plodding, and I believe he will in the end > see the light) > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > The Laws say that the claimer gets the "benefit" of the > > > worst of his "normal" lines. Irrational lines are not > > > normal. If the stated line is judged to be an irrational > > > one, then claimer shall not be held to it. > > > > Herman. You just said it and I quote: > > > > "....his "normal" lines." > > > > as in HIS, not SOMEONE else's. > > > > Indeed, and I have quite often so far resisted the > temptation of calling in the footnote and quote "careless or > inferior for the CLASS OF player involved, but not > irrational". This refers only to play which was unstated in the original clarification, either because the clarification did not directly address it or because the clarification stopped executing.. > This line, which may be called irrational for any class of > player but the extreme beginner, can still count for this > claimer if we believe he made the statement in earnest. I > would call that under the "equity" of L70A. > > Which is precisely why I did write HIS "normal" lines. Herman, Claimer's lines are the ones that are consistent with the original claim statement. A line which violates the original statement is a new line, whether offered by the claimer, an opponent, or TD. I say that lines which violate the original claim statement are against the law. Not even if it would be justified on the grounds that it would be grossly stupid to continue in light of information discovered along the way. Of the lines that are consistent with the original claim statement, the one that is normal and produces the fewest tricks is the one selected. When the order of all 26 cards of claimer has been given, either by statement or previous play, there is only one normal line- that one. If that line fails in execution, what is left is unstated and resolved by selecting the least favorable of normal plays. When claimer leaves something out, and should the claim statement fail in execution, what is left is unstated and resolved by selecting the least favorable of normal plays. > I still believe there are cases where a claimer can state an > irrational line and not be deemed to be irrational himself. > Which would make the line irrational for him too, thus > non-normal. > > I believe this case to be in that class. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html Not all points in Herman's post have been addressed. Cheers Roger Pewick From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 03:10:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 03:10:16 +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 DAA04041 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 03:10:09 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-174.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.174]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA16735552 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:12:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <369A220E.85E886AC@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:08:46 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <3699EC37.A053944A@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You ask an irrelevant question. What is relevant is that applying the principles you describe, the following situation arises: If a claim statement should fail to execute, then at the time of the claim, claimer would have no idea how it will be adjudicated, because it depends upon the state of mind of the TD and opponents, not on his statement. I claim with great frequency. But, I will NEVER claim under those conditions. EVER. So, we have found a way to get smart players to not claim. Maybe we really ought to make it policy????? Cheers Roger Pewick Herman De Wael wrote: > > "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > > > > >L70E : "or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on > > >any normal line of play". > > > > > This only applies in the matter of the finding of a "particular" card. > > If I say drawing all trump and can't, then the line has failed. If I > > claim saying "finessing for the Q" then that finesse is permitted. If I > > do not include that statement then I can apply L70E to 'that part of the > > claim only'. > > > > Indeed that is true. > > But what is the harm in using the definition that L70E gives > us to control what are irrational lines for the use in L70D > ? > > Besides, the new lines suggested do depend on finding one > side with the other three trumps, don't they ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 04:05:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:05:47 +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 EAA04114 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:05:38 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA05367 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:03:09 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199901111703.LAA05367@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:03:08 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Of courser a bridge player - just as any other human being - make make an irational statement (or more than one) without being a lunatic. I suppose, though, that there is a basic difference between "our" two camps as to what a claim actually is. I regard > it as a statement to the effect that: "I will play the cards I have stated in the order in which I have stated them, and thereafter any cards about which I have made no statement in any order. I do not care what cards my opponents might play while I am fo> llowing the above course of action - I will make X tricks in any case." Yes, I think this shows a basic difference between the camps. [I didn't even know we were going camping. :)] I, personally, almost always claim by making an explicit statement of which cards I will be playing in which order, and so of course the above is a fair interpretation of what one of my claims involves. But most players I know, indeed, virtually every player I know, doesn't do this. Perhaps it would be better if they did, but they don't. They say "I'm good" or "making 3" or "I'll give you a diamond at the end" or something. In other words, virtually every single claim I hear is _elliptical_. Claims like this cannot possibly be understood using the standard you have set in the paragraph above. In the actual case, we have an obviously elliptical statement of this sort "I play trumps" [or whatever the exact wording was]. I see no reason to assume that this meant "I play every single trump card I can..." at which point the player was striken with a paralysis that rendered him unable to continue his description. > I prefer this definition because it becomes possible to carry out an objective test as to the validity of the claim, without needing to psychoanalyse the claimant or apply any subjective tests as to the merits of his stated line of play. > > I do not subscribe to Herman's view of what a claim is - he, as far as I can see, appears to regard a claim as an opening statement that can form a basis for negotiation between the claimant, his opponents, and the Director. The reason I do not like it is> that it becomes impossible to carry out any kind of objective test, and renders it necessary to enquire into the mental state of the claimant. The Laws of bridge, and of any other game, should not require its administrators to be mind-readers, nor should> the referee be called upon to play the game on behalf of the participants. > Neither Herman nor myself _expect_ a claim to involve a TD at all. But, again, look at the _actual_ claim statements people make, and they look far more like 'opening statements' than the detailed descriptions that I [and, I assume, you] give. Whatever the laws of bridge _should_ require [and I have no quarrel with occasional mind-reading], the fact is that they _do_ require subjective analysis and occasionally even playing a hand for a player. UI and MI cases, for example, may require a TD [or AC] to figure out several possible bidding sequences that might have occurred, and then play the hands for all four players as well. Even your strict claim interpretation requires us to play the cards for the claimer and defenders as soon as the claim breaks down. So, in short: a) Claim law is not written so as to require claimer to make an explicit statement of all cards to be played and the order. Perhaps it should, but it doesn't. b) Most actual claims do not involve such explicit statements, but are abbreviated or even non-existent. c) Therefore, IMHO, it is wrong to interpret a brief elliptical statement by a claimer as if it were the beginning of an explicit statement. d) In any case, the TD is legally required to 'play the game for the players' in _any_ disputed claim case where the stated line is incomplete in any way or breaks down at any point. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 04:06:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:06:36 +1100 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA04121 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:06:29 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n45.san.rr.com [204.210.46.69]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA17805; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:06:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901111706.JAA17805@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Claim Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:04:32 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau > Adam wrote: > > >Well, I guess I don't fit into either camp. My feeling is that good > >claims are GOOD and bad claims are BAD. Good claims should be > >encouraged because they speed up the game, but this encouragement > >should not extend to showing tolerance for bad claims, which create a > >mess for everyone and should definitely be discouraged. And if > >someone doesn't know whether a claim is good or bad, we shouldn't be > >encouraging them to claim and create a possible problem. On the other > >hand, my tendency is to claim as quickly as possible once I can see > >that there's no reason to keep playing. And often I don't make any > >statement, especially if the opponents are decent. Heck, they can see > >just as well as I can that trumps are out and my two trumps in dummy > >will take care of two of the losers in my hand and dummy's A-Q in my > >side suit opposite my stiff, which are good because the king showed up > >earlier, will take care of the third loser. Also, I get irritated if > >my partner plays a couple tricks more than he or she needs to. (But > >that's probably because being a dummy is boring, and I don't like > >being the dummy any longer than I have to.) > > > >So which side of this battle should I sign up for? > > The unrealistic middle. If it were possible to encourage good claims while > not extending this to showing tolerance for bad claims, we'd all be for it. > Might as well want to encourage potentially good players to join the club, > but without extending this to showing tolerance for potentially bad players. > A realistic middle is to encourage claims when the claimer's good cards are all in one hand, or when he has a clear cross-ruff with high trumps for all the tricks. I have found on average that other claims waste more time than they save. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 04:15:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:15:47 +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 EAA04185 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:15:42 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07108 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:13:13 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199901111713.LAA07108@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:13:13 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > My belief is that if a claimer states an irrational line > > before DFLOPping, he is allowed to notice so, and the line > > remains irrational. > > Next time, with you as the TD, I will make an irrational claim statement > but will then tell you "Herman, I didn't DFLOP" upon which you will do > my thinking for me and I can save energy for the next board. I love it! > :-) (but don't think it's bridge). > A fine strategy, except that when Herman thinks for you he will be legally required to assign you careless or inferior lines if he can think of any, which will include all your two-way finesses failing, etc. Not a very good strategy after all, I think. -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 04:34:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:34:41 +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 EAA04247 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:34:35 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA10352 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:32:05 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199901111732.LAA10352@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:32:05 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I think I am probably in a small minority for saying this, but I will say > it anyway. > > In my experience, it has been more frequent that an opponent makes a > claim one trick too soon than that an opponent refuses to claim when it is > obvious. (I do not think claiming "one trick too late" is a problem; I am > quite willing to buy ten seconds' worth of insurance against having to > call the director over a bad claim.) It is also my opinion that it is a > bad thing that so many people make questionable claims, are awarded their > contracts because the cards happen to lie favourably, and go on to make > more questionable claims. I was going to discuss what happens in my necl of the woods, but I was afraid I might have to pay a usage fee or something, so I'll just say "where I come from".... In the local club, I have _never_ seen a disputed claim taken to a director. Roughly 99% of all claims go undisputed. Of the 1% that are disputed, most are disputed by LOPs who want the claimed to "play it out" for no apparent reason. The rest are glanced at, an extra trick is noted, and we get on with the game. I am sure that there are claims somewhere in that 99% that should have been disputed but weren't--but frankly I don't care very much. For example, I am quite sure I've had people claim against me in cases where had the hand been played out claimer _might_ have accidentally allowed a suit to become blocked. Claimed made no detailed claim statement that assured that he had noted the possiblity of such blockage, and so technically I might have been able to dispute the claim. I didn't. OTOH, there have been lots and lots of hands where someone had all the tricks [or had some determinate number of tricks that was not goint o increase or decrease] but played the hand out anyway. I'm sure Jesper will understand what I mean when I say that had I been a perfect bridge player I might have been able to reconstruct declarer's hand and conceed the restm, but I wasn't smart enough to do that. So I sat there and worried about what to discard and which signals partner was making, only to discover in the end that declarer had everything no matter what I did. > It is thus my opinion that we should be actively discouraging people from > claiming unless they are ***sure*** of what they are claiming. I am not > sure what the best way to do this is -- draconian readings of L70 don't > appeal to me, and ZT-style "sloppy claim penalties" would certainly be > even worse. This is part of the problem. I, personally, don't want to tell players not to claim until they're _sure_ of what they are claiming, because I know too many players who would say "I _think_ the AKQJT8 of trumps facing three in dummy will take 6 tricks, but I'm sure _sure_ so I'd better play it out." But even if I wanted that, I don't know how to get there. > After all, if my opponent is wasting my time by playing on when he > obviously has all the rest of the trikcs -- there is a simple remedy. I > can concede, and make him stop. Which is fine, as long as I know that he has them all. > So, anyway - cast my vote in favour of fewer claims./ In principle I > agree with Adam Beneschan, "good claims are good and bad claims are bad." > But too many bad claims is worse than not enough good claims. A lot worse. > IMO, of course. Feel free to have your own opinion; I'm not expecting much > company. > > Gordon Bower > Happy to hear your opinion, even if I disagree... -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 04:51:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:51:02 +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 EAA04302 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:50:53 +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 RAA16993 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 17:50:17 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 RAA21140 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 17:49:28 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990111185026.007b1c10@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:50:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> References: <000701be3a3f$5a8b93c0$598a93c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:26 08/01/99 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >I wonder whether those of us who have been arguing for a more lenient view >of faulty claims are, in general, in the pro-claim camp, while those who >wish to take a harsh view and punish players for badly stated claims are >more comfortable with the anti-claim view. > >I suspect that we will be unable to achieve a consensus on whether to treat >over-hasty or sloppy claims leniently or harshly unless and until we reach >a consensus on whether we hope, in the future, to see more claims or fewer. > >Eric Landau I vote "pro-claim camp" My opinion is that claims are highly desirable and should be promoted. I think bad claims are very rare and don't think useful to make anything to discourage them because I don't know anybody who doesn't feel very annoyed when he happens to be caught in this uncomfortable situation. IMO, the best mean to promote claims is an emphasis of slow-play fines. We seem to meet the same problems in all countries with players who don't know "the Law" and insist on playing on when you claim (novices or players whose main fun is to play all cards until the 13th). In some instances, it's better (and less time consuming) to forget TD and "play ceases" and to play all your cards for your opponents' satisfaction. I know one player among French top players (from Nice and ranking within 30 top French players) who never claims. If you ask him why, he answers, without feeling any guilty, that he doesn't wish his opponents to know, on the deals on which he doesn't claim, they should better keep concentrated! I don't think it possible to persuade it otherwise. JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 05:13:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 05:13:53 +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 FAA04332 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 05:13:47 +1100 Received: from 207.205.157.245 (pool-207-205-158-141.lsan.grid.net [207.205.158.141]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA12568 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:13:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <369A4AD4.5C4E@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:01:19 -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: Claim References: <199901111706.JAA17805@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > [snip Eric's post] > A realistic middle is to encourage claims when the claimer's good > cards are all in one hand, or when he has a clear cross-ruff with > high trumps for all the tricks. I have found on average that other > claims waste more time than they save. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) I don't agree. I am annoyed when anyone plays a few rounds of anything on a 13-tricker, even if all the tricks are not in one hand. This thread notwithstanding, these generally end the hand early. Also, there are some hands where you have a set number of tricks no matter what the opponents do; just claim 10 tricks and move on. Also, I must admit that in a good game, the high-level claims are fun. I've had a couple where the opponents on defense have made inquiries as to whether I should claim. Conversations like "Double squeeze?" Me: "Yep." "OK." are somehow fulfilling, though I wouldn't normally try that. Another form of the same "#$%&, you've got me." However, tailoring your claims to the opponents is certainly reasonable. When playing against Marv, I'll make sure my hand is high. (Just a little humor, Marv. :>) --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 06:48:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 06:48:43 +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 GAA04447 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 06:48:37 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA19404; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:47:58 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.55) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma018987; Mon Jan 11 13:46:11 1999 Received: by har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE3D71.3B39E000@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:46:54 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3D71.3B39E000@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws , "'Herman De Wael'" Subject: RE: Claim - bigger example Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:31:28 -0500 Encoding: 14 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Herman De Wael[SMTP:hermandw@village.uunet.be] (much snipped to get to this tongue in cheek gem) That would be rule 201 : IF YOU CLAIM, YOU AUTOMATICALLY LOOSE 2 TRICKS, and be shot and quartered besides. Every claim should be judged on the basis of the evidence. ### Is this the companion to the similar de facto law in some venues substituting the word psych and/or the word hesitation for claim? Making the world easy for TD's is not the same as making the game better, now is it. :-)) Craig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 06:48:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 06:48:48 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA04453 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 06:48:43 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA02393; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:47:52 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.55) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma002101; Mon Jan 11 13:46:19 1999 Received: by har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE3D71.43AC0BA0@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:47:08 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3D71.43AC0BA0@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List , "'Jesper Dybdal'" Subject: RE: Claim Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:12:00 -0500 Encoding: 19 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It must truly be a delight to play in your clubs! Unfortunately such is not the case in most non-urban clubs in the US where over half of the people are afraid to claim. Strangely these are the same people who whine unmercifully if the game runs late, and feel cheated if they don't get to play at least 26 or 27 boards. We have a long way to go in trying to get these players up to speed; penalising them unduly is not the right approach. Craig ---------- From: Jesper Dybdal[SMTP:jesper@dybdal.dk] I have only very rarely met players who refuse to claim. It is my impression that almost everybody around here (except novices) do claim when it is reasonable to claim - i.e., when the claimer is convinced that he has a valid claim that he can state well enough. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 07:50:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 07:50:47 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f75.hotmail.com [207.82.250.181]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA04557 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 07:50:41 +1100 Received: (qmail 28805 invoked by uid 0); 11 Jan 1999 20:50:06 -0000 Message-ID: <19990111205006.28804.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.130.71 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:50:06 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.130.71] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:50:06 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort > I know one player among French top players (from Nice and ranking >within 30 top French players) who never claims. If you ask him why, >he answers, without feeling any guilty, that he doesn't wish his >opponents to know, on the deals on which he doesn't claim, they >should better keep concentrated! >I don't think it possible to persuade it otherwise. > I think I can (and I think others would try, too). I would point him in the direction of L74B4, and state that I believe that what he's doing is definately for the purpose of "disconcerting the opponents", and that, while "should" means (read from Preface), I now have _prima facie_ evidence that any slow play is likely to be the result of his not claiming when he should, and he should expect to be penalized accordingly. And definately, if I am playing against him (and I will lose), I will call the director when evidence comes out about a trick 5 claim that he played out, and have the proprieties read, and protect my rights against the time I should have been allowed to have to concentrate on the next hands (so I can lose the least I can). After all, there are sometimes one can't claim even though the opponents have nothing to concentrate on (i.e. you don't know the distribution is favourable). This attitude is probably good for his scores, but bad for the game of bridge. IM (normally H, but probably not today) O, of course. Michael. P.S. Hotmail "temporarily lost" all my saved email sometime last night. I think I read all the blml stuff, but should anyone have written anything specifically referencing my stuff since Saturday, could they send it to me again (or at least let me know that it existed?) mdf ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 07:55:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 07:55:13 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA04581 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 07:55:07 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990111205501.WOI6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:55:01 -0800 Message-ID: <369A65FC.C2D8272@home.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:58:36 -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: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> <369A1DB6.C872E704@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Note to Herman, for good orders sake: axeman wrote: > I say that lines > which violate the original claim statement are against the law. Not > even if it would be justified on the grounds that it would be grossly > stupid to continue in light of information discovered along the way. > Of the lines that are consistent with the original claim statement, the > one that is normal and produces the fewest tricks is the one selected. This is where I disagree with Roger, and can be said to favour the more "lenient" interpretation, in cases where TD judges it being obvious that claimer would discover that the line *has become* irrational. > > I still believe there are cases where a claimer can state an > > irrational line and not be deemed to be irrational himself. > > Which would make the line irrational for him too, thus > > non-normal. > > > > I believe this case to be in that class. And this is where I disagree with Herman. If claimer states a line that is irrational *already at the time of the claim*, he should be held to it i.e. be considered "temporarily insane" if it were to be say Michael Rosenberg! The logic being that even the best in the world do stupid things at times, and it is not up to the TD and/or the laws to protect them on those rare occasions. :-)) The difference between the two situations is of course that in the latter case the claimer has been proven to act irrationally, whereas in the former he has not, since the line was at least "rational" to begin with. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 08:09:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:09:13 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA04626 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:09:08 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990111210903.ZNO6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:09:03 -0800 Message-ID: <369A6946.636D5B34@home.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:12:38 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> <199901111429000220.1163D553@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I beleive the following is the best summary so far of this matter, based on bridgelogic, the specific laws involved, and put in context of the rest of the laws in cases where "mind-reading" would otherwise be neccesary. David Burn wrote: > > Of courser a bridge player - just as any other human being - make make an irational statement (or more than one) without being a lunatic. I suppose, though, that there is a basic difference between "our" two camps as to what a claim actually is. I regard it as a statement to the effect that: "I will play the cards I have stated in the order in which I have stated them, and thereafter any cards about which I have made no statement in any order. I do not care what cards my opponents might play while I am following the above course of action - I will make X tricks in any case." > > I prefer this definition because it becomes possible to carry out an objective test as to the validity of the claim, without needing to psychoanalyse the claimant or apply any subjective tests as to the merits of his stated line of play. > > I do not subscribe to Herman's view of what a claim is - he, as far as I can see, appears to regard a claim as an opening statement that can form a basis for negotiation between the claimant, his opponents, and the Director. The reason I do not like it is that it becomes impossible to carry out any kind of objective test, and renders it necessary to enquire into the mental state of the claimant. The Laws of bridge, and of any other game, should not require its administrators to be mind-readers, nor should the referee be called upon to play the game on behalf of the participants. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 08:15:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:15:43 +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 IAA04662 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:15:37 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990111211532.BAZQ6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:15:32 -0800 Message-ID: <369A6ACB.DC15E220@home.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:19:07 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <199901111713.LAA07108@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > A fine strategy, except that when Herman thinks for you he will be > legally required to assign you careless or inferior lines if he can think > of any, which will include all your two-way finesses failing, etc. Not a > very good strategy after all, I think. Unless of course even the "careless" lines Herman can think of are better than the "careful" ones I can come up with myself! :-))) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 08:28:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:28:29 +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 IAA04690 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:28:24 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990111212819.BDVS6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:28:19 -0800 Message-ID: <369A6DCA.D97FCC81@home.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:31:54 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <199901111703.LAA05367@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > Whatever the laws of bridge _should_ require [and I have no > quarrel with occasional mind-reading], the fact is that they _do_ require > subjective analysis and occasionally even playing a hand for a player. > UI and MI cases, for example, may require a TD [or AC] to figure out > several possible bidding sequences that might have occurred, and then play But never requires specific reading of *this* players mind at the time, always of what one can expect an unidentified player of similar strength playing the same system might do. > So, in short: > a) Claim law is not written so as to require claimer to make an explicit > statement of all cards to be played and the order. Perhaps it should, but > it doesn't. So what on earth *does* L68C mean?? Or have I again missed some change from the '87 to the '97 text?:-( > b) Most actual claims do not involve such explicit statements, but are > abbreviated or even non-existent. True, but the laws provide for how to deal with this (the word "should" in 68C). It makes sense to award more protection for players who follow correct procedure than for those who don't - however numerous the latter group is, wouldn't you agree? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 08:42:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:42:14 +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 IAA04726 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:42:02 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.172]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA10042; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:41:44 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <369A702B.515755F4@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:42:03 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: <36967D70.BFB1D868@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Jan Kamras wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: .... > > > K > -- -- > A > -- > QJ 2 > 2 > 2 > -- > > Declarer claims, saying "All mine". > > I do not say "That is not correct: try again." > > *I* decide a new line for declarer without asking him, ############## up here is the right thing .... now what you decide is subject to bridge judgement (for some TDs ...sanity ?!?!?!?)/ > and *I* decide > that since there are six normal lines for him [S-H-D, S-D-H, D-H-S, > D-S-H, H-S-D, H-D-S] and two of them [H-S-D, H-D-S] give the defence all > the tricks I give declarer none. > > If I followed the method advocated by others I would say "Well, your > claim does not work, what are you going to do now?". I don't like that you even suggest you'd do the above ...... David - as we both know it's forbidden to even have nightmares about any such question - there is no more play ......... Dany From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 09:00:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:00:58 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA04795 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:00:50 +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 RAA17515 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 17:00:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990111170212.006d2ec8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 17:02:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L25A and L16C In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990110200214.006d8568@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19990111005802.00a2ec90@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <199901101736.MAA19714@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:02 PM 1/10/99 -0500, Michael wrote: >Because L21 specifically applies only when a player wishes to change a call >due to misinsformation, which is to say: a mis-description of opponents' >methods, including a failure to alert as required. L21 says nothing whatsoever about opponents' methods, except in the parenthetical in L21B1, which merely tells us that a failure to alert is one form of MI. L21B requires only that "he made the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent". When a player puts the 1H bid card out in the course of actually bidding 1S (which is what happens when the 1H "non-bid" is to be subsequently corrected without penalty to 1S under L25A) and LHO calls based on the bid card, not the "real" bid (which has yet to be heard), it sounds perfectly reasonable to conclude that LHO's call was "made... as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent". I see no difference between a call made prior to RHO's L25A correction and, say, a call made after the opponents have given an incorrect review of the auction, and would certainly interpret L21 as covering the latter. 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 Jan 12 09:15:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:15:09 +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 JAA04830 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:15:01 +1100 Received: from ip64.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.64]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990111221453.SWMN324.fep4@ip64.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:14:53 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "blml" Subject: Re: Here's another one Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:14:51 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <369a6e47.285750@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:23:29 -0000, "Grattan" wrote: >Jesper: >Do you seriously mean that the last sentence in L68D is intended >to make it illegal to show your hand before the claim is >contested and the TD has been called? Grattan: >++++ I would have said that "no action may be taken pending >the Director's arrival" is one of the plainest English statements=20 >in the laws; Yes, indeed. And when that same sentence starts with the clause "if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), ...", it seems clear to me that it says nothing about actions before the claim is disputed. > and I would have said that the statement in 70B2=20 >emphasises no player should have faced his hand. and it is not >without consideration that the Director is required to apply=20 >70B1 *before* 70B2; and I think the Committee's reasons for >this should be respected. 70B1 and 70B2 seems to me to indicate that the TD should do things in this order in order to minimize the risk that claimer's "repetition" of his L68C statement turns out to be different from the original. This is fine, but does not really work, because the moment the claim is disputed, claimer is usually able to figure out what was wrong without seeing the hands. 70B1 and 70B2 do not, as I read them, forbid players to show their hands earlier. > It is also my opinion that for a player >to face his hand is a gratuitous action and that the Director >should apply the law exactly as he would had the hand not=20 >been faced - in other words that your action should not be >allowed any effects. My action has no effect whatsoever on the correct ruling, and it is - of course - not intended to. But it sometimes makes it easier to have the correct procedure followed because (a) it makes it very clear to the players that the alternative to accepting the claim is not to play out the rest and (b) it makes it easier to determine whether to accept or dispute the claim. In addition, it clearly marks a point in time where the L68C statement is completed - declarer usually learns no more about the error in his claim if I show my hand than he does if I say "I'm not sure - let's call the TD", but if I just say that, declarer or an inexperienced TD may think that declarer can now still modify his L68C statement by saying "of course, I play only 3 trumps if they are 4-0". (If I should accidentally show my hand _before_ declarer has completed his statement, then of course it is my problem - but I've never yet encountered a declarer who protested that he was not through with his statement when I showed my hand.) > And I just do not believe it would have=20 >any material effect on the number of Director calls to apply >this law as written; players know whether they have a problem >with the claim without showing up the hands. It seems to me that if it is illegal to show your hand (and if there are sensible reasons for it being illegal), then it must also be illegal to tell the other 3 players anything about your hand. Assume that I am defending. Declarer claims the rest. I happen to have a master trump. I then usually say "I have a master trump" and show my hand; in many of these cases, all 4 players quickly agree that the declarer has the rest minus one, and in the remaining cases we need the TD. I agree that this procedure is strictly speaking illegal (L68D does say that the TD must be called), and that the laws require us to disturb the TD also in the many cases in which it is completely obvious what the result should be. But even accepting that, I see no reason to just say "I dispute that claim; let's call the TD" instead of showing my hand, which at least (and, IMO, legally) often results in our understanding the situation before the TD gets there. In a more complicated situation, I may be in doubt about partner's hand. You're probably right that this does not often occur at high levels, but bridge is also (and mostly) played at lower levels, and the saving of time by claiming is quite as relevant at lower levels as at the top. The easy and quick way to determine if we want to dispute the claim is to show our hands. You seem to be saying that whenever I am not absolutely sure (without seeing my partner's remaining cards) that the claim is OK, then I have to call the TD before the cards can be shown, not telling anyone the details of my doubt. If that is the intention of the law, then the intention of the law on that point seems to me to be far from the way bridge is actually played (and should be played). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 09:15:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:15:19 +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 JAA04839 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:15:11 +1100 Received: from ip64.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.64]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990111221501.SWMV324.fep4@ip64.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:15:01 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: L25A and L16C Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:14:59 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <369b7522.2040103@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:12:37 -0000, "Grattan" wrote: >++++ If you come to the position that N/S are not an 'offending' side, = it >does not follow that there can be no UI in the possession of one or both= =20 >of them. The generality of Law 16 still applies. I would wish to = determine >whether North or South has based an action on anything other than >"information from legal calls or plays, and mannerisms of opponents". The answer seems to be "no". N made a legal call, then E made a legal call, then N legally changed his call to another legal call, then E legally changed his call to another legal call. So all 4 calls made by N and E in that round of bidding were legal. > There is a problem if you wish to quote Law 16C (to which = you >are referred by 25B but not by 25A). The problem is that Law 16C is >constructed to require that there be one "offending side" and one=20 >"non-offending" side. This is the grammatical effect of the use of "the" >rather than "a" in C1 and C2; another of Kaplan's niceties I think. If = you=20 >do not have two sides, one offending and one not, Law 16C gives you=20 >no answer. > If your argument is sound then it is to 16A and B that the >Director will look., and my immediate unmeditated impression is that=20 >you could perhaps find that it is with 12B3 that you come to rest.=20 I think you mean 16B3. I would personally find it reasonable for the information to be UI to NS, and I would therefore like to consider NS an "offending side", so that L16C can be used. But I have some difficulty finding a law that makes NS an offending side, so L16B3 is probably the best solution we have. On the other hand, L25B uses the word "offender" about a player who has made a perfectly legal change of call - perhaps that is a sufficient excuse to call NS "offenders". (But I don't really like using the absurdities of L25B as an excuse for a ruling which otherwise is based on the very sensible L25A.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 09:39:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:39:53 +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 JAA04880 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:39:47 +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 RAA19322 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 17:39:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990111174113.006d3b88@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 17:41:13 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Subsequent/Consequent In-Reply-To: <199901111714.JAA19480@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:13 AM 1/11/99 -0800, mlfrench wrote: >Not clear what you mean. If the double shot attempt goes for 1400, >do the NOs keep that score or do they get redress for the >infraction? The NOs would be entitled to an adjudicated result; while that doesn't necessarily mean they would get a better score than -1400, they normally would. The point is that the mere fact that they went for -1400 and got a bottom doesn't mean that they lose their right to a potentially favorable adjudication. If there was no way they could have gone for -1400 had there been no infraction, they will not get -1400. >Would not a compromise make sense? The NOs keep their revoke but >the OS doesn't get it? L12C2 could be so interpreted, IMO. You >wrote "could have occurred" not "would have occurred." Not to me. If there *could* have been no revoke had there been no infraction, the revoke is automatically "wiped out". If the revoke could have occurred absent the infraction, the burden of proof is on the revokers to demonstrate that it *wouldn't* have occurred; if they can't make that case, the revoke stands. For both sides. I see no reason why the revoke, by itself, should result in a split score. The classic case: Opponents use UI to reach a no-play slam which makes on a defensive revoke for OS +980/NOS -980. Without the UI they'd have played 5S, and there's no compelling reason why the defender who revoked against 6S would not have revoked similarly against 5S. Score +480/-480. Now suppose that without the UI they'd have defended 6D, which, absent any revokes, would have produced +300/-300. The defensive revoke would (could) not have occurred had the defender who revoked been declarer or dummy at 6D, so the revoke "never was". Score +300/-300. 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 Jan 12 09:56:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:56:03 +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 JAA04916 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:55:54 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h115.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id BAA27846; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:55:38 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <369B1C5C.55A7@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:56:44 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> <199901111429000220.1163D553@mail.btinternet.com> <369A6946.636D5B34@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_TRY3.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_TRY3.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Hi Herman:) Was glad to read your post - and am going to make another attempt (last one?) :) And I will try to stay strictly on the current Laws - not even word about the Legend:) Pity, but I see - our disagreement becomes wider and wider... As usual - Herman's quotations are in reverse commas. "Of course some DFLOPs are very difficult. If they are, no sane Declarer will claim before DFLOPping. And an insane one will be stuck with a TD saying, "this may well be too difficult for you, I don't allow it"." For my opinion no TD has enough power to make such a speech while he is ruling. If he has no enough knowledge - he should take an advise. And how will it be this "not-allow" after claimer did make his statement, even in case this statement was very complex? But for expert player it really might be quite obvious (such as compound squeeze with variable threat...:) "But some DFLOPs are amazingly simple. The TD will have no doubt that this Declarer would have come to the one possible line following the DFLOP." Well, we are using now new term - DFLOP. Any new Universe should explain and make easier more things/problems than creates for resolving new things/problems. But now instead of following statement and analysing the deal (in case the statement will fail) - we are analysing complex and simple psychological problems. And for making them easier - we will forbid ("not-allow") these complex. Moreover - we may consider that DFLOP with mistakes are not DFLOP at all and when it happens - we may call it "before DFLOP"-case... Sorry, but in such case I do not believe in DFLOP. "Of course if there is any doubt, this "shall be resolved against claimer". But please follow me when I say that some DFLOPs are absolutely without doubt." I will, but the problems are not in simple cases - only in complex and/or mistaken. "NO, a Declarer who intuitively sees 13 tricks has NOT performed the DFLOP. He has at that time not even decided in what order he shall attack the suits. I am saying that some Declarers will claim before DFLOP. Their claim shall be judged differently from some other Declarers who have DFLOPped wrong." How can you be sure? Because he cannot explain you that order? Then why do you believe these his after-words - and do not believe his first statement? The same man, no more than another word-statement (moreover: made by pressure of circumstances, opponents' eyes, TD's questioning etc.). Are you sure his wording will be more truthful? More clear? I guess I doubt:) I think that estimation of claimer's thinking stadium (before DFLOP or after) is so subjective and guessing - that all this hypothesis becomes doubtful. "Not all claims can be judged in the same manner. Every claim should be judged on the basis of the evidence." These two neighbour sentences are contradicting each other. Because (and I fully agree) - there is common and the same manner: on basis of the evidence. "If the evidence points to the fact that claimer has claimed before DFLOPping, then his claim should be judged accordingly. If the evidence suggests claimer did in fact DFLOP, but did so incorrectly, he will be judged against." How can be made right judge if main (if not sole) evidence (first statement) becomes no more than one among others, which are made after opponents' hands were opened? "Well, I suppose you should read the resume on David's pages then and see why you would be in a minority." 1. I had read this page 2. As it happened in our inner tournament I knew the very facts, circumstances and acting persons not only in theory:) "If he did know what he was doing, and stated what he did, he is a lunatic. So I conclude that he did not know what he was doing, in the sense that he had not worked it out completely, not in the sense that he was unable to count to 13." This argument proves nothing because: - we have extremely differ positions - one of us is wrong (logics - "excluding the third" method) - does it mean that one of us is lunatic?:) or simply - no more than makes a mistake in this particular case - then - one has a right to make wrong/mistaken DFLOP without being lunatic:) "Nowhere is this mentioned, apart from the fact that after a claim, a normal line does not include an irrational one. We all know that some players will sometimes perform irrational plays, but the claim prevents them from doing so afterwards." Not "after a claim" but for the purpose of new line only (L70D). And for similar purposes in L69 and L71. And there are no connection between demands of "normal" play and claimer's first statement. "I repeat again : IF PLAYER DFLOPS, AND PRODUCES A FAULTY STATEMENT, HE SHALL BE HELD TO IT ---- IF PLAYER DOES NOT DFLOP, HE SHALL NOT BE HELD TO IRRATIONAL LINES ---- I BELIEVE THIS PLAYER DID NOT DFLOP." No: if claimer made mistaken claim - he may change (as in similar cases) without pause for thought. Otherwise - his statement should be executed up to failing. And only AFTER such failing there should be considered "normal" play and other L70 points. Really - L70E : "or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play". But it said that "TD shall not accept unless". It does not said "TD shall accept if". It is for TD/AC decision. And it said that normal play includes careless play: not noticing opponents' "failing to follow" is quite common careless play, isn't it? TD/AC will make their decision - and every doubts are for non-claimer's side. That's why I think that "fail to follow suit" does not mean to fail of claimer's statement. I really like your posts, have a deep respect to your ideas and positions. And I hope that any of us has right to be so in agreement as in disagreement - nothing personal. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 10:12:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:12:34 +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 KAA05105 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:12:25 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.182]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA09096; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:11:46 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <369A8546.E0917D2B@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:12:06 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: axeman CC: Bridge Laws , "magda.thain" Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <001001be3c01$a204a5c0$5fb259c3@default> <3697D09A.E0F52F67@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hallo Hallo Hallo Dear respectful Ladies and ....high-ranked gentleman !!! Roger's definitions are very interesting , but I think we overlawyering here ......... By the way , last night dummy claimed 13 tricks , without Ace of trump. I didn't find any law to deal with and I didn't see any hint for it on BLML . CAN YOU HELP ME ?? (or should i run as quick as possible to the nearest asylum ??) Dany axeman wrote: > > Hi Magda, > > Glad you are here. A query: > > Do all the following mean the same thing? > > A] I claim. > > B] I play one round of trump. > > C] I test trump. > > D] I take my trump winners. > > E] I pull trump. > > F] I play trump. > > G] I play all the trump. > > To me it would seem quite strange if you felt they did. Each statement, > by itself, does not take a lot of effort to speak. But why else would > one be said instead of another unless it conveyed a meaning distinct > from the other? Why take the trouble to say something one way if an > authority will impose a different meaning to the words which depends > upon whether they like you or not?. > > Here is a translation: > > A] I claim. [You find my worst normal line.] > > B] I play one round of trump. [One trump exactly.] > > C] I test trump. [Play at least one round.] > > D] I take my trump winners. [Play trumps up to the point one would be > lost.] > > E] I pull trump. [Play trump until the opponents are exhausted of > trump.] > > F] I play trump. [Play at least two rounds if possible, until?.] > > G] I play all the trump. [Don't stop playing trump.] > > All of the above statements except A,C, and F are quite specific in > what the listener would expect. A, C, and F do in fact leave something > unsaid. David Burn and I feel that BDE and G are quite plain in their > meaning and leave nothing to be interpreted. <.sssssssss.........> From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 10:24:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:24:18 +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 KAA05132 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:24:05 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.182]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA12205; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:23:07 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <369A87EB.CDF85856@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:23:23 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Senior CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE3998.AB2FC780@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Craig . You totally right . But I only don't like to take a great personality -Ghandi - as an example for our Asylum. Dany Craig Senior wrote: > > ---------- > From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] > > You might say that it is irrational for a man to go about wearing nothing > but a loin cloth in the middle of a London winter - but if you know that > the man believes himself to be Mahatma Gandhi, then his choice of dress > becomes entirely rational. > > ### You think that a man who is deranged enough to think he is someone else > is rational? I think he is a prime candidate for an asylum. His choice of > dress might be consistent...but NOT rational. > > You might also say of a man who loses the fourth round of hearts with the > example suit instead of cashing 13 winners in other suits that he is > playing irrationally - but if you know that the man believes that AKQxx > facing xxxx is always a no-loser suit, then his action becomes a rational > one. And, if you have evidence from his claim that such is indeed his > belief, why should you consider the possibility that he would indeed adopt > the losing line to be an irrational one? > > We are dealing with someone who carelessly forgot to provide for a 4-0 > break in stating a claim. That is not irrational...just careless. Why then > must we expect him to behave irrationally when opponent's discard wakes him > up to the fact that he has been careless? I think he is more likely to don > a loincloth for the winter than to not notice that opponent has shown > out...failing to notice something that obvious is irrational. That is why > we allow proven finesses (but none other) in claim situations...opponent > showing out is deemed sufficiently obvious to wake up even the most > careless (while taking inferences based upon what has already appeared in > each hand is not allowed). > > You wish a textbook definition of irrational to control this > situation...rather as though you expect it to be governed by statute law > (as though courts always agree on what statutes mean anyway!). What has > developed in practice in this area is a substantial body of case (or > common) law in which it is rather well established what irrational shall > mean in adjudicating bridge claims. This seems to be one of those cases in > which usage has established a definition. Are we going to see a shift away > from a sensible working definition toward the chaos that now prevails in > defining "logical alternative"? I for one don't want to go there. > > Craig > > P.S. I still maintain that the awkwardly phrased statement regarding > pulling the trump could not possibly be interpreted by someone who > understands English usage as indicating that more than three rounds of > trump would be pulled. The wording was such that no native English speaker > would ever have spoken it in those exact words. One has to look to the > intent of a statement, rather than the exact wording when someone is using > a language foreign to them. We are able to gain much useful information and > many fine ideas from Dany and Vitold here on group, for example. (You brits > are even able to occasionally interpret us Americans...though we *claim* to > speak "English".) We cannot always hold them to exact wording though, and > must read through to the intended meaning which is often quite clear even > though the syntax is imperfect. (The extent of my Russian is nyet and my > Hebrew is little better though I have picked up a few Yiddish pejoritives > that have been hurled at me over the years. I mean no disrespect to our > comrades on group who are forced to converse in the language WE find most > comfortable because there are MORE of us...and they may be enough smarter > to hold forth multilingually while some of us lack the talent.) We must > seek to penetrate to the meaning rather than punish the syntax in such a > case. Poor English does not equate to poor bridge, (n'est pas?) and we > should not burden someone speaking in a second or third language with an > irrational line because he phrases his claim less than perfectly. On the > scene of course a TD would know if there were a language barrier or if the > words could be taken literally, even though phrased very clumsily. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 10:30:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:30:09 +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 KAA05152 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:30:03 +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 SAA18698 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:29:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:29:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901112329.SAA28067@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19990111174113.006d3b88@pop.cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Mon, 11 Jan 1999 17:41:13 -0500) Subject: Re: Subsequent/Consequent Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: > The classic case: Opponents use UI to reach a no-play slam which makes on > a defensive revoke for OS +980/NOS -980. Without the UI they'd have played > 5S, and there's no compelling reason why the defender who revoked against > 6S would not have revoked similarly against 5S. Score +480/-480. I agree that the offenders get +480, because this is the least favorable score that was probable absent the UI, but given the facts at the table (assuming that it was not probable that a different line of play would have been taken in 5S and the revoke would not occur on that line.) However, I would say that the NOS were not damaged here. As a direct result of the infraction, they defended an unmakable 6S rather than a cold 5S. Thus the NOS should get the table result. If the NOS's line of play was not egregious (a defender got caught in an endplay which he could have broken up), then +480/-480 is appropriate, and the principle above still applies; as long as the error which caused 6S to make would probably have happened in 5S, the adjustment is made in the same contract. > Now suppose that without the UI they'd have defended 6D, which, absent any > revokes, would have produced +300/-300. The defensive revoke would (could) > not have occurred had the defender who revoked been declarer or dummy at > 6D, so the revoke "never was". Score +300/-300. Again, I would say that there was no damage, so +300/-980. If the error wasx not egregious, then +300/-300 is correct, since the error would have been irrelevant in the 6D contract. -- 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 Jan 12 10:34:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:34:50 +1100 Received: from spartacus (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05167 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:34:44 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by spartacus with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 0zzqqu-0003Up-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:34:32 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990112002753.00819cb0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:27:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <369A4AD4.5C4E@mindspring.com> References: <199901111706.JAA17805@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:01 11-01-99 -0800, you wrote: >Marvin L. French wrote: >> >[snip Eric's post] > >> A realistic middle is to encourage claims when the claimer's good >> cards are all in one hand, or when he has a clear cross-ruff with >> high trumps for all the tricks. I have found on average that other >> claims waste more time than they save. >> >> Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > >I don't agree. I am annoyed when anyone plays a few rounds of anything >on a 13-tricker, even if all the tricks are not in one hand. This thread >notwithstanding, these generally end the hand early. Also, there are >some hands where you have a set number of tricks no matter what the >opponents do; just claim 10 tricks and move on. > Perhaps here in Holland we can offer the solution for all the pro-claimers: an irresistible tournament, speed card. You play 4 hands in 15 minutes (butler), total 100 hands. All claimers are invited to join in. (time penalties are included) Perhaps we can get after this tournament more reliable statistics about behavior of high level players and their claim habits. (and perhaps a few thousand extra emails on this list???) regards, anton >Also, I must admit that in a good game, the high-level claims are fun. >I've had a couple where the opponents on defense have made inquiries as >to whether I should claim. Conversations like "Double squeeze?" Me: >"Yep." "OK." are somehow fulfilling, though I wouldn't normally try >that. > >Another form of the same "#$%&, you've got me." > >However, tailoring your claims to the opponents is certainly reasonable. >When playing against Marv, I'll make sure my hand is high. (Just a >little humor, Marv. :>) > >--JRM > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 12:41:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:41:16 +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 MAA05382 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:41:10 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zzspI-0002Hg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:41:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 16:19:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >axeman wrote yet another interesting contribution: >(I mean it ! - no smileys - I have great admiration for >Roger's constant plodding, and I believe he will in the end >see the light) Oh Herman, you crack me up, you do really! Herman wrote yet another interesting contribution: (I mean it ! - no smileys - I have great admiration for Herman's constant plodding, and I believe he will in the end see the light) Now where did that come from? -- 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 Jan 12 13:05:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:05:59 +1100 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA05437 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:05:50 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.58] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zztCu-0007BO-00; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 02:05:24 +0000 Message-ID: <199901120205420750.13E1C935@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE3D71.3B39E000@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com> References: <01BE3D71.3B39E000@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 02:05:42 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Claim - bigger example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: >Making the world easy for TD's is not the same as making the game better,= now is >it. :-)) Yes, it is. Very yes, it is. Making the rules such that (a) everyone knows= what they are and (b) everyone who breaks them is treated in exactly the= same way, from the Bermuda Bowl to the Much-Festering-in-the Marsh Swiss= Teams, is precisely the goal towards which we (who understand both the= rules and the game) ought to be directing all our efforts. Instead, we= squabble about the number of angels that can dance on the point of a pin. One of the main reasons why people who play one tournament don't play= another one is that they find "the rules" implemented far more harshly in= their first tournament than they ever were at the local duplicate. Bridge= authorities the world over have sought to remedy this position by, in= effect, finding reasons to waive "the rules" in favour of "inexperienced"= players (or temporarily irrational ones, or whatever). A prime example of= this is the ACBL's decision to continue to allow defenders to ask "No= hearts, partner?" A more complex example of the same kind of thinking has= been amply exhibited by those contributors to this thread who would allow= sloppy claimants to get away with sloppy claims because, in general,= claims are "good for the game". In my (no point in writing "humble") opinion, such thinking is deeply= misguided. Rather, "the rules" should be simple (which in some cases= equates to "harsh") enough that they can be taught easily to beginners= along with the Milton Work point count and the strong no trump. And this= simplicity (harshness) should be implemented from the local duplicate= onwards, and incorporated in beginners' text books. If in 1926 the Laws of= bridge had contained these words: "A claim is a statement to the effect that a contestant will win a= specified number of tricks. It must be accompanied at once by a statement= of the order in which cards will be played. Any cards not explicitly= mentioned in that statement will be assumed to be played by the claimant= in any legal order, and the claim will be adjudicated on that basis in a= manner as unfavourable as possible to the claimant" then this thread would not exist. If Laws 25, 16, 61 through 64, and others= too numerous to mention, had existed in an equivalently Draconian form,= then this mailing list would not exist. And, in my (humble, this time, for I do not know) opinion, there would be= many more tournament bridge players around at the present time than is= actually the case. When I first learned to play chess, my father told me= immediately after I had learned the moves that "if you touch a piece, you= must move it"*. When beginners at golf receive a lesson from the club= professional on how to get out of bunkers, the very first thing they are= told is: "You must not touch the sand with your club before playing the= shot." For that reason, and that reason alone, children who grow up to be= chess players or golfers do so without having to master an entirely new= set of rules every time they move to a new level of skill and a new class= of competition. For that reason, though not necessarily for that reason= alone, chess and golf are very much more "successful" games in terms of= world-wide participation and spectatorship than bridge. Now, you will tell me that this is all very well, and if the Laws had been= drafted as simply as possible from the beginning, the world would be a= different place - but it's too late now. You will tell me that we must= continue to make the Laws as flexible as possible, so that when Mr Binks= claims on the basis that the nine of hearts is bigger than the ten when it= isn't, he should get most of the tricks he would have made if it had been,= because if Mr Binks were a rational human being he would never have= thought so in the first place. You wil tell me that we are stuck with a= set of Laws which need to be interpreted according to the "spirit" rather= than the "letter", because if we started ruling by the book in all cases,= average players would desert the game in droves. You will tell me all that, and I will not believe you. I don't think it is= too late for the Laws to be rearranged so that the half-understood concept= of "equity" disappears altogether. I don't think it is too late for the= Laws which govern "mechanical" errors - revokes, bids out of turn,= incomplete claims - to be rationalised so that the penalty is clearly= understood and consistently applied. I don't, in short, think it is too= late to create a climate in which players can easily migrate from bridge= at home to bridge at the club to bridge at a "serious" tournament without= being hassled by a different class of bridge lawyer at every step of the= way. I know that the problem of UI will remain - I see no clear way to= eliminate that - but one step at a time. However, if this is to happen, then - as a far greater scribe than I put it= - "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". I don't actually= wish any of you to come to serious harm, so I will take the liberty of= rephrasing Shakespeare's words. The first thing we do, let's rewrite the= Laws so that none of us can argue about any of them. How to do this? Well,= I'm sure that if we all put our minds to it... *Post Scriptum. I am no sort of chess player. But I know about "j'adoube". From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 13:35:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:35:21 +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 NAA05614 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:35:14 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.58] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0zztg0-0004B2-00; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 02:35:29 +0000 Message-ID: <199901120235060130.13FCB271@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901111713.LAA07108@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <199901111713.LAA07108@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 02:35:06 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 11/01/99, at 11:13, Grant C. Sterling wrote: >> > My belief is that if a claimer states an irrational line >> > before DFLOPping, he is allowed to notice so, and the line >> > remains irrational. >> >> Next time, with you as the TD, I will make an irrational claim statement >> but will then tell you "Herman, I didn't DFLOP" upon which you will do >> my thinking for me and I can save energy for the next board. I love it! >> :-) (but don't think it's bridge). >> > A fine strategy, except that when Herman thinks for you he will be >legally required to assign you careless or inferior lines if he can think >of any, which will include all your two-way finesses failing, etc. Not a >very good strategy after all, I think. Herman is constitutionally unable to find an inferior line of play even= when he can see all the cards. I have played with Herman, so I can state= this unequivocally, even though we were all paralytically drunk at the= time. However, I can state with equal certainty that his gift for finding= the worst bid imaginable (or even unimaginable) in the most routine= situations is unrivalled. Moral: if you want to make a rotten claim, call= Herman to the table. If you're sure that at opponent's bid is not a= logical alternative, but the product of a diseased and over-wrought= imagination, don't call Herman to the table, for he will tell you that the= bid was obvious. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 14:17:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA05676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:17:44 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA05671 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:17:34 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 0zzuKZ-0000F0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 03:17:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 02:45:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <000701be3a3f$5a8b93c0$598a93c3@pacific> <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.5.32.19990111185026.007b1c10@phedre.meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990111185026.007b1c10@phedre.meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > I know one player among French top players (from Nice and ranking within >30 top French players) who never claims. If you ask him why, he answers, >without feeling any guilty, that he doesn't wish his opponents to know, on >the deals on which he doesn't claim, they should better keep concentrated! >I don't think it possible to persuade it otherwise. Try issuing him with procedural penalties until he changes his mind. It is illegal not to claim in such situations. He is delaying the game unnecessarily for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. -- 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 Jan 12 15:45:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA05764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:45:06 +1100 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA05759 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:44:59 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n45.san.rr.com [204.210.46.69]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA10970; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:44:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901120444.UAA10970@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "John R. Mayne" , Subject: Re: Claim Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:43:11 -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 John R. Mayne wrote: -> Marvin L. French wrote: > > > [snip Eric's post] > > > A realistic middle is to encourage claims when the claimer's good > > cards are all in one hand, or when he has a clear cross-ruff with > > high trumps for all the tricks. I have found on average that other > > claims waste more time than they save. > > > > I don't agree. I am annoyed when anyone plays a few rounds of anything > on a 13-tricker, even if all the tricks are not in one hand. This thread > notwithstanding, these generally end the hand early. Also, there are > some hands where you have a set number of tricks no matter what the > opponents do; just claim 10 tricks and move on. Against you, I'll claim early. I am talking about the average pair I encounter in the ubiquitous stratified games, most of whom can't figure out that I have all the tricks. They say, "Wait a minute, I have this queen that might win," or something like that. It's a complete waste of time to claim against such people when one hand is not high or there is not a clear cross-ruff for all tricks. > > Also, I must admit that in a good game, the high-level claims are fun. > I've had a couple where the opponents on defense have made inquiries as > to whether I should claim. Conversations like "Double squeeze?" Me: > "Yep." "OK." are somehow fulfilling, though I wouldn't normally try > that. Against good players, I do it. It's fun: "You are squeezed!" No problem there. Especially enjoyable when a pro says, "You're not squeezing anybody," and I show trick-by-trick how the squeeze is unavoidable. > Another form of the same "#$%&, you've got me." > > However, tailoring your claims to the opponents is certainly reasonable. > When playing against Marv, I'll make sure my hand is high. (Just a > little humor, Marv. :>) > Smile when you say that, stranger. I *like* to have opponents claim early. It's *my* claims that are not made early. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 12 21:06:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:06:06 +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 VAA06206 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:05:58 +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 KAA12063 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:05:51 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 KAA07975 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:05:49 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA29411 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:05:48 GMT Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:05:48 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199901121005.KAA29411@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My thoughts re claims I think the figure of 1 diputed claim in 15-20 seems high. Above club level, I think the majority of hands end in claims, even if it is at trick 12. > From: axeman > > Claimer's lines are the ones that are consistent with the original claim > statement. A line which violates the original statement is a new line, > whether offered by the claimer, an opponent, or TD. I say that lines > which violate the original claim statement are against the law. Not > even if it would be justified on the grounds that it would be grossly > stupid to continue in light of information discovered along the way. > Of the lines that are consistent with the original claim statement, the > one that is normal and produces the fewest tricks is the one selected. > When the order of all 26 cards of claimer has been given, either by > statement or previous play, there is only one normal line- that one. If > that line fails in execution, what is left is unstated and resolved by > selecting the least favorable of normal plays. When claimer leaves > something out, and should the claim statement fail in execution, what > is left is unstated and resolved by selecting the least favorable of > normal plays. Is this getting close to "God's algorithm" for claims, which David Burn asked for. (1) If there was a statement of clarification, and if thre are any normal lines of play in the context of the statement of clarification, and (a) if all such lines result in the claimant winning the number of tricks claimed, then allow the claim; (b) otherwise, award the number of tricks from the least successful of all such lines. (Of course, this actually includes case (a).) (2) If there was no statement of clarification, or if there are no normal lines of play in the context of the statement of clarification, then award the number of trick from the least successful of all normal lines. However, the question of what is meant by "normal in the context of the statement of clarification" (is this the same as "normal consistent with the statement of clarification"?) is perhaps what we have been arguing about. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 00:10:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:10:45 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA06866 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:10:33 +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 IAA02680 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:09:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990112081151.006dadd8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:11:51 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990111185026.007b1c10@phedre.meteo.fr> References: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> <000701be3a3f$5a8b93c0$598a93c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:50 PM 1/11/99 +0100, Jean-Pierre wrote: > I know one player among French top players (from Nice and ranking within >30 top French players) who never claims. If you ask him why, he answers, >without feeling any guilty, that he doesn't wish his opponents to know, on >the deals on which he doesn't claim, they should better keep concentrated! >I don't think it possible to persuade it otherwise. Someone should point out to this person that he or she is violating L74B4. 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 Jan 13 00:15:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:15:07 +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 AAA08655 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:14:48 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA27980 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:13:42 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 12 Jan 99 13:13 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example 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: <199901111429000220.1163D553@mail.btinternet.com> David Burn wrote: > Of courser a bridge player - just as any other human being - make make > an irational statement (or more than one) without being a lunatic. I > suppose, though, that there is a basic difference between "our" two > camps as to what a claim actually is. I regard it as a statement to the > effect that: "I will play the cards I have stated in the order in which > I have stated them, and thereafter any cards about which I have made no > statement in any order. I do not care what cards my opponents might > play while I am following the above course of action - I will make X > tricks in any case." Of course this bears little resemblance to the way most players I know phrase their claims. To give a simple example; normally AKxx opposite QJxx would be placed on the table without a clarifying statement and play would move to the next hand. If I knew you were directing I would be able to claim at least 3 defensive tricks! Many claims are currently made without statements (since the tricks are blindingly obvious to all concerned) or with a simple "playing west for both red kings" AKQ Qx x - xx Ax AQ - Obviously you could interpret my statement as playing west to hold singleton kings but do you really believe that was in any way my intent. Of course I will also make if either red king is singleton or East had both red kings (but perhaps you would deem that I don't bother watching East's discards and let me go 2 down?) BTW I do agree that the claim above would be counterproductive against a novice. I believe that modifying the laws to reflect your statement would make the entire claims process very unwieldy. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 00:15:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:15:13 +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 AAA08696 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:14:55 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA28072 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:13:50 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 12 Jan 99 13:13 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Claim 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: <3697E1BE.8D49EF4E@freewwweb.com> Roger Pewick (for his sins) wrote: > Hi Tim, > > I think you are the first person to really define equity. It may be at > the crux of the entire thread, but I think there is more to it, can you > elaborate? So here goes. Equity will be achieved if the TD allows the same number of tricks as would actually have been made if declarer had played out the hand. However, since this is often impossible TD is required to resolve "doubts" against the claimer. In other areas of the law we use phrases such as "at all likely" and "probable". Here we are apparently lacking a definition of "doubt". We could use a "beyond all reasonable doubt" type interpretation, we could use "beyond any doubt whatsoever", we could use "one in six". Personally I feel that a value of between 1/10 and 1/20 seems about right. EG a player might choose a 20% line rather than an 80% one due to "table feel" but he will not choose a play that "can never be better" than an alternative line (provided he is of adequate level for the play involved). An example: Imps/rubber contract 6NT by S, lead HJ N: K932,xxx,AKQ,xxx S: AJ54,AKQ,xxx,AKQ Declarer claims saying "making 12" he gets his twelve (unless Spades are QT doubleton when he gets 13). To take our original example hand (AKQxx opposite xxxx) and declarer claims with the words "Drawing Trumps" he knows that he has 13 tricks if trumps split and 12 otherwise (he forgot the possible 7-0 club split). I believe that the chances of him playing a fourth round of trumps are negligible so I must deduce what he would do after HAKQ, maybe play diamonds maybe clubs (either way throwing spades) can he go off? Had declarer claimed with "I play 4 rounds of trumps" I would award 1 off (unless singleton spade in the hand with four hearts). Our actual (non-English speaking?) declarer made a statement that, to me, seemed ambiguous between the two. I do not wish to "punish" his poor use of English (unless he is American) so I try to investigate what he was trying to say and give *him* the benefit of the doubt as a "cultural" rather than "bridge" judgement. I also believe that the *order* in which a player states his tricks is the order in which he will play them while executing the claim (unless otherwise indicated). So 5 hearts, 5 clubs, 2 Diamonds is a fundamentally different statement from 5 hearts, 5 clubs, 2 Diamonds, avoiding blocking or 5 hearts, 5 clubs, 2 Diamonds, not necessarily in that order The last two indicate that declarer has given sufficient thought to the hand that he would execute due care when playing. On the "wrong jack" hand a variant comes into play. At some stage during the hypothetical play (hearts first) a defender will play the HJ - since declarer "holds" that card I believe he will "notice" this at least 19 times in 20. I won't then impose a line that relies on him not noticing. Finally (for those still with me) consistency is an admirable aim, but not an overriding one - introducing a law which led to consistently ridiculous /unpopular rulings would not, IMO, be good for the game (25b anyone). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 00:41:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:41:13 +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 AAA08994 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:41:07 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-175.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.175]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA17672190 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:43:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <369B50A0.6F6605A6@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 07:39:44 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: <199901121005.KAA29411@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Not even close . Roger Pewick Robin Barker wrote: > > My thoughts re claims > > I think the figure of 1 diputed claim in 15-20 seems high. Above club > level, I think the majority of hands end in claims, even if it is at > trick 12. > > > From: axeman > > > > Claimer's lines are the ones that are consistent with the original claim > > statement. A line which violates the original statement is a new line, > > whether offered by the claimer, an opponent, or TD. I say that lines > > which violate the original claim statement are against the law. Not > > even if it would be justified on the grounds that it would be grossly > > stupid to continue in light of information discovered along the way. > > Of the lines that are consistent with the original claim statement, the > > one that is normal and produces the fewest tricks is the one selected. > > When the order of all 26 cards of claimer has been given, either by > > statement or previous play, there is only one normal line- that one. If > > that line fails in execution, what is left is unstated and resolved by > > selecting the least favorable of normal plays. When claimer leaves > > something out, and should the claim statement fail in execution, what > > is left is unstated and resolved by selecting the least favorable of > > normal plays. > > Is this getting close to "God's algorithm" for claims, which David Burn > asked for. > > (1) If there was a statement of clarification, and if thre are any normal > lines of play in the context of the statement of clarification, and > > (a) if all such lines result in the claimant winning the number of > tricks claimed, then allow the claim; > > (b) otherwise, award the number of tricks from the least successful > of all such lines. (Of course, this actually includes case (a).) > > (2) If there was no statement of clarification, or if there are no normal > lines of play in the context of the statement of clarification, then > award the number of trick from the least successful of all normal lines. > However, the question of what is meant by "normal in the context of the > statement of clarification" (is this the same as "normal consistent with > the statement of clarification"?) is perhaps what we have been arguing > about. too subtle to analyze > Robin > > -- > Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk > Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 > B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 > Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 00:42:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:42:05 +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 AAA09009 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:41:58 +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 IAA03490 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:40:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990112084255.006d8048@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:42:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Subsequent/Consequent In-Reply-To: <199901112329.SAA28067@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <3.0.1.32.19990111174113.006d3b88@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:29 PM 1/11/99 -0500, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes: > >> The classic case: Opponents use UI to reach a no-play slam which makes on >> a defensive revoke for OS +980/NOS -980. Without the UI they'd have played >> 5S, and there's no compelling reason why the defender who revoked against >> 6S would not have revoked similarly against 5S. Score +480/-480. > >I agree that the offenders get +480, because this is the least favorable >score that was probable absent the UI, but given the facts at the table >(assuming that it was not probable that a different line of play would >have been taken in 5S and the revoke would not occur on that line.) > >However, I would say that the NOS were not damaged here. As a direct >result of the infraction, they defended an unmakable 6S rather than a >cold 5S. Thus the NOS should get the table result. David's analysis is a perfectly correct application of the Kaplan doctrine, which is why this is the classic example of the inequity the Kaplan doctrine produces. (Keep in mind that Marv's question was how I would rule under the interpretation of law I would prefer, not how I would rule under accepted interpretation.) Declarer has exactly 11 tricks in spades without the revoke, so with no revoke and no infraction the NOs would get -450. With the revoke but without the infraction they would get -480. With the revoke and the infraction they get -980. No matter how you slice it, the simple fact that they revoked cost them 30 points, and the fact that they were unlucky enough to have the opponents commit an infraction on the same hand cost them an additional 500 points, which they *could not* have lost had the infraction not been committed. Where is the equity in having them be so much worse off than some other pair who committed the exact same error with the exact same cards, but didn't have the misfortune to have their opponents break the law? 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 Jan 13 02:21:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:21:35 +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 CAA09357 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:21:29 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 1005dB-0007Ma-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:21:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:04:03 +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 Tim West-meads wrote: >I also believe that the *order* in which a player states his tricks is the >order in which he will play them while executing the claim (unless >otherwise indicated). So > >5 hearts, 5 clubs, 2 Diamonds is a fundamentally different statement from >5 hearts, 5 clubs, 2 Diamonds, avoiding blocking or >5 hearts, 5 clubs, 2 Diamonds, not necessarily in that order Based on experience of how people claim, and other things, earlier arguments on BLML and at EBU Panel TD weekends have concluded that the order of stating top tricks does not indicate the order of play. -- 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 Jan 13 02:22:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:22:57 +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 CAA09371 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:22:51 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-18.uunet.be [194.7.13.18]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA00479 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:22:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <369B3132.1D428C60@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:25:38 +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 - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> <199901111429000220.1163D553@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > I do not subscribe to Herman's view of what a claim is - he, as far as I can see, appears to regard a claim as an opening statement that can form a basis for negotiation between the claimant, his opponents, and the Director. The reason I do not like it is that it becomes impossible to carry out any kind of objective test, and renders it necessary to enquire into the mental state of the claimant. The Laws of bridge, and of any other game, should not require its administrators to be mind-readers, nor should the referee be called upon to play the game on behalf of the participants. Well sorry David, but that is not my point of view. It is apparently the point of view of this declarer. It is HE who has claimed this early, without really thinking. You may discourage this behaviour all you like, you may call it rude, you might even penalize with some form of PP, you will certainly use the benefit of the doubt, to make sure that his partner tells him never to make sloppy claims, you might even go a little overboard and call some of his irrational lines normal for him, but in the end, you should apply the Laws. And these laws state that he shall not be subject to irrational lines, even if he has stated them. If you consider the way he has stated them as proof of making irrational lines normal, then that is your prerogative, and the AC may well decide otherwise. But to go on record on blml saying that all irrational lines become normal simply because a claimer has stated them is simply not correct. And this has nothing to do with how I regard claims or whatever. The Law on claiming is not as you describe it. Your interpretation may prevail on some particular ruling, but not as a principle. I hope I have made myself clear and I hope we can let this rest, as it really is not interesting any more. David and I have two arguments : one is about this particular case, of which we know far too little ever to be making a serious discussion as to the correct ruling. Another is about a point of law. We have stated our opinions and I suppose I will not convince David that his position is the wrong one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 04:16:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 04:16:19 +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 EAA09614 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 04:16:12 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.156] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 1007QO-0000Iy-00; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:16:16 +0000 Message-ID: <199901121715590890.17234D9D@mail.btinternet.com> References: <199901121659210510.171410F3@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:15:59 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: >David Burn wrote: >> Of course a bridge player - just as any other human being - may make >> an irational statement (or more than one) without being a lunatic. I >> suppose, though, that there is a basic difference between "our" two >> camps as to what a claim actually is. I regard it as a statement to the >> effect that: "I will play the cards I have stated in the order in which >> I have stated them, and thereafter any cards about which I have made no >> statement in any order. I do not care what cards my opponents might >> play while I am following the above course of action - I will make X >> tricks in any case." > >Of course this bears little resemblance to the way most players I know >phrase their claims. To give a simple example; normally AKxx opposite >QJxx would be placed on the table without a clarifying statement and play >would move to the next hand. If I knew you were directing I would be able >to claim at least 3 defensive tricks! "The way most people phrase their claims" has come about because the law= allows them a degree of latitude - or at least, it does when Herman's in= charge :). That degree of latitude creates severe problems in a small= number of cases. I would rather not have to deal with any of those cases,= at the expense of tabling my cards in Tim's example while saying: "ace,= king and a heart to dummy's queen-jack", than have to deal with the= present situation. >Many claims are currently made without statements (since the tricks are >blindingly obvious to all concerned) or with a simple >"playing west for both red kings" > > AKQ > Qx > x > - > > xx > Ax > AQ > - >Obviously you could interpret my statement as playing west to hold >singleton kings but do you really believe that was in any way my intent. >Of course I will also make if either red king is singleton or East had >both red kings (but perhaps you would deem that I don't bother watching >East's discards and let me go 2 down?) If you claim in this position with the statement "playing West for both red= kings", you are just showing off. What on earth would be the purpose of= such a claim? It would not speed up the play to any noticeable extent= compared with simply cashing HA and running the spades. Since you ask, I= would regard such a claim as a piece of gamesmanship (and I would disallow= it if, for example, West had HK, East DK, but the count when HA was cashed= and spades were run marked West with a diamond void). >BTW I do agree that the claim above would be counterproductive against a >novice. It would be counter-productive against me as well, for it would cause me to= lose the very high regard I have for your opinions, and consider you a= supercilious twit. >I believe that modifying the laws to reflect your statement would make the= >entire claims process very unwieldy. Why? In most cases, the shorthand that people use when claiming would serve= perfectly well as an acceptable statement of the cards they intend to play= and the order in which they intend to play them. I have said only that a= claim should be regarded as a "statement to the effect that..." - I do not= maintain that all claims should be accompanied by statements in minute= detail. However: (a) any claim should be sufficiently clear that the opponents can= understand what tricks are being claimed and what tricks conceded; and (b) if a statement of claim is incomplete, and does not cover a lie of= cards that exists in actual play, the claimant should be assumed to lose= to that lie of cards by following his statement of claim - not to be= deemed to "discover" that the lie exists and allowed to abandon his stated= line. For example, if in the BBL Premier League I had this position - South to= lead, spades trump: (immaterial) 3 AKQJ None (immaterial) None 2 None AKQJ None and I tabled my cards saying "you get a trump", I would expect the= opponents to concede four tricks. But if I simply tabled my cards without= making a statement, I would expect to be awarded no tricks. In the= Much-Festering-in-the-Marsh Swiss Teams, of course, I would not table my= cards at all, let alone with the statement "you get a trump", for that= would sound to Mr Binks as though I intended to lead a trump (so that he= could get one). Rather, I would play diamonds until Mr Binks ruffed, then= ruff a heart and table the rest of my cards. To use Herman's terminology, I believe that a claim statement ought to be a= statement of declarer's Final Line of Play (FLOP). In effect, a claim is= an accelerated way of playing the hand out in situations where the result= will be the same no matter what the opponents do. I believe that claims= are a courtesy to the table and a good thing for the game - but I know= from experience that bad claims cause almost as much ill-feeling as= accusations of using UI. They are an insult to the table, and a very bad= thing for the game. So, I think that the procedure for claims should be made tighter than at= present, in order for good claims to survive and bad claims to perish. I= do not believe that players would find it hard to make the adjustment= required in order to produce claims that do not become the subject of= controversy. To say that "players have been claiming badly for years, so= the Laws must continue to allow latitude, subjectivity and acrimony= because it's not reasonable to expect Mr Binks to change his ways" is not,= in my view, the kind of progressive thinking that tournament bridge may= well depend on for its very survival. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 04:18:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 04:18:31 +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 EAA09628 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 04:18:25 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa17373; 12 Jan 99 9:17 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:13:00 PST." Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:17:48 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901120917.aa17373@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Many claims are currently made without statements (since the tricks are > blindingly obvious to all concerned) or with a simple > "playing west for both red kings" > > AKQ > Qx > x > - > > xx > Ax > AQ > - > Obviously you could interpret my statement as playing west to hold > singleton kings but do you really believe that was in any way my intent. > Of course I will also make if either red king is singleton or East had > both red kings (but perhaps you would deem that I don't bother watching > East's discards and let me go 2 down?) > BTW I do agree that the claim above would be counterproductive against a > novice. Hmmm . . . I'm looking at this, and I have definitely mixed feelings about how I'd react if someone made this claim against me. If it were Hamman, I wouldn't have a problem. But against someone I don't know at all, if I can't be sure they're a very good player, I think I'd call the director. After all, I know how this hand should be played if you're committing to play West for both red kings, but can I assume that my opponent, even though he says "playing West for both red kings", knows the correct order of tricks? I don't think it's right to accept the claim, if there's any realistic chance that declarer doesn't actually know what he's doing, or that his technique isn't solid enough that he can make the right play virtually without thinking. (BTW, after the director comes, if the word "Vienna" passes declarer's lips at all then I put my cards back in the board.) So I think that a claim like this is counterproductive not only against a novice, but against anyone who doesn't know you well enough to presume *without doubt* that you have squeeze technique down pat. Surely it must be worthwhile to be a just a bit more explicit, saying "cash heart ace and run spades, playing West for both red kings" or even "cash heart ace and run spades playing for a squeeze", in which case I'd happily concede if both red kings are in the same hand (or if one is singleton). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 04:43:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 04:43:01 +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 EAA09719 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 04:42:53 +1100 Received: from p65s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.102] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 1007q3-0000qI-00; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:42:47 +0000 Message-ID: <001201be3e52$8a256720$668193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L25A and L16C Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:38:52 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 11 January 1999 02:41 Subject: Re: L25A and L16C >Jan Kamras wrote: >and DWS wrote>> > So, is there any difficulty? Yes, we do seem to have found one. If >you assume that the player who made the wrong call is not an offender >then you have a UI problem. To me, it is no problem, because to me he >is obviously an offender, so L16C2 applies. Grattan disagrees with me >but lets L16B come to the rescue. OK, it is worth discussing. ++++ I do not think I said whether I thought the player was an offender or not; my objective was to look at the way the law applied *even* if he were not.++++ > > But it is not correct to assume the Lawmakers meant the exact opposite >of what they said, because there may or may not be a tiny problem with a >common and effective procedure. ++++ I can put my drafting committee hat on to say the intention was to hold the door ajar beyond LHO's call, whilst still keeping the 'without pause' condition in mind; specifically we did not want an astute and quick LHO to be able to slam the door shut. ++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 05:04:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 05:04:39 +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 FAA09809 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 05:04:32 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA05978 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:02:01 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199901121802.MAA05978@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Is this right? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:02:01 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I apologize if this question turns out to be trivial--at least it has nothing to do with claims. :) In the January ACBL Bulletin Jon Brissman has his monthly "Appeals" column. In very abbreviated form, here is the case: East is dealer, but South thinks he's dealer and places the Stop! card on the table in preparation for an opening skip bid. Before he can make the bid, though, the TD is summoned and bidding returned to East, who opens 2diamonds [artifical 4-4-4-1]. South, thinking he should make a skip bid after having signalled one before, bids 3 spades. [His hand was going to make a weak two-bid originally.] West passes. North has Ace-Ten in spades and AKQxx in diamonds. The problem is that for this pair, apparently, the 3 spade bid is _strong_ by agreement. North, however, know from the original skip bid warning that South probably has a weak hand and not a strong one, so he passes. [I guess he assumed the skip wasn't a strong 2 clubs.] 3 spades makes exactly, for a good score, and the TD is called back. He allows the table result to stand, but the AC changes the score to 4 spades down 1. Okay, all of this is fine, although I think the TD should have adjusted and I'm not sure that 4 spades -1 is really adequate compensation. [Brissman agrees, and suggests that North might have deserved a PP as well--I think so, too, but let's not get into that.] But Brissman goes on to say this: "Kudos to South for trying to do the right thing by jumping with her hand so the Stop card would remain in use." Is this right? If I place the Stop card on the table in preparation for making a bid out of rotation, is it then proper for me to go out of my way to make a skip bid at my proper turn _even if there has been an intervening opening bid and my skip bid no longer means the same thing it would have meant originally_? It seems to me that in this case, had South merely overcalled 2 spades there would have been much less of a mess--North would have had AI which more closely resembled what he could deduce from UI. Have I missed something? [Given the way I played last night, it wouldn't surprise me.] -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 05:08:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 05:08:06 +1100 Received: from m3.sprynet.com (m3.sprynet.com [165.121.1.55]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA09831 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 05:07:58 +1100 Received: from ivillage.ivillage.com (dal-qbu-zow-vty66.as.wcom.net [209.154.125.66]) by m3.sprynet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA19545 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:20:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990112120201.009acc50@m3.sprynet.com> X-Sender: baresch@m3.sprynet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:08:23 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Is this agreement legal? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi folks. Had a weird encounter at the club last night. This is from ACBLand, but I welcome everyone's opinion. (I've also sent a query directly to Chyah but would appreciate feedback from this group as well.) We play a strong-club system; our 1D/H/S openings are effectively limited to 16 points, including distribution (rule of 20 for them, rule of 25 for 1C). When opener bids 1H or 1S and responder has a featureless 13-14 HCP with support, he or she simply places the contract at 4H or 4S, since game is indicated and slam is unlikely. (As a side benefit, the opponents will have little information on which to base an opening lead and won't know much about declarer's hand.) Responder also bids 4H or 4S with a weaker hand and 5-card support, as most people in these parts do. Opener doesn't know which hand responder has (and doesn't really care since either way the bid is to play). We alert the triple raise and explain it (if asked) as showing either one hand or the other, since most players wouldn't expect the stronger option and might be fooled into overbidding. Last night an experienced player (after 1H-(x)-4H*) heard my explanation of 4H and demanded protection from the playing director, who was also her partner; essentially she demanded to know whether my partner had the weak hand or the strong one. She essentially insinuated that that agreement was illegal and did succeed in intimidating my partner into telling her which type of hand he had. The director chose not to enter the discussion. Much unpleasantness. We've been using that agreement (and alerting the triple raise) for nearly a year now, in club games and touranments, and never had a problem with it before. Thoughts? Opinions? Thanks and best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@m3.sprynet.com Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 05:27:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 05:27:53 +1100 Received: from eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.189]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA09901 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 05:27:48 +1100 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA25923 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:27:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA01356; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:29:27 -0800 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:29:27 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199901121829.KAA01356@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this agreement legal? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: Is this agreement legal? Brian Baresch wrote: |We alert the triple raise [1H-4H] and explain it (if asked) |as showing either one hand [balanced game raise] or the |other [preempt], since most players wouldn't expect |the stronger option and might be fooled into overbidding. ...as you ought and must. |Last night an experienced player (after 1H-(x)-4H*) |heard my explanation of 4H and demanded protection |from the playing director, who was also her partner; |essentially she demanded to know whether my partner |had the weak hand or the strong one. She essentially |insinuated that that agreement was illegal and did |succeed in intimidating my partner into telling her |which type of hand he had. The director chose not to |enter the discussion. Much unpleasantness. Your opponent simply got her way by bullying your partner. The director obviously had no clue; not to prevent the unpleasantness was an abject failure to do her job. I'd report the incident to the club owner unless the director makes good coffee, in which case, actual running of the bridge game is far less important to the players' enjoyment of the game. At least that's my experience with regard to ACBL club games. You were right, but so what? Once the director chose not to get involved, you had no options other than to fight and cause unpleasantness or to give in and lose a trivial amount of advantage. If you were to act as if you were very well-versed in the rules, you could probably out-talk your opponent. Stubborn steadfastness to what you think are the rules without access to an arbiter would simply cause an impasse. There are some interesting possibilities about this situation. What if your partner lied? "I have the preemptive hand." They bid. "Double!" "You lied!" "Nope. I psyched!" I'd still be laughing if my partner did that! Upon reflection, since this sort of question is very common in club games, perhaps all clubs ought to post the convention charts and the alert charts. The announcement rules in very clear and simple terms should be posted, too. I think I'll do that on our district's web site and encourage our clubs to do the same. --Jeff # 125-50---1998 World Champs # Go New York Yankees! # --- # http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 05:33:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 05:33:41 +1100 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA09927 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 05:33:34 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa21219; 12 Jan 99 10:33 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Is this agreement legal? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:08:23 PST." <4.1.19990112120201.009acc50@m3.sprynet.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:32:54 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901121033.aa21219@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Hi folks. Had a weird encounter at the club last night. This is from > ACBLand, but I welcome everyone's opinion. (I've also sent a query > directly to Chyah but would appreciate feedback from this group as > well.) > > We play a strong-club system; our 1D/H/S openings are effectively > limited to 16 points, including distribution (rule of 20 for them, > rule of 25 for 1C). > > When opener bids 1H or 1S and responder has a featureless 13-14 HCP > with support, he or she simply places the contract at 4H or 4S, > since game is indicated and slam is unlikely. (As a side benefit, > the opponents will have little information on which to base an > opening lead and won't know much about declarer's hand.) > > Responder also bids 4H or 4S with a weaker hand and 5-card support, > as most people in these parts do. Opener doesn't know which hand > responder has (and doesn't really care since either way the bid is > to play). > > We alert the triple raise and explain it (if asked) as showing > either one hand or the other, since most players wouldn't expect the > stronger option and might be fooled into overbidding. > > Last night an experienced player (after 1H-(x)-4H*) heard my > explanation of 4H and demanded protection from the playing director, > who was also her partner; essentially she demanded to know whether > my partner had the weak hand or the strong one. She essentially > insinuated that that agreement was illegal and did succeed in > intimidating my partner into telling her which type of hand he had. > The director chose not to enter the discussion. Much unpleasantness. Your agreement is not conventional, since it is simply sets the contract, is not artificial, and doesn't tell your partner anything about any other suits. It's therefore legal regardless of where in the world you play. (P.S. I play the same way when I play Precision. However, I'm also aware of the possibility that opener could have distributional playing strength; therefore, I'd be careful about bidding this way when your 13-14 is mostly prime cards like aces.) If there were any justice, on the next hand, your opponents would have had the auction 2H-pass-4H or 3H-pass-4H, and you would have gotten to demand to know whether the 4H bidder had a strong hand expecting to make, or was simply increasing the preempt. (As Woody Allen said in _Annie Hall_, "Wouldn't it be nice if life were like this?") -- Adam P.S. I happen to have Marshall McLuhan hiding behind my computer screen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 05:53:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 05:53:39 +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 FAA09968 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 05:53:33 +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 NAA15756 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:53:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:53:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901121853.NAA28611@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <4.1.19990112120201.009acc50@m3.sprynet.com> (message from Brian Baresch on Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:08:23 -0600) Subject: Re: Is this agreement legal? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch writes: > We alert the triple raise and explain it (if asked) as showing either > one hand or the other, since most players wouldn't expect the stronger > option and might be fooled into overbidding. This is a useful courtesy. Actually, many weak player play it this way anyway; 1H-P-4H is often made on a balanced hand with heart support by a player who wants to play there and has no idea that this is a non-standard agreement. > Last night an experienced player (after 1H-(x)-4H*) heard my > explanation of 4H and demanded protection from the playing director, > who was also her partner; essentially she demanded to know whether my > partner had the weak hand or the strong one. She has no right to this information, assuming that your agreement is legal. > She essentially > insinuated that that agreement was illegal and did succeed in > intimidating my partner into telling her which type of hand he > had. Your partner cannot explain her own bid )until the auction is over), as this creates UI problems (for example, if RHO bids 4S, you might want to double opposite a strong partner to discourage her from competing to 5H, but not opposite a weak partner when 4S could make); this should have been explained to your RHO. If the agreement is illegal, RHO is entitled to redress after the hand. As a matter of fa t, the agreement cannot be illegal. Bidding 4H to say, "I think we should 4H" is not a convention and cannot be barred by the ACBL or by anyone else. You might ask this opponent what she would bid after 2H-(x) with AQxx Qx Axxx Kxx, and with x Qxxx Axxxx xxx. Presumably, she would bid 4H with either hand. You are doing the same after 1H. > The director chose not to enter the discussion. Much > unpleasantness. This should have been a case for Zero Tolerance. In addition, with the director already at the table, she could have ruled on the legality of the agreement, and could have asked you to leave the table so that partner could explain. (You could then appeal the director's incorrect ruling to an AC; if the director caused the opponents to have UI, then the boar should be rescored with both sides treated as non-offending.) > We've been using that agreement (and alerting the triple raise) for > nearly a year now, in club games and touranments, and never had a > problem with it before. And the treatment is a fairly standard one in big-club systems. An experienced player has no business trying to intimidate you here. -- 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 Jan 13 06:05:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 06:05:19 +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 GAA09998 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 06:05:11 +1100 Received: from 207.205.158.112 (pool-207-205-157-196.lsan.grid.net [207.205.157.196]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA26812 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:05:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <369BA85E.6227@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:54:39 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this right? References: <199901121802.MAA05978@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had the exact same question -- and I agree with your answer. The question is, suppose you prematurely put the stop card out. Should you then make a skip bid, even if such bid has an entirely different meaning? I think the answer is "no" and that the stop card placement is obvious UI. Simply skipping a level does not remove the UI problem, especially in a case like this. I agree with all of Grant's other points on the case, so won't belabor them. Is there anyone out there who can make the case that one should skip in this situation? To me, it seems foolish and unnecessary from every point of view. --JRM cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > I apologize if this question turns out to be trivial--at least it > has nothing to do with claims. :) > > In the January ACBL Bulletin Jon Brissman has his monthly > "Appeals" column. In very abbreviated form, here is the case: > > East is dealer, but South thinks he's dealer and places the Stop! > card on the table in preparation for an opening skip bid. Before he can > make the bid, though, the TD is summoned and bidding returned to East, who > opens 2diamonds [artifical 4-4-4-1]. South, thinking he should make a > skip bid after having signalled one before, bids 3 spades. [His hand was > going to make a weak two-bid originally.] West passes. North has Ace-Ten > in spades and AKQxx in diamonds. > The problem is that for this pair, apparently, the 3 spade bid is > _strong_ by agreement. North, however, know from the original skip bid > warning that South probably has a weak hand and not a strong one, so he > passes. [I guess he assumed the skip wasn't a strong 2 clubs.] 3 spades > makes exactly, for a good score, and the TD is called back. He allows the > table result to stand, but the AC changes the score to 4 spades down 1. > > Okay, all of this is fine, although I think the TD should have > adjusted and I'm not sure that 4 spades -1 is really adequate > compensation. [Brissman agrees, and suggests that North might have > deserved a PP as well--I think so, too, but let's not get into that.] But > Brissman goes on to say this: > > "Kudos to South for trying to do the right thing by jumping with > her hand so the Stop card would remain in use." > > Is this right? If I place the Stop card on the table in > preparation for making a bid out of rotation, is it then proper for me to > go out of my way to make a skip bid at my proper turn _even if there has > been an intervening opening bid and my skip bid no longer means the same > thing it would have meant originally_? It seems to me that in this case, > had South merely overcalled 2 spades there would have been much less of a > mess--North would have had AI which more closely resembled what he could > deduce from UI. > > Have I missed something? [Given the way I played last night, it > wouldn't surprise me.] > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 06:15:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 06:15:23 +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 GAA10047 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 06:15:17 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.78.109]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.05 118 121 101) with SMTP id <19990112191441.PJMK4903@default>; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:14:41 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: , "Brian Baresch" Subject: Re: Is this agreement legal? Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:13:42 -0600 Message-ID: <01be3e5f$aaf12c20$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Brian Baresch To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 12:22 PM Subject: Is this agreement legal? >Hi folks. Had a weird encounter at the club last night. This is from ACBLand, but I welcome everyone's opinion. (I've also sent a query directly to Chyah but would appreciate feedback from this group as well.) > >We play a strong-club system; our 1D/H/S openings are effectively limited to 16 points, including distribution (rule of 20 for them, rule of 25 for 1C). > >When opener bids 1H or 1S and responder has a featureless 13-14 HCP with support, he or she simply places the contract at 4H or 4S, since game is indicated and slam is unlikely. (As a side benefit, the opponents will have little information on which to base an opening lead and won't know much about declarer's hand.) > >Responder also bids 4H or 4S with a weaker hand and 5-card support, as most people in these parts do. Opener doesn't know which hand responder has (and doesn't really care since either way the bid is to play). > >We alert the triple raise and explain it (if asked) as showing either one hand or the other, since most players wouldn't expect the stronger option and might be fooled into overbidding. > >Last night an experienced player (after 1H-(x)-4H*) heard my explanation of 4H and demanded protection from the playing director, who was also her partner; essentially she demanded to know whether my partner had the weak hand or the strong one. She essentially insinuated that that agreement was illegal and did succeed in intimidating my partner into telling her which type of hand he had. The director chose not to enter the discussion. Much unpleasantness. > >We've been using that agreement (and alerting the triple raise) for nearly a year now, in club games and touranments, and never had a problem with it before. Brian, don't know why you would have a problem now. I find no violation in law or regulation. Best of luck with your club director. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 06:41:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 06:41:29 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA10088 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 06:41:23 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA12667; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:40:11 -0600 (CST) Received: from irv-ca53-16.ix.netcom.com(207.94.87.144) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012577; Tue Jan 12 13:39:55 1999 Message-ID: <369BA43F.51400985@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:36:31 -0800 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix20.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu CC: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: Is this right? References: <199901121802.MAA05978@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Grant Sterling wrote, inter alia: > [In reference to Jon Brissman's quotation in the ACBL Bulletin: > "Kudos to South for trying to do the right thing by jumping with > her hand so the Stop card would remain in use."] > > Is this right? If I place the Stop card on the table in > preparation for making a bid out of rotation, is it then proper for me to > go out of my way to make a skip bid at my proper turn _even if there has > been an intervening opening bid and my skip bid no longer means the same > thing it would have meant originally_? It seems to me that in this case, > had South merely overcalled 2 spades there would have been much less of a > mess--North would have had AI which more closely resembled what he could > deduce from UI. > > Have I missed something? Jeez, I'm afraid that I'll be accused of Clintonizing for parsing my words, but let me explain. I did not say that the skip bidder did the right thing by jumping with her hand; I said that she _tried_ to do the right thing. Her heart was clearly in the right place. I agree with Grant's comments that she would have been better placed to have overcalled a simple 2S and kept the Stop card in the box. But her action was a calculated attempt to avoid an irregularity that might place an onus on her partner, and I thought she should be commended for it. I also wanted to point out that she was blameless and that any adjustment by the TD or AC was entirely due to her partner's action. If my message was not clear, impeach me. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 06:59:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 06:59:12 +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 GAA10152 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 06:59:06 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990112195859.LIBW6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:58:59 -0800 Message-ID: <369BAA5E.77759968@home.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:02:38 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim References: <199901111706.JAA17805@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <369A4AD4.5C4E@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: > Also, there are > some hands where you have a set number of tricks no matter what the > opponents do; And aren't these the ones that claims were supposed to be made on? And has anyone in the "limitation-of-claims" camp suggested otherwise?? What we (or at least I) are saying is that if it *does* matter what the opponents do or how their cards are distributed, *then* one should either not claim or do so with a very complete clarifying statement to which one should be held. If not, *those* claims will waste more time than they gain since they will almost certainly be contested (and if not the opponents may well be weaker and being taken advavtage of in a completely unfair way). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 07:12:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:12:39 +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 HAA10222 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:12:31 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.164]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA16298; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:12:05 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <369BACA4.69AA8252@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:12:20 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kamras CC: blml Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> <199901111429000220.1163D553@mail.btinternet.com> <369A6946.636D5B34@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry Jan but I don't agree with the underlined statement below Jan Kamras wrote: > > I beleive the following is the best summary so far of this matter, based > on bridgelogic, the specific laws involved, and put in context of the > rest of the laws in cases where "mind-reading" would otherwise be > neccesary. > > David Burn wrote: > > > > >^^^=== Of course a bridge player - just as any other human being^^^ During the last year I directed and played very few sessions ; but I had the time to analyze the people sitting around a bridge table ...... I felt that more than 40% don't behave like human beings during the session...... As a TD is my duty not to deal with them accordingly and as a player I had no time to play as much as I liked so I preferred to spend more time with my home Zoo....... I warn all people reading this : I have no intention to insult anyone but telling the truth isn't a blamed action.... With full respect Dany P.S. Hmmm sorry I had to apologize to Kushi and Shobo who were very angry reading this message - I couldn't stand their protest to be in the same "bag" with some bridge players .!!!!! - make make an irrational statement (or more than one) without being a lunatic. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 07:20:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:20:00 +1100 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (root@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA10241 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:19:53 +1100 Received: from idt.net (ppp-27.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.27]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA18989; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:19:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <369BACFA.5EFF9ECA@idt.net> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:13:46 -0800 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Claims - A humorous example. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It was a claim that gave me the chance to use a line that I had heard attributed to a Northern California expert. Years ago I was playing against a person who "knew" that he was better than the rest of us, and he claimed by simply putting his cards back into the board, without statement of play. We asked to see his cards and he yanked them out of the board and more or less threw them on the table in front of us (imagine, someone quarreling with his claim!). I told him what I thought of his behavior, at which point he called the director and complained, justifiably, that I had called him a horse's ass. I turned to the director and sweetly announced, "It's true. I have made an insufficient call!" The director had great difficulty keeping a straight face. Irv From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 07:24:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:24:50 +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 HAA10256 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:24:33 +1100 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:24:33 +1100 Received: (qmail 5406 invoked from network); 12 Jan 1999 20:23:52 -0000 Received: from pm02-068.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.68) by eris.iag.net with SMTP; 12 Jan 1999 20:23:52 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990112152157.0edf871c@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: Is this agreement legal? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:08 PM 1/12/99 -0600, you wrote: >Hi folks. Had a weird encounter at the club last night. This is from ACBLand, but I welcome everyone's opinion. (I've also sent a query directly to Chyah but would appreciate feedback from this group as well.) > >We play a strong-club system; our 1D/H/S openings are effectively limited to 16 points, including distribution (rule of 20 for them, rule of 25 for 1C). > >When opener bids 1H or 1S and responder has a featureless 13-14 HCP with support, he or she simply places the contract at 4H or 4S, since game is indicated and slam is unlikely. (As a side benefit, the opponents will have little information on which to base an opening lead and won't know much about declarer's hand.) > One of the benefits playing strong club that you have limited all other opening bids to around 15-16 hcp. >Responder also bids 4H or 4S with a weaker hand and 5-card support, as most people in these parts do. Opener doesn't know which hand responder has (and doesn't really care since either way the bid is to play). > >We alert the triple raise and explain it (if asked) as showing either one hand or the other, since most players wouldn't expect the stronger option and might be fooled into overbidding. I personally don't see any need for alerting the 4M response. The bid is natural and its only meaning is I want us to declare 4 of a Major. > >Last night an experienced player (after 1H-(x)-4H*) heard my explanation of 4H and demanded protection from the playing director, who was also her partner; essentially she demanded to know whether my partner had the weak hand or the strong one. She essentially insinuated that that agreement was illegal and did succeed in intimidating my partner into telling her which type of hand he had. The director chose not to enter the discussion. Much unpleasantness. > Worst erring player at the table is the DIC. Really wonder where that director found his/her licence to be a TD maybe it was in an special edition of Cereal that featured them like they once featured driving licence to awfully bad drivers that wouldnt get them the real way. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 07:26:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:26:15 +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 HAA10270 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:26:08 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990112202603.LPAM6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:26:03 -0800 Message-ID: <369BB0B6.7F52C80C@home.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:29:42 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim References: <199901121005.KAA29411@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > I think the figure of 1 diputed claim in 15-20 seems high. Above club > level, I think the majority of hands end in claims, even if it is at > trick 12. This comment may well be true, but is *totally* immaterial (and I think Robin realizes it). It has been quite obvious to the rest of us that our whole discussion concerns *very* early claims, where 1 in 5 or 10 would not surprise me (if disputed means any time opponents are not comfortable [but maybe embarrased to admit it]with the claim and/or TD is called). At trick 10,11 or 12 there are very few :-) different lines available, and very few :-) surprises left in terms of the break of suits! > However, the question of what is meant by "normal in the context of the > statement of clarification" (is this the same as "normal consistent with > the statement of clarification"?) is perhaps what we have been arguing > about. I don't understand this. I thought the only "normal" we are discussing is the one mentioned in L70D and E, which has been defined as "not irrational or stupid". I have found nothing in the law that suggests that the originally required claim-clarification (L68C) has to be "normal". If I claim 12 tricks, stating a really stupid line that happens to succeed this time, should TD disallow my claim on the grounds that I may only chose a "normal" line?? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 07:39:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:39:30 +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 HAA10297 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:39:23 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100Aap-0002rO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:39:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:11:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <199901120444.UAA10970@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199901121715590890.17234D9D@mail.btinternet.com>, David Burn writes snip > >For example, if in the BBL Premier League I had this position - South to lead, >spades trump: > > (immaterial) >3 >AKQJ >None (immaterial) >None > 2 > None > AKQJ > None > >and I tabled my cards saying "you get a trump", I would expect the opponents to >concede four tricks. and I would award them if called to the table > But if I simply tabled my cards without making a statement, >I would expect to be awarded no tricks. and I would so rule. > In the Much-Festering-in-the-Marsh Swiss >Teams, of course, I would not table my cards at all, let alone with the >statement "you get a trump", for that would sound to Mr Binks as though I >intended to lead a trump (so that he could get one). Rather, I would play >diamonds until Mr Binks ruffed, then ruff a heart and table the rest of my >cards. > snip > >So, I think that the procedure for claims should be made tighter than at >present, in order for good claims to survive and bad claims to perish. I do not >believe that players would find it hard to make the adjustment required in order >to produce claims that do not become the subject of controversy. with which I completely agree > To say that >"players have been claiming badly for years, so the Laws must continue to allow >latitude, subjectivity and acrimony because it's not reasonable to expect Mr >Binks to change his ways" is not, in my view, the kind of progressive thinking >that tournament bridge may well depend on for its very survival. with which I completely agree. I gave the original AKQxx xxxx to Diana (17) and she said "Well I'm honour bound to play the suit out aren't I". A clear understanding of the position and she has no knowledge of the Laws. Heaven and DB please protect her from Herman's antics when she comes to play bridge in the Lady Milne. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 07:39:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:39:29 +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 HAA10296 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:39:22 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 100Aap-0004UN-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:39:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:37:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Is this agreement legal? In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990112120201.009acc50@m3.sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <4.1.19990112120201.009acc50@m3.sprynet.com>, Brian Baresch writes snip > >Last night an experienced player (after 1H-(x)-4H*) heard my explanation of 4H >and demanded protection from the playing director, who was also her partner; >essentially she demanded to know whether my partner had the weak hand or the >strong one. That is entirely illegal >She essentially insinuated that that agreement was illegal and did >succeed in intimidating my partner into telling her which type of hand he had. PP. 25% of a top. Maximum 40% on the board. 74C7 & 12C1 > >The director chose not to enter the discussion. Much unpleasantness. > >We've been using that agreement (and alerting the triple raise) for nearly a >year now, in club games and touranments, and never had a problem with it >before. > >Thoughts? Opinions? > Your opponent is unethical (I had written "a jerk"). Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 07:49:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:49:05 +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 HAA10340 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:48:48 +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 100Ajv-0000RB-00; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:48:39 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA199504118; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:48:38 +0100 Subject: Re: Subsequent/Consequent To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:48:38 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990112084255.006d8048@pop.cais.com> from "Eric Landau" at Jan 12, 1999 08:42:55 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 Eric Landau: > >At 06:29 PM 1/11/99 -0500, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau writes: >> >>> The classic case: Opponents use UI to reach a no-play slam which makes on >>> a defensive revoke for OS +980/NOS -980. Without the UI they'd have played >>> 5S, and there's no compelling reason why the defender who revoked against >>> 6S would not have revoked similarly against 5S. Score +480/-480. >> >>I agree that the offenders get +480, because this is the least favorable >>score that was probable absent the UI, but given the facts at the table >>(assuming that it was not probable that a different line of play would >>have been taken in 5S and the revoke would not occur on that line.) >> >>However, I would say that the NOS were not damaged here. As a direct >>result of the infraction, they defended an unmakable 6S rather than a >>cold 5S. Thus the NOS should get the table result. > >David's analysis is a perfectly correct application of the Kaplan doctrine, >which is why this is the classic example of the inequity the Kaplan >doctrine produces. (Keep in mind that Marv's question was how I would rule >under the interpretation of law I would prefer, not how I would rule under >accepted interpretation.) > >Declarer has exactly 11 tricks in spades without the revoke, so with no >revoke and no infraction the NOs would get -450. With the revoke but >without the infraction they would get -480. With the revoke and the >infraction they get -980. No matter how you slice it, the simple fact that >they revoked cost them 30 points, and the fact that they were unlucky >enough to have the opponents commit an infraction on the same hand cost >them an additional 500 points, which they *could not* have lost had the >infraction not been committed. Where is the equity in having them be so >much worse off than some other pair who committed the exact same error with >the exact same cards, but didn't have the misfortune to have their >opponents break the law? They would have scored a top (+50) after the infraction if they had not revoked. I.e. without infraction, no revoke: normal board, -450 without infraction, revoke: bottom, -480 with infraction, no revoke: top, + 50 with infraction, revoke: absolute bottom, -980 Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 07:55:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:55:03 +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 HAA10358 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:54:57 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990112205451.LVUB6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:54:51 -0800 Message-ID: <369BB776.39748916@home.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:58:30 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> <199901111429000220.1163D553@mail.btinternet.com> <369B3132.1D428C60@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > > > > > > I do not subscribe to Herman's view of what a claim is - he, as far as I can see, appears to regard a claim as an opening statement that can form a basis for negotiation between the claimant, his opponents, and the Director. The reason I do not like it is that it becomes impossible to carry out any kind of objective test, and renders it necessary to enquire into the mental state of the claimant. The Laws of bridge, and of any other game, should not require its administrators to be mind-readers, nor should the referee be called upon to play the game on behalf of the participants. > > Well sorry David, but that is not my point of view. It is > apparently the point of view of this declarer. It is HE who > has claimed this early, without really thinking. (snipping the rest which was also non-respondent to the DB posting (see above) that HdW started by quoting. Herman, DB fairly summarized your many statements abt how to adjudicate claims depending on claimer's DFLOP or lack thereof, etc, correctly countering that your viewpoint *on this particular matter* would require the type of mind-reading or second-guessing or evaluation of self-serving statements, that has no foundation in L68 or L70, and is specifically prohibited (or at least specifically avoided) in many other areas of the laws where it could come into play. By you starting by quoting this part of DB's post, I was looking forward to your countering, with supporting evidence, this contention. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 08:26:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 08:26:42 +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 IAA10415 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 08:26:36 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990112212630.MDAX6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:26:30 -0800 Message-ID: <369BBEE1.5F608649@home.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:30:09 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Is this right? References: <199901121802.MAA05978@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree with what you say and don't think you missed anything. Maybe what Brissman meant was kudos for *the attempt*, however misguided it was since the jump changed meaning, to create a "non-UI situation"? Had (2D*) 3S been preemptive, then I do indeed think partner would have been free to do anything (s)he wanted. cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > I apologize if this question turns out to be trivial--at least it > has nothing to do with claims. :) > > In the January ACBL Bulletin Jon Brissman has his monthly > "Appeals" column. In very abbreviated form, here is the case: > > East is dealer, but South thinks he's dealer and places the Stop! > card on the table in preparation for an opening skip bid. Before he can > make the bid, though, the TD is summoned and bidding returned to East, who > opens 2diamonds [artifical 4-4-4-1]. South, thinking he should make a > skip bid after having signalled one before, bids 3 spades. [His hand was > going to make a weak two-bid originally.] West passes. North has Ace-Ten > in spades and AKQxx in diamonds. > The problem is that for this pair, apparently, the 3 spade bid is > _strong_ by agreement. North, however, know from the original skip bid > warning that South probably has a weak hand and not a strong one, so he > passes. [I guess he assumed the skip wasn't a strong 2 clubs.] 3 spades > makes exactly, for a good score, and the TD is called back. He allows the > table result to stand, but the AC changes the score to 4 spades down 1. > > Okay, all of this is fine, although I think the TD should have > adjusted and I'm not sure that 4 spades -1 is really adequate > compensation. [Brissman agrees, and suggests that North might have > deserved a PP as well--I think so, too, but let's not get into that.] But > Brissman goes on to say this: > > "Kudos to South for trying to do the right thing by jumping with > her hand so the Stop card would remain in use." > > Is this right? If I place the Stop card on the table in > preparation for making a bid out of rotation, is it then proper for me to > go out of my way to make a skip bid at my proper turn _even if there has > been an intervening opening bid and my skip bid no longer means the same > thing it would have meant originally_? It seems to me that in this case, > had South merely overcalled 2 spades there would have been much less of a > mess--North would have had AI which more closely resembled what he could > deduce from UI. > > Have I missed something? [Given the way I played last night, it > wouldn't surprise me.] > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 08:48:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 08:48:27 +1100 Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA10469 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 08:48:21 +1100 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id ABQHa18628 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:47:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1d278f1f.369bc2df@aol.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:47:11 EST To: Bridge-Laws@Octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Is this agreement legal? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 236 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In addition to agreeing with all of those who have agreed you may play this understanding, I offer an experience. I used to play Precision and raised pard's 1H opening to 4H holding three card support, about 14 HCP, and a four card spade suit on the side similar to KQTx. LHO bid 4S over my 4H and was going for a long distance number when partner, who did not know which hand I held, decided to save the opponents by bidding 5H, going down. So if partner does not know which hand, how can the opponents possibly be entitled to that knowledge? Not. Craig Hemphill From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 09:04:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:04:16 +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 JAA10489 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:04:07 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA26326 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:03:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990112170542.00697cc0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:05:42 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Is this agreement legal? In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990112120201.009acc50@m3.sprynet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:08 PM 1/12/99 -0600, Brian wrote: >We play a strong-club system; our 1D/H/S openings are effectively limited to 16 points, including distribution (rule of 20 for them, rule of 25 for 1C). > >When opener bids 1H or 1S and responder has a featureless 13-14 HCP with support, he or she simply places the contract at 4H or 4S, since game is indicated and slam is unlikely. (As a side benefit, the opponents will have little information on which to base an opening lead and won't know much about declarer's hand.) > >Responder also bids 4H or 4S with a weaker hand and 5-card support, as most people in these parts do. Opener doesn't know which hand responder has (and doesn't really care since either way the bid is to play). > >We alert the triple raise and explain it (if asked) as showing either one hand or the other, since most players wouldn't expect the stronger option and might be fooled into overbidding. > >Last night an experienced player (after 1H-(x)-4H*) heard my explanation of 4H and demanded protection from the playing director, who was also her partner; essentially she demanded to know whether my partner had the weak hand or the strong one. She essentially insinuated that that agreement was illegal and did succeed in intimidating my partner into telling her which type of hand he had. The director chose not to enter the discussion. Much unpleasantness. > >We've been using that agreement (and alerting the triple raise) for nearly a year now, in club games and touranments, and never had a problem with it before. > >Thoughts? Opinions? Your agreement is legal. Your method of alerting it is entirely appropriate. Your partner should learn that it is never appropriate to answer an opponent's question about the meaning of his own calls unless instructed to do so by a director. 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 Jan 13 09:16:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:16:49 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA10516 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:16:43 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA13168; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:16:04 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.54) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma013080; Tue Jan 12 16:15:20 1999 Received: by har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE3E4F.3D788680@har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:16:06 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3E4F.3D788680@har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu" Cc: Bridgelaws Subject: RE: Is this right? Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:08:12 -0500 Encoding: 82 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jon he said deduce...not seduce. We don't have to bring Billy Jef into this. :-) At least Ike played bridge. One thing I wonder though (and did when I read the Bulletin article) is if this problem could not have been avoided if the player had simply taken advantage of the zonal option the ACBL grants her to "never" use the skip bid warning or stop card. Then she could never use it improperly. Is it fair that she and her partner be penalised for a situation that arises from their decision to use the more imformative option of "always" making the skip bid warning? It seems that players wishing to maximise their potential scores within the Laws and regulations would be best advised to elect "never", lest they face penalties they might otherwise have escaped. I don't much like this, but it seems correct gamesmanship (under the Kaplan doctrine so plainly expressed in his final editorials)...and is a tactic I use myself since I was formerly notorious for forgetting the skip bid warning. It is rather like not putting a coffee cup on the table so you don't spill it...or a more bridgelike example like always leading facedown before it was mandated. Should the option be eliminated in our zone if it gives those who use the stop a disadvantage? If not, can we expect the usage to decline over time as players get burned and adjust their strategy from "always" to "never"? The added benefit of no longer making this optional would be to bring us into line with the rest of the world on one more point. Or would this be another irritant at the club level that could drive away even more playing and paying customers? Sorry for the ACBL-centric thrust of this post, but this situation seems unique to our zone, yet bears directly on the case in point. I'm not sure what is the right answer here...but am sure many of you will enlighten me. :-)) Craig ---------- From: Jon C. Brissman[SMTP:jonbriss@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 2:36 PM To: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Cc: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: Is this right? > Grant Sterling wrote, inter alia: > [In reference to Jon Brissman's quotation in the ACBL Bulletin: > "Kudos to South for trying to do the right thing by jumping with > her hand so the Stop card would remain in use."] > > Is this right? If I place the Stop card on the table in > preparation for making a bid out of rotation, is it then proper for me to > go out of my way to make a skip bid at my proper turn _even if there has > been an intervening opening bid and my skip bid no longer means the same > thing it would have meant originally_? It seems to me that in this case, > had South merely overcalled 2 spades there would have been much less of a > mess--North would have had AI which more closely resembled what he could > deduce from UI. > > Have I missed something? Jeez, I'm afraid that I'll be accused of Clintonizing for parsing my words, but let me explain. I did not say that the skip bidder did the right thing by jumping with her hand; I said that she _tried_ to do the right thing. Her heart was clearly in the right place. I agree with Grant's comments that she would have been better placed to have overcalled a simple 2S and kept the Stop card in the box. But her action was a calculated attempt to avoid an irregularity that might place an onus on her partner, and I thought she should be commended for it. I also wanted to point out that she was blameless and that any adjustment by the TD or AC was entirely due to her partner's action. If my message was not clear, impeach me. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 11:01:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:01:01 +1100 Received: from legend.idworld.net (root@legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA10665 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:00:55 +1100 Received: from txdirect.net (dnas-06-24.sat.idworld.net [209.142.70.232]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id SAA26579; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:00:44 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <369BE1DB.12ABA08E@txdirect.net> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:59:23 -0600 From: "Albert \"BiigAl\" Lochli" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Baresch CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this agreement legal? References: <4.1.19990112120201.009acc50@m3.sprynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes, and strangely enough quite ACBL general chart especially if properly alerted And I was about to say more, but then I read Jeff Goldsmith's response which I would only be reiterating. Your opponent was a bully and why zero tolerance (or just enforcement of the old rules and laws really) is so apt and needed. Your director may benefit from the BLML and perhaps you should buy the director a six-month subscription. I am sure that the price is right. -- BiigAl, Al Lochli biigal@satlug.org - biigal@txdirect.net - PO Box 15701, San Antonio TX 78212-8901 - Phone: (210) 829-4274 Webmaster Units 172, 173, 187, 204, 205, 209, 225, 233, 237, SA-NABC99 Personal Homepage: http://www.satlug.org/~biigal/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 14:06:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA11043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:06:05 +1100 Received: from smtp0.mindspring.com (smtp0.mindspring.com [207.69.200.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA11038 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:05:55 +1100 Received: from michael (user-38lcis6.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.134]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA00378 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:05:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990112220442.006d428c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:04:42 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Is this right? In-Reply-To: <369BA85E.6227@mindspring.com> References: <199901121802.MAA05978@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:54 AM 1/12/99 -0800, John wrote: >I had the exact same question -- and I agree with your answer. > >The question is, suppose you prematurely put the stop card out. Should >you then make a skip bid, even if such bid has an entirely different >meaning? > >I think the answer is "no" and that the stop card placement is obvious >UI. Simply skipping a level does not remove the UI problem, especially >in a case like this. > >I agree with all of Grant's other points on the case, so won't belabor >them. Is there anyone out there who can make the case that one should >skip in this situation? To me, it seems foolish and unnecessary from >every point of view. > Well, given some of my previous campaigns in this forum, it is certainly not beyond possibility that I could take up this particular challenge...but I won't. I will suggest giving Jon Brissman the benefit of the doubt with respect to his remarks, even if they effectively condone what would in fact be undesirable behavior. I think his view is that East was trying to act ethically, perhaps forgetting that his 3S bid would nominally be a strong action. A relatively inexperienced player could well have imagined that this was the honorable course, and I think Jon was going out of his way to avoid giving a contrary impression. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 14:07:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA11071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:07:09 +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 OAA11057 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:07:02 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 100Gdx-0002sS-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 03:06:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:36:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this right? References: <01BE3E4F.3D788680@har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE3E4F.3D788680@har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >Jon he said deduce...not seduce. We don't have to bring Billy Jef into >this. :-) At least Ike played bridge. > >One thing I wonder though (and did when I read the Bulletin article) is if >this problem could not have been avoided if the player had simply taken >advantage of the zonal option the ACBL grants her to "never" use the skip >bid warning or stop card. Then she could never use it improperly. Is it >fair that she and her partner be penalised for a situation that arises from >their decision to use the more imformative option of "always" making the >skip bid warning? > > It seems that players wishing to maximise their potential scores within >the Laws and regulations would be best advised to elect "never", lest they >face penalties they might otherwise have escaped. I don't much like this, >but it seems correct gamesmanship (under the Kaplan doctrine so plainly >expressed in his final editorials)...and is a tactic I use myself since I >was formerly notorious for forgetting the skip bid warning. It is rather >like not putting a coffee cup on the table so you don't spill it...or a >more bridgelike example like always leading facedown before it was >mandated. > >Should the option be eliminated in our zone if it gives those who use the >stop a disadvantage? If not, can we expect the usage to decline over time >as players get burned and adjust their strategy from "always" to "never"? >The added benefit of no longer making this optional would be to bring us >into line with the rest of the world on one more point. Or would this be >another irritant at the club level that could drive away even more playing >and paying customers? > >Sorry for the ACBL-centric thrust of this post, but this situation seems >unique to our zone, yet bears directly on the case in point. I'm not sure >what is the right answer here...but am sure many of you will enlighten me. >:-)) It is clearly counter-productive to the game of Bridge in the ACBL that the use of the skip bid warning should be optional. Either it is correct and should be mandated, or it is not correct, and should be abandoned. We use it in part to regulate the length of the pause. This has the added advantage that players who are aware of their partner's "normal" length of pause have UI in the ACBL but not over here. I am told by posters on RGB that this has the obvious disadvantage that opponent's can tell you what to do, which apparently is against being a macho bridge player. Well, I may have put it badly, but there does seem to be some such objection to this procedure. The skip bid warning has always seemed to me to be one of North America's better ideas. Strange that it should work better outside NAmerica! Personally, I think the ACBL should mandate it. -- 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 Jan 13 14:07:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA11073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:07:10 +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 OAA11058 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:07:02 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100Gdx-0002pk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 03:06:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:40:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this right? References: <199901121802.MAA05978@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199901121802.MAA05978@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: > I apologize if this question turns out to be trivial--at least it >has nothing to do with claims. :) > > In the January ACBL Bulletin Jon Brissman has his monthly >"Appeals" column. In very abbreviated form, here is the case: > > East is dealer, but South thinks he's dealer and places the Stop! >card on the table in preparation for an opening skip bid. Before he can >make the bid, though, the TD is summoned and bidding returned to East, who >opens 2diamonds [artifical 4-4-4-1]. South, thinking he should make a >skip bid after having signalled one before, bids 3 spades. [His hand was >going to make a weak two-bid originally.] West passes. North has Ace-Ten >in spades and AKQxx in diamonds. > The problem is that for this pair, apparently, the 3 spade bid is >_strong_ by agreement. North, however, know from the original skip bid >warning that South probably has a weak hand and not a strong one, so he >passes. [I guess he assumed the skip wasn't a strong 2 clubs.] 3 spades >makes exactly, for a good score, and the TD is called back. He allows the >table result to stand, but the AC changes the score to 4 spades down 1. > > Okay, all of this is fine, although I think the TD should have >adjusted and I'm not sure that 4 spades -1 is really adequate >compensation. [Brissman agrees, and suggests that North might have >deserved a PP as well--I think so, too, but let's not get into that.] I am curious: when the original infraction occurred - the skip bid OOT - did the TD warn the players of the effects of UI? If not, then why not? Did he explain that the player could make any call she liked? If not, then why not? If he explained fully, the PP sounds reasonable, but not if the TD did not. -- 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 Jan 13 14:07:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA11074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:07:13 +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 OAA11065 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:07:05 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100Gdx-0002pm-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 03:06:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:49:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this agreement legal? References: <4.1.19990112120201.009acc50@m3.sprynet.com> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990112120201.009acc50@m3.sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: >Hi folks. Had a weird encounter at the club last night. This is from ACBLand, >but I welcome everyone's opinion. Well, everyone has told you the right answer, and probably there is nothing left to do. But is there? I am not a great believer in giving up because the way is hard. You have to continue doing the correct thing, and next time you have a problem here, appeal. Then if you lose that [or they say we don't have appeals in defiance of the Law book] then you want to appeal to the national authority, the ACBL. You could try writing to the ACBL Bulletin, and if they print it, making sure the answer is seen in your club. Copy all the BLML answers and pass them around. In other words, even if the Director does make good coffee, you should not give way to an unethical attack of this type. -- 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 Jan 13 15:33:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA11183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:33:40 +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 PAA11178 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:33:34 +1100 Received: from modem113.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.241] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 100Hze-00054r-00; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 04:33:22 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L25A and L16C Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 04:05:22 -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 "What we began in gross error, we persist in through habit". - Edgar Allan Poe =================================================== ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L25A and L16C > Date: 10 January 1999 17:09 > > > If your argument is sound then it is to 16A and B that the > >Director will look., and my immediate unmeditated impression is that > >you could perhaps find that it is with 12B3 that you come to rest. > ^^^^^ > Either you have committed a typo with respect to this reference or my > version of the Laws (downloaded from the ACBL web site) is incomplete. L12B > has no numbered subsection in my version. > +++ Apology. Correction. For 12B3 read 16B3. ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 19:21:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA11584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:21:51 +1100 Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA11579 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:21:43 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.79] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 100LYb-0000H5-00; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 08:21:42 +0000 Message-ID: <199901130821260750.1A6063F6@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <369B3132.1D428C60@village.uunet.be> References: <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> <199901111429000220.1163D553@mail.btinternet.com> <369B3132.1D428C60@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 08:21:26 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 12/01/99, at 12:25, Herman De Wael wrote: >David Burn wrote: >> >> >> I do not subscribe to Herman's view of what a claim is - he, as far as I= can see, appears to regard a claim as an opening statement that can form a= basis for negotiation between the claimant, his opponents, and the= Director. The reason I do not like it is that it becomes impossible to= carry out any kind of objective test, and renders it necessary to enquire= into the mental state of the claimant. The Laws of bridge, and of any= other game, should not require its administrators to be mind-readers, nor= should the referee be called upon to play the game on behalf of the= participants. >Well sorry David, but that is not my point of view. It is >apparently the point of view of this declarer. It is HE who >has claimed this early, without really thinking. True - but you appear to me to be aiding and abetting his behaviour by= permitting him to do his thinking after making his claim. Indeed, you and= DWS appear to me to be prepared to do some of his thinking for him.= Instead of considering what lines of play might appear rational to this= [class of] declarer, you adjudicate on the basis of lines of play that you= yourself consider rational. I do not believe that this is what the law= requires you to do. >You may discourage this behaviour all you like, you may call >it rude, you might even penalize with some form of PP, you >will certainly use the benefit of the doubt, to make sure >that his partner tells him never to make sloppy claims, you >might even go a little overboard and call some of his >irrational lines normal for him, but in the end, you should >apply the Laws. And these laws state that he shall not be >subject to irrational lines, even if he has stated them. This is the point. Declarer has stated a line of play. Presumably, he had a= reason for so doing - he believed that this line of play would produce the= tricks he was claiming in all possible circumstances. Therefore, for that= declarer at that point, the line of play he stated was a rational line - a= line of play that he might follow for the reason that he believes it will= succeed. The only reason he now has for believing it will not succeed is= that, solely by virtue of his having made a contested claim, some outside= agency has told him that it will not. To return to an earlier example: declarer with the two of spades and the= AKQJ of hearts believes that there are no more spades out. He claims,= saying "I have the rest". In fact, an opponent has a spade and four= winning diamonds. I have used this example many times, and no one has= disputed that in such a case, declarer is entitled to no tricks. But of= course, once declarer's claim is contested, it would become wholly= irrational for him to play a spade until trick 13. That, incidentally, is= what is wrong with the argument that equity consists in determining how= many tricks declarer would have made had he played the hand out. The= answer to that in this case is "four", because no rational declarer would= ever play the S2 until trick 13 if there were no such thing as a claim.= But I do not believe that anyone on this list would actually award four= tricks to declarer in this position. A line of play that declarer had reason to believe would succeed when= making a claim is a rational line for that declarer - that is what the= word "rational" implies. If the line "becomes irrational" only because the= claim is contested, then declarer is stuck with it. In short, anything= done for a reason is rational, regardless of whether the reason itself is= true or false. >If you consider the way he has stated them as proof of >making irrational lines normal, then that is your >prerogative, and the AC may well decide otherwise. But to >go on record on blml saying that all irrational lines become >normal simply because a claimer has stated them is simply >not correct. Well, at least I have produced an argument to support the view that a line= stated by a claimer ought to be regarded as a rational line for that= claimer, whatever the Director or anyone else might think of it. This= seems to be an argument that has found some favour with others on this= list. To say that it is "simply not correct" does not strike me as much of= a counter-argument. >I hope I have made myself clear and I hope we can let this >rest, as it really is not interesting any more. Indeed. This will be my final word on the subject. >Another is about a point of law. We have stated our >opinions and I suppose I will not convince David that his >position is the wrong one. Now, that is certainly a valid claim :) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 19:49:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA11659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:49:12 +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 TAA11654 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:49:06 +1100 Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl3.philips.com with ESMTP id JAA21221 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:49:00 +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 xma021215; Wed, 13 Jan 99 09:49:00 +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 JAA00848 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:48:58 +0100 (MET) Received: from malibu.ehv.sc.philips.com (malibu [130.144.63.227]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id JAA08131 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:48:55 +0100 (MET) From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by malibu.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/) id JAA08723 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:48:55 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199901130848.JAA08723@malibu.ehv.sc.philips.com> Subject: Re: Is this right? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 9:48:55 MET X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne recently wrote: > The question is, suppose you prematurely put the stop card out. > Should you then make a skip bid, even if such bid has an > entirely different meaning? There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled this way? -- 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 Wed Jan 13 21:42:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA11872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:42:56 +1100 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA11867 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:42:48 +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 KAA14594 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:42:36 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 KAA09293 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:42:33 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA03187 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:42:31 GMT Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:42:31 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199901131042.KAA03187@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this right? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > John R. Mayne recently wrote: > > > The question is, suppose you prematurely put the stop card out. > > Should you then make a skip bid, even if such bid has an > > entirely different meaning? > > There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say > that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete > bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. > Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled > this way? Not in this country (England) if they want to remain a TD :-) When a dutch TD rules this way, does the player ever ask to be read the law/regulation which requires him to make a BOOT? Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 22:21:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA11976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:21:53 +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 WAA11971 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:21:35 +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 MAA04713 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:20:54 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199901131120.MAA04713@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:23:53 +0100 Subject: Re: Is this right? Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199901130848.JAA08723@malibu.ehv.sc.philips.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > John R. Mayne wrote: > >> The question is, suppose you prematurely put the stop card out. >> Should you then make a skip bid, even if such bid has an >> entirely different meaning? Certainly not, you are free to bid anything, but the fact that you pulled the stop-card is UI to partner. > Reply to John Mayne by Con Holzscherer: > > There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say > that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete > bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. Well, I don't...... JP From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 22:30:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:30:06 +1100 Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA12017 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:29:59 +1100 Received: from [195.99.46.224] [195.99.46.224] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 100OUC-0003Ya-00; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:29:23 +0000 From: David Burn To: woodruffld@cardiff.ac.uk, Subject: Re:Back on line Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:30:01 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Laura Sending this one from the Psion - only way to update its list of addresses, = as far as I can tell. Camrose dinner one of the shortest and most sober in = living memory, no doubt because almost everyone was driving home = afterwards. Stanley's speech was appalling even by his standards, Howarth = is no Geoff Evans, Jim couldn't tell his usual jokes because the Mayor was = also the Vicar. Still, the food was OK for both quantity and quality, and = they had a live clarinet quartet who were surprisingly good, so the thing = wasnt' a total blast. Dave From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 13 23:39:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:39:54 +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 XAA12219 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:39:47 +1100 Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl3.philips.com with ESMTP id NAA05138 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:39:41 +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 xma005135; Wed, 13 Jan 99 13:39:41 +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 NAA08742 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:39:40 +0100 (MET) Received: from malibu.ehv.sc.philips.com (malibu [130.144.63.227]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id NAA29479 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:39:38 +0100 (MET) From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by malibu.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/) id NAA13855 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:39:38 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199901131239.NAA13855@malibu.ehv.sc.philips.com> Subject: Re: Is this right? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:39:37 MET X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk CH> There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say CH> that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete CH> bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. CH> Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled CH> this way? Robin Barker wrote: > Not in this country (England) if they want to remain a TD :-) > > When a dutch TD rules this way, does the player ever ask to be > read the law/regulation which requires him to make a BOOT? I would in case it happened to me, but I don't SOOT, so this will not happen to me. Last Sunday this happened to my partner and she submitted to the ruling docilely. I was thinking about going in appeal, but the result on the board was satisfactory for us, so there was no reason. The TD explained that he had asked for and received explicit instructions how to handle a SOOT from the Dutch organisation that is responsible for the instruction(s) of TDs in the Netherlands (the WEKO). Perhaps Ton Kooijman can shed some light on this. -- 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 Wed Jan 13 23:51:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:51:16 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA12257 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:51:10 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-77.uunet.be [194.7.13.77]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA11695 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:51:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <369C8C72.D60E47C5@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:07:14 +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: Claim References: <199901121005.KAA29411@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <369BB0B6.7F52C80C@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > > I don't understand this. I thought the only "normal" we are discussing > is the one mentioned in L70D and E, which has been defined as "not > irrational or stupid". I have found nothing in the law that suggests > that the originally required claim-clarification (L68C) has to be > "normal". If I claim 12 tricks, stating a really stupid line that > happens to succeed this time, should TD disallow my claim on the grounds > that I may only chose a "normal" line?? Yes, could happen. See the strange claim. Claimer stated a line which it would be very difficult for him to follow in real life, and yet it worked. The -majority- ruling was that claimer would realise before playing that that line was an irrational one, and we imposed on him other "normal" lines, one of which failed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 00:05:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:05:33 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12300 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:05:27 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.78.84]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.05 118 121 101) with SMTP id <19990113130452.HSUH20527@default>; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:04:52 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Con Holzscherer" , Subject: Re: Is this right? Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:02:13 -0600 Message-ID: <01be3ef4$f06a6740$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Con Holzscherer > >CH> There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say >CH> that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete >CH> bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. >CH> Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled >CH> this way? > >Robin Barker wrote: > >> Not in this country (England) if they want to remain a TD :-) Not in the U.S. if they want to remain a TD :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 00:17:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:17:50 +1100 Received: from uno.minfod.com (www.x-roads.org [207.227.70.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA14577 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:17:44 +1100 Received: from mmsinet1.mms-inc.com ([207.227.69.130] helo=pcmjn) by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 100QBB-0005C1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 08:17:49 -0500 X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 08:17:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Is this right? In-Reply-To: <199901130848.JAA08723@malibu.ehv.sc.philips.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_808642==_.ALT" Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_808642==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:48 AM 1/13/99 , Con Holzscherer wrote: > > There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say >that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete >bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. >Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled >this way? > This would simplify the situation, but what in the Laws allows such an interpretation? John S. Nichols --=====================_808642==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 08:48 AM 1/13/99 , Con Holzscherer wrote:
>
>  There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say
>that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete
>bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT.
>Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled
>this way?
>

This would simplify the situation, but what in the Laws allows such an interpretation?
John S. Nichols
--=====================_808642==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 01:16:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 01:16:02 +1100 Received: from spartacus (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA14736 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 01:15:54 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by spartacus with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 100R5E-0002Wj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:15:44 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990113150901.00a31710@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:09:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Is this right? In-Reply-To: <199901131239.NAA13855@malibu.ehv.sc.philips.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:39 13-01-99 MET, you wrote: > >CH> There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say >CH> that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete >CH> bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. >CH> Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled >CH> this way? > >Robin Barker wrote: > >> Not in this country (England) if they want to remain a TD :-) >> >> When a dutch TD rules this way, does the player ever ask to be >> read the law/regulation which requires him to make a BOOT? > > I would in case it happened to me, but I don't SOOT, so this >will not happen to me. Last Sunday this happened to my partner >and she submitted to the ruling docilely. I was thinking about >going in appeal, but the result on the board was satisfactory >for us, so there was no reason. The TD explained that he had >asked for and received explicit instructions how to handle a >SOOT from the Dutch organisation that is responsible for the >instruction(s) of TDs in the Netherlands (the WEKO). Perhaps >Ton Kooijman can shed some light on this. > never heard of this rule either. >From who did he get these instructions btw???? regards, anton (dutch too) >-- >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 > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 03:38:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:38:03 +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 DAA16106 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:37:53 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13539 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:35:22 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199901131635.KAA13539@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: RE: Is this right? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:35:22 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > One thing I wonder though (and did when I read the Bulletin article) is if > this problem could not have been avoided if the player had simply taken > advantage of the zonal option the ACBL grants her to "never" use the skip > bid warning or stop card. Then she could never use it improperly. Is it > fair that she and her partner be penalised for a situation that arises from > their decision to use the more imformative option of "always" making the > skip bid warning? OTOH, using the skip bid warning has the advantage of assuring better protection against opponents using UI. My experience is that opponents are more regular about their pauses after such a warning than they are when it is not given. [The other advantage of using the skip bid warning is that, as a matter of fact, hardly anyone uses it when they are making a strong bid or a contract placing bid. So when your partner skips without using the warning, you know he's not pre-empting. :):):)] I, myself, use it 'never', but only because I tend to forget it under the circumstances I listed above, and I don't think it's fair to opponents to make use of it that way. That sort of forgetting is so common around here that no-one questions it--after all, the opponents wouldn't have remembered to use the warning under those circumstances, either.... :( > It seems that players wishing to maximise their potential scores within > the Laws and regulations would be best advised to elect "never", lest they > face penalties they might otherwise have escaped. I don't much like this, As I said, I think there are advantages to using the warning, as well. Besides, in the actual case not using the warning would have probably meant that the BOOR would have been made instead of the SOOR. With competent directing, that probably would have been _worse_. > Should the option be eliminated in our zone if it gives those who use the > stop a disadvantage? If not, can we expect the usage to decline over time If so, yes. I am not convinced that it does. > as players get burned and adjust their strategy from "always" to "never"? One rarely gets burned by it, in my experience, but my experience as always is limited. Have other people found many cases where a player is penalized for forgetting to use the skip warning or using it improperly, where they wouldn't have been punished had they _never_ used it? > Sorry for the ACBL-centric thrust of this post, but this situation seems > unique to our zone, yet bears directly on the case in point. I'm not sure > what is the right answer here...but am sure many of you will enlighten me. > :-)) > > Craig > I would be surprised if my opinion could count as a source of enlightenment for you, but if so I'm happy. It certainly doesn't work that way with my students. :) -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 03:57:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:57:03 +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 DAA16345 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:56:55 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA17814 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:54:26 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199901131654.KAA17814@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:54:25 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > > Whatever the laws of bridge _should_ require [and I have no > > quarrel with occasional mind-reading], the fact is that they _do_ require > > subjective analysis and occasionally even playing a hand for a player. > > UI and MI cases, for example, may require a TD [or AC] to figure out > > several possible bidding sequences that might have occurred, and then play > > > But never requires specific reading of *this* players mind at the time, > always of what one can expect an unidentified player of similar strength > playing the same system might do. And that's what _I_ think is involved here. Since virtually no claims are ever complete [or even intended to be remotely close to complete], we need not read a player's mind to know whether "Making 12" or "I play trumps" or "I give you a diamond" is a complete statement or not. [I think Herman makes things too complicated here.] Once we're ruling on the incomplete claim statement, we ask what lines are normal for this class of player. > > So, in short: > > a) Claim law is not written so as to require claimer to make an explicit > > statement of all cards to be played and the order. Perhaps it should, but > > it doesn't. > > > So what on earth *does* L68C mean?? > Or have I again missed some change from the '87 to the '97 text?:-( If the laws wanted to require claimer to make such a statement, they would have to either use a word stronger than "should", or re-write L70 to get rid of words like "equitably" and "irrational" and replace them law with "Claimer will lose any trick he could possibly lose when his clarification statement is enacted. If no clarification statement was made, claimer loses all tricks that could be lost on any legal combination of plays." The effect of the current law is to make the clarification statement desireable but not required. > > b) Most actual claims do not involve such explicit statements, but are > > abbreviated or even non-existent. > > True, but the laws provide for how to deal with this (the word "should" > in 68C). It makes sense to award more protection for players who follow > correct procedure than for those who don't - however numerous the latter > group is, wouldn't you agree? > And that's what I do. When _I_ claim, I do explicitly list cards to be played and the order. [Ordinarily--sometimes the play is so obvious my opponent would think I was insulting their intelligence.] As a result, I do not lose tricks because an opponent says "you might have blocked that suit" or "if you give me my trump before you pitch your diamond loser I get an extra trick". {Except when I accidentally _do_ claim my tricks in the wrong order.} Players who follow correct proceedure are protected from being forced into making careless or inferior plays--those who don't aren't. This protection is all the laws give, and all that is needed. We do not need to interpret incomplete clarification statements overly literally and saddle claimer with irrational plays to boot. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu, who spent Monday night bidding like Herman :) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 04:11:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:28:20 +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 DAA15804 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:27:39 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA10949 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:24:36 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199901131624.KAA10949@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Is this right? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:24:36 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Okay, all of this is fine, although I think the TD should have > >adjusted and I'm not sure that 4 spades -1 is really adequate > >compensation. [Brissman agrees, and suggests that North might have > >deserved a PP as well--I think so, too, but let's not get into that.] > > I am curious: when the original infraction occurred - the skip bid OOT > - did the TD warn the players of the effects of UI? If not, then why > not? Did he explain that the player could make any call she liked? If > not, then why not? None of these issues were answered in the column. I agree that a PP is only appropriate if such instructions were issued [or if the player was experienced enough that he should certainly have known this, or known he should ask]. > If he explained fully, the PP sounds reasonable, but not if the TD did > not. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 04:22:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:22:56 +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 EAA16486 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:22:48 +1100 Received: from pe2s04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.227] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 100U0A-0006Pd-00; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 17:22:42 +0000 Message-ID: <000301be3f18$e6acc580$e38493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Anton Witzen" Subject: Re: Is this right? Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 17:16:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 13 January 1999 15:10 Subject: Re: Is this right? >At 13:39 13-01-99 MET, you wrote: >> >>CH> There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say >>CH> that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete >>CH> bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. >>CH> Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled >>CH> this way? ....................... \x/ \x/ .................. >> >> I would in case it happened to me, but I don't SOOT, so this >>will not happen to me. Last Sunday this happened to my partner >>and she submitted to the ruling docilely. I was thinking about >>going in appeal, but the result on the board was satisfactory >>for us, so there was no reason. The TD explained that he had >>asked for and received explicit instructions how to handle a >>SOOT from the Dutch organisation that is responsible for the >>instruction(s) of TDs in the Netherlands (the WEKO). Perhaps >>Ton Kooijman can shed some light on this. >> +++ Whoever said that may be handing Ton a poisoned chalice! Neither Law 18A nor Law 73A2 incorporates the skip warning into the bid. But I would not go so far as to say that a regulation under Law 80E could not do so - I would want to think about that. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 04:23:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:23:27 +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 EAA16508 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:23:16 +1100 Received: from pe2s04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.227] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 100U09-0006Pd-00; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 17:22:41 +0000 Message-ID: <000201be3f18$e5ec82c0$e38493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Claim Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:30:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Date: 13 January 1999 13:31 Subject: Re: Claim >Jan Kamras wrote: >> >> >> I don't understand this. If I claim 12 tricks, stating a really stupid line that happens to succeed this time, should TD disallow my claim on the grounds that I may only chose a "normal" line?? > >Yes, could happen. > >See the strange claim. > >Claimer stated a line which it would be very difficult for >him to follow in real life, and yet it worked. >The -majority- ruling was that claimer would realise before >playing that that line was an irrational one, and we imposed >on him other "normal" lines, one of which failed. > ++++ Very funny. Ha! ha! ha! Are we talking about that claim where the player had reduced himself to a choice between playing a suit of x.x. opposite K.J.x.x.x. for both A and Q to be onside or alternatively a suit of K.Q. opposite A.J.9.x. for the 10 to drop in three rounds? And who is this great god "We" who ordained which is normal and which is not and, when the player chose the latter course, successfully, from whence came this mighty power with which "We" was invested that allowed him to deny the player his choice whether it were judged normal or not? If any Director were so arrogant as to impose another course on a player in these circumstances only an irrational national authority could fail to restore law and order. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 04:30:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:30:21 +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 EAA16559 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:30:14 +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 MAA15932 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:30:08 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id MAA14582 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:24:36 -0500 Message-Id: <199901131724.MAA14582@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae02dm02sc06 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:24:36, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Limited opening alerts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- I sent a note to ACBL Tournament Department on on behalf of Brian and received the following response. -Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator =========================================================== The >>>> is from the ACBL Tournament Department Would you agree that when someone opens 2H weak and their partner jumps to game, that the 4H bidder could have either a hand in which they expect to make 4H or a hand where they are preempting the auction and making it tougher for the opponents to bid? >>>> Agreed. No alert required. This situation is being related to systems where an opening 1 bid is limited due to a strong opening 1C system. If someone bids 1H and their partner bids 4H, does 4H need an alert that it can be either a weak hand or a hand where game is expected to make? Does 1H X 4H change the obligation? >>>>No alert required in either case. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 04:41:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:41:21 +1100 Received: from eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.189]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA16726 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:41:14 +1100 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA28248 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:41:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id JAA02386; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:42:55 -0800 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:42:55 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199901131742.JAA02386@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) wrote: |I sent a note to ACBL Tournament Department on on behalf of |Brian and received the following response. | |-Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator |=========================================================== | |The >>>> is from the ACBL Tournament Department | |Would you agree that when someone opens 2H weak and their partner jumps |to game, that the 4H bidder could have either a hand in which they |expect to make 4H or a hand where they are preempting the auction and |making it tougher for the opponents to bid? | |>>>> Agreed. No alert required. | | |This situation is being related to systems where an opening 1 bid is |limited due to a strong opening 1C system. | |If someone bids 1H and their partner bids 4H, does 4H need an alert that |it can be either a weak hand or a hand where game is expected to make? |Does 1H X 4H change the obligation? | |>>>>No alert required in either case. The ACBL Tournament Department is wrong. I quote from the current alert pamphlet: "Treatments that show unusual strength... should be Alerted." It is not usual for 1H-(x)-4H to be able to have 14 HCP. Therefore it must be alerted. Without reading the convention charts, common sense should tell us that this 4H bid should be alerted. It may take the opponents by surprise and that surprise could damage them. Therefore, it requires an alert. That's the whole point of Alerting. --Jeff # 125-50---1998 World Champs # Go New York Yankees! # --- # http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 04:55:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:55:33 +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 EAA16777 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:55:27 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa05604; 13 Jan 99 9:54 PST To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:07:14 PST." <369C8C72.D60E47C5@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:54:50 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901130954.aa05604@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Jan Kamras wrote: > > > > > > I don't understand this. I thought the only "normal" we are discussing > > is the one mentioned in L70D and E, which has been defined as "not > > irrational or stupid". I have found nothing in the law that suggests > > that the originally required claim-clarification (L68C) has to be > > "normal". If I claim 12 tricks, stating a really stupid line that > > happens to succeed this time, should TD disallow my claim on the grounds > > that I may only chose a "normal" line?? > > Yes, could happen. > > See the strange claim. > > Claimer stated a line which it would be very difficult for > him to follow in real life, and yet it worked. > The -majority- ruling was that claimer would realise before > playing that that line was an irrational one, and we imposed > on him other "normal" lines, one of which failed. If you're talking about this hand from February 1997, titled "Strange Claim": Jx Axx Jxxx 8642 AQTxx Kx xx KJxxx AKQ2 xx KQ AJ97 9xxx Qxx xxx T53 (East plays 6NT and claims 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs after SJ falls) then you've misinterpreted what the discussion was about. Claimer did not state a line which would be very difficult to follow, or a line that was irrational: he stated a line which was, in effect, a logical impossibility. (Declarer assumed he could just take his 12 top tricks, but there's no entry.) The heated discussion was over whether or not we should impose the line that most nearly resembles the claim (i.e. overtaking the club, which happens to work). BUT NOTE that even those who supported this position NEVER argued that "this is the line claimer stated". All were agreed that it was never declarer's intent to overtake the club. (Had declarer said something like this in his claim--i.e. "4 clubs with an overtake", in the mistaken belief that the 9 was high--then I don't think anyone would have voted to reject the claim.) So while Jan is talking about declarer stating a really stupid line that happens to work, the example you're citing is about whether to assume a line THAT DECLARER DIDN'T STATE. Apples and oranges. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 05:30:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA16898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 05:30:56 +1100 Received: from smtp3.mindspring.com (smtp3.mindspring.com [207.69.200.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA16893 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 05:30:49 +1100 Received: from 207.205.158.42 (pool-207-205-158-42.lsan.grid.net [207.205.158.42]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA18548 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:30:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <369CF1CE.28FA@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:20:00 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts References: <199901131724.MAA14582@mime4.prodigy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk CHYAH E BURGHARD wrote: > > -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > I sent a note to ACBL Tournament Department on on behalf of > Brian and received the following response. > > This situation is being related to systems where an opening 1 bid is > limited due to a strong opening 1C system. > > If someone bids 1H and their partner bids 4H, does 4H need an alert that > it can be either a weak hand or a hand where game is expected to make? > Does 1H X 4H change the obligation? > > >>>>No alert required in either case. Thanks for asking, Chyah. Wow. That's unfortunate. Not for me; I'm familiar with strong club systems and the basic theory behind them, and I know that the ACBL thinks all players should be basically familiar with them, but strong clubs are no longer all that popular at the club level, and I'm sure many people are unfamiliar with this particular nuance. So Brian's original case was number 142 on the list of cases where the people end up being punished for giving more information rather than less. (I note common applications of this rule are: alerting often-tactical bids, alerting bids which are more likely to be psychic than for most, and explaining to the opponents that partner could conceivably have a singleton for his 1N opening.) While too many alerts can be annoying, I can't see a reason not to alert this. Question: Suppose, while playing a strong-club, very light opener system I alerted partner's 4H bid on this auction, *knowing* that ACBL had ruled differently. Would it be appropriate to give me a PP? --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 05:34:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA16917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 05:34:33 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com ([204.249.180.132]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA16912 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 05:34:26 +1100 Received: from REW(rew[10.2.1.47]) (2540 bytes) by azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:smtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:32:14 -0500 (EST) (Smail-3.2.0.104 1998-Nov-20 #1 built 1998-Dec-3) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:30:34 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3EF8.E61E27A0.richard.willey@azure-tech.com> From: Richard Willey Reply-To: "richard.willey@azure-tech.com" To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Limited opening alerts Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:30:33 -0500 Organization: GN Nettest X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 44 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Jeff Goldsmith [SMTP:jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 12:43 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts >The ACBL Tournament Department is wrong. >I quote from the current alert pamphlet: >"Treatments that show unusual strength... >should be Alerted." It is not usual for >1H-(x)-4H to be able to have 14 HCP. >Therefore it must be alerted. >Without reading the convention charts, >common sense should tell us that this >4H bid should be alerted. It may take >the opponents by surprise and that surprise >could damage them. Therefore, it requires >an alert. That's the whole point of Alerting. I think that we would all agree that the auction 1H - 4H typically has a very different meaning in a system with limited opening bids than one wehre the one level opening is (essentially) unlimited. I would go so far as to suggest that it is common bridge knowledge that, following a limited opening bid, a direct raise to game might be made on a strong hand with no interest in exploring for slam. At least within the ACBL, any pair playing a system using limited opening bids has the responsibility to prealert their opponents about the system being before the start of the round. The opponents should be expected to recognize that following a non-standard opening or bid, certain auctions will proceed differently. As an extreme example of the same basic concept, suppose LHO opens 1N and RHO bids 2D as a transfer to hearts. LHO completes the transfer by bidding 2H. Should LHO's 2H bid be alerted because he is bidding a "suit" that might only be 2 cards in length? The answer to that is "No" because the original alert of the 2D bid conveyed the information that the follow-up auction may depart significantly from standard. In my mind, these two situations are analogous. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 05:39:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA16948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 05:39:08 +1100 Received: from eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.189]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA16943 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 05:39:03 +1100 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA13256 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:39:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA02601; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:40:45 -0800 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:40:45 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199901131840.KAA02601@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Limited opening alerts Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts Richard Willey wrote: |At least within the ACBL, any pair playing a system using limited opening |bids has the responsibility to prealert their opponents about the system |being before the start of the round. This is not true. As a result, the rest of the argument does not follow. --Jeff # 125-50---1998 World Champs # Go New York Yankees! # --- # http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 05:44:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA16980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 05:44:29 +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 FAA16975 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 05:44:23 +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 SAA27894 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:44:16 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 SAA01871 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:44:14 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA05080 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:44:12 GMT Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:44:12 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199901131844.SAA05080@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > ++++ Very funny. Ha! ha! ha! > Are we talking about that claim where the player > had reduced himself to a choice between playing a suit > of x.x. opposite K.J.x.x.x. for both A and Q to be onside > or alternatively a suit of K.Q. opposite A.J.9.x. for the 10 > to drop in three rounds? And who is this great god "We" > who ordained which is normal and which is not and, when > the player chose the latter course, successfully, from > whence came this mighty power with which "We" was > invested that allowed him to deny the player his choice > whether it were judged normal or not? > If any Director were so arrogant as to impose another > course on a player in these circumstances only an > irrational national authority could fail to restore law and > order. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ You may well laugh Grattan, but what do you rule? - - xx KJx KQx - KQ AJ9x West (declarer) is on lead, puts his hand down and says "I will take KQ of diamonds and AKQJ of clubs". Why should we give him C9 ? 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 Jan 14 06:14:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:14:19 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com ([204.249.180.132]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA17030 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:14:12 +1100 Received: from REW(rew[10.2.1.47]) (2454 bytes) by azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:smtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:11:59 -0500 (EST) (Smail-3.2.0.104 1998-Nov-20 #1 built 1998-Dec-3) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:10:19 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3EFE.73C5A2E0.richard.willey@azure-tech.com> From: Richard Willey Reply-To: "richard.willey@azure-tech.com" To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Jeff Goldsmith'" Subject: RE: Limited opening alerts Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:10:18 -0500 Organization: GN Nettest X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 43 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Jeff Goldsmith [SMTP:jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 1:41 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Limited opening alerts Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts Richard Willey wrote: >>At least within the ACBL, any pair playing a system using limited opening >>bids has the responsibility to prealert their opponents about the system >>being before the start of the round. >This is not true. As a result, the rest of the >argument does not follow. --Jeff HMM. I looked over the section on prelaerts on the ACBL web site. The precise quote would appear to be the following. SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include either strong or weak no trumps with or without five-card majors. The forcing opening bid will most often be either a natural, strong two bid or an artificial forcing opening of 1C or 2C When you play a system structured along different agreements than these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canape system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction begins (a 10 to 12 1NT range with distributional requirements for minor suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the opponents. I stand corrected. Apparently there is no need to bother pre-alerting Polish Club, Precision, Culbertson, or any one of a number of other systems. Richard Amazed once again From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 06:20:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:20:38 +1100 Received: from pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com (pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA17051 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:20:31 +1100 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA71310 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:20:24 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id OAA16596 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:19:28 -0500 Message-Id: <199901131919.OAA16596@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae02dm02sc06 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:19:28, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- >John Mayne Asked: While too many alerts can be annoying, I can't see a reason not to alert this. Question: Suppose, while playing a strong-club, very light opener system I alerted partner's 4H bid on this auction, *knowing* that ACBL had ruled differently. Would it be appropriate to give me a PP?< =============================================== I think we can all recognize that there is the regulation and the application of the regulation. Technically, the regulation says that you do not need to alert in this situation. However, I think this is a case where you look at your opponents experience level and decide whether an alert is necessary. If I am playing in a stratified pair event, then I might alert as long as I am unfamiliar with who my opponents are. However, if I am playing in a flight A event, I probably will not alert. These decisions are probably best described as "active ethics". -Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 06:36:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:36:25 +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 GAA17083 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:36:19 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.78.144]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990113193542.ITL10402@default>; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:35:42 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "John R. Mayne" , Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:07:37 -0600 Message-ID: <01be3f27$fc341a20$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John R. Mayne >While too many alerts can be annoying, I can't see a reason not to alert >this. Question: Suppose, while playing a strong-club, very light opener >system I alerted partner's 4H bid on this auction, *knowing* that ACBL >had ruled differently. Would it be appropriate to give me a PP? > >--JRM Is it appropriate to intentionally violate the Laws or other regulations published by the sponsoring organization? I think we have answered that question in the past. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 06:36:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:36:34 +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 GAA17089 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:36:29 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.78.144]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990113193553.IVJ10402@default>; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:35:53 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Jeff Goldsmith" , Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:12:49 -0600 Message-ID: <01be3f28$b5cceb60$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Goldsmith >The ACBL Tournament Department is wrong. >I quote from the current alert pamphlet: >"Treatments that show unusual strength... >should be Alerted." It is not usual for >1H-(x)-4H to be able to have 14 HCP. >Therefore it must be alerted. > >Without reading the convention charts, >common sense should tell us that this >4H bid should be alerted. It may take >the opponents by surprise and that surprise >could damage them. Therefore, it requires >an alert. That's the whole point of Alerting. Jeff, you are supposing a world in which no one can read, think, reason, or remember. Your interpretation of the reading cited in the alert booklet is incorrect. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 06:45:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:45:07 +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 GAA17114 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:45:00 +1100 Received: from Panther3581.ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Panther3581.eiu.edu [139.67.29.179]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA21316 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:42:30 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990113133900.007ae100@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:39:00 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example In-Reply-To: <199901130821260750.1A6063F6@mail.btinternet.com> References: <369B3132.1D428C60@village.uunet.be> <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> <199901111429000220.1163D553@mail.btinternet.com> <369B3132.1D428C60@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:21 AM 1/13/1999 +0000, David Burn wrote: >On 12/01/99, at 12:25, Herman De Wael wrote: >This is the point. Declarer has stated a line of play. Presumably, he had a reason for so doing - he believed that this line of play would produce the tricks he was claiming in all possible circumstances. Therefore, for that declarer at that point, the line of play he stated was a rational line - a line of play that he might follow for the reason that he believes it will succeed. The only reason he now has for believing it will not succeed is that, solely by virtue of his having made a contested claim, some outside agency has told him that it will not. Perhaps I hold a middle ground here between Herman and David B. here. [Which means that both of them will disagree with me. :)] I think David and Herman have both obscured distinctions which are of paramount importance here. [Adam B. makes this point in a slightly different context in his last message on 'strange claim'.] There is a difference between: a) A clarification which states an _impossible_ line. b) A clarification which is ambiguous or incomplete. c) A clarification which states an irrational [or merely unsuccessful] line. Claimer cannot be forced to follow an impossible line, because it is impossible to figure out how many tricks he will take. :) An incomplete line must be filled out by the TD if the claim is contested, and will be so filled out based on 'normal lines'. An unsuccessful line is, IMHO, ipso facto incomplete--at some point it can be seen to break down, and therefore ceases at that moment. So there's my view--the moment an unsuccessful line can be seen to break down, that line terminates. If declarer claims 8 tricks, and the line he states can be seen not to produce 8 tricks, then obviously the line was incomplete--declarer didn't say what he was going to do when his original line failed. :) There is also a difference within category 'c' between: c1) those claims where the failure of the chosen line would likely have been obvious before it was "too late", had the hand been played out, and c2) those that where the failure of the line would not have been noticed until too late. Here's what I mean: a) Claimer says "I'll start by taking the Ace of Clubs, then run diamonds." Claimer has no ace of clubs. b) Claimer says "I'll take out trumps first", making no mention of how he plans to play the hand other than that. c) Claimer says "I'll win my two diamond tricks first, then run my clubs". Claimer has AQ in diamonds, and the K is still out and not already known to be singleton or onside. c1) "I'll take my four heart tricks first..." Claimer has AKQTx of hearts facing 4 others, but hearts break 4-0 offside. Claimer will almost certainly notice the failure of this line _at least_ by the time the third heart has been taken and the Jack has not appeared. c2) "I'll take my ace of clubs, then run my four heart tricks". Unfortunately, hearts are AKQ in one hand and Jxxx in the other, and the ace of clubs is the only entry to the hand with the J. David B. is concentrating on 'c2' type cases, while Herman is concentrating on 'c1' type cases. I would hold that to require declarer to continue with a 'c1' line is to require declarer to commit an irrationality that he probably did not intend. To hold declarer to a 'c2' mistake is perfectly appropriate. Or, to put it another way, declarer's clarification statement shows what line he will _embark upon_, and what destination in tricks he expects to arrive at. If, at some point after the first trick, it becomes obvious that the embarked-upon line will not arrive at that destination, declarer cannot be assumed to continue. I agree with the definition of 'equitable' which holds that an equitable outcome is the one that probably would have resulted had the hand been played out. Unlike David B., however, I understand that to mean 'had the hand been played out with no claim ever having been made'. [See below.] > >To return to an earlier example: declarer with the two of spades and the AKQJ of hearts believes that there are no more spades out. He claims, saying "I have the rest". In fact, an opponent has a spade and four winning diamonds. I have used this example many times, and no one has disputed that in such a case, declarer is entitled to no tricks. But of course, once declarer's claim is contested, it would become wholly irrational for him to play a spade until trick 13. That, incidentally, is what is wrong with the argument that equity consists in determining how many tricks declarer would have made had he played the hand out. The answer to that in this case is "four", because no rational declarer would ever play the S2 until trick 13 if there were no such thing as a claim. But I do not believe that anyone on this list would actually award four tricks to declarer in this position. > I might, if declarer is Herman. :) Actually, if the spade is really the 2, I might award 4 tricks anyway. But, again, I don't think that's what this definition was supposed to mean. _Of course_ if there is a claim, which is then disputed, claimer will be alerted to the problem and will not play the 2 of spades. But if we take 'had the hand been played out' to mean 'had declarer played the hand out rather than claim' [which is what I understand it to mean], we get a different picture. If declarer had never claimed, he would have never known there was a spade out. Had he then played the S2, he would have discovered the problem--too late. >A line of play that declarer had reason to believe would succeed when making a claim is a rational line for that declarer - that is what the word "rational" implies. If the line "becomes irrational" only because the claim is contested, then declarer is stuck with it. In short, anything done for a reason is rational, regardless of whether the reason itself is true or false. Well, I don't accept that statement, but again we are obscuring cases here. I don't care whether the line the declarer stated was rational at the time he stated it--unlike Herman, _I_ don't discard lines simply because they're irrational. But if the irrationality of a line is something that declarer would have discovered "in time" had the hand been played out, I do not think it is equitable to force him to continue it. In come cases, in other words, I don't think a line always becomes irrational only because the claim is contested--rather, often the claimer would have seen that the line was irrational had there been no claim at all, and would have discontinued it. > >>If you consider the way he has stated them as proof of >>making irrational lines normal, then that is your >>prerogative, and the AC may well decide otherwise. But to >>go on record on blml saying that all irrational lines become >>normal simply because a claimer has stated them is simply >>not correct. > >Well, at least I have produced an argument to support the view that a line stated by a claimer ought to be regarded as a rational line for that claimer, whatever the Director or anyone else might think of it. This seems to be an argument that has found some favour with others on this list. To say that it is "simply not correct" does not strike me as much of a counter-argument. I agree, and I agree that any line claimer states may be assumed to be rational "for him" _at that moment_. If the play of the hand would have then shown him evidence that the line was irrational, that is a different story. It doesn't stay rational for him just because it was rational for him at the beginning. > >>I hope I have made myself clear and I hope we can let this >>rest, as it really is not interesting any more. > >Indeed. This will be my final word on the subject. Probably mine as well, but I've said that before and then didn't shut up.... -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 06:50:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:50:56 +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 GAA17146 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:50:50 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa12585; 13 Jan 99 11:50 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:07:37 PST." <01be3f27$fc341a20$LocalHost@default> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:50:14 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901131150.aa12585@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: John R. Mayne > > >While too many alerts can be annoying, I can't see a reason not to alert > >this. Question: Suppose, while playing a strong-club, very light opener > >system I alerted partner's 4H bid on this auction, *knowing* that ACBL > >had ruled differently. Would it be appropriate to give me a PP? > > > >--JRM > > Is it appropriate to intentionally violate the Laws or other regulations > published by the sponsoring organization? I think we have answered that > question in the past. Wait a minute---where does it say that alerting 4H would violate any regulations? The last I saw from the ACBL (by way of Chyah) was "No alert required"---but this is *not* the same as "Alerting is illegal"!!! Am I missing something? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 06:59:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:59:54 +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 GAA17179 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:59:47 +1100 Received: from ip164.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.164]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990113195940.QGL324.fep4@ip164.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 20:59:40 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Claim Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 20:59:39 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <369df681.13015565@post12.tele.dk> References: <000201be3f18$e5ec82c0$e38493c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000201be3f18$e5ec82c0$e38493c3@pacific> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:30:11 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >++++ Very funny. Ha! ha! ha! > Are we talking about that claim where the player=20 >had reduced himself to a choice between playing a suit >of x.x. opposite K.J.x.x.x. for both A and Q to be onside >or alternatively a suit of K.Q. opposite A.J.9.x. for the 10 >to drop in three rounds? We are talking about a case where a player with those cards had made a trick 3 claim that included 4 (not further specified) club tricks, and where it was obvious that he had not noted the blockage and that the 4 club tricks he was intending to claim were the K, Q, A, and J. And I think you've got the possible lines wrong. If you wish the discussion from February 1997 to be re-opened, I suggest that you first read the approximately 60 messages it consisted of. I'll be happy to send them to you (or anybody else who might be interested) if you want, but I would like to avoid a repeat performance of the same discussion we had then. > And who is this great god "We" >who ordained which is normal and which is not and, Almost all of the BLML members who took part in the discussion. We are TDs: it is our job to judge what is normal and what is not in claims situations. The law book says so. > when >the player chose the latter course, successfully, from=20 The player did not choose anything. He claimed some tricks at a point where he had no idea that there was a choice to be made, and the rest was the TD's job. >whence came this mighty power with which "We" was=20 >invested that allowed him to deny the player his choice >whether it were judged normal or not?=20 Nobody denied him anything. A TD ruled a contested claim, and BLML discussed it. Are you saying that a player who has claimed has a choice of lines of play when his claim turns out to be meaningless? >If any Director were so arrogant as to impose another=20 >course on a player in these circumstances only an=20 >irrational national authority could fail to restore law and >order. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ I'll be happy to discuss this case further with you when you've read the earlier discussion. That discussion did convince David S to change his mind - it might convince you too. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 07:24:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 07:24:38 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA17218 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 07:24:32 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA24701; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:23:53 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.33) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma024663; Wed Jan 13 14:23:40 1999 Received: by har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE3F08.CC95A500@har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:24:23 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3F08.CC95A500@har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'David Burn'" , "woodruffld@cardiff.ac.uk" Subject: RE: Back on line Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:43:15 -0500 Encoding: 26 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The question we are duty bound to examine in the claim statement that the live clarinet quartet saved the evening is whether such a grouping should be deemed irrational. Would it have been discovered early that the evening was void perhaps limiting the reeds to a trio? ---------- From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 6:30 AM To: woodruffld@cardiff.ac.uk; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re:Back on line Dear Laura Sending this one from the Psion - only way to update its list of addresses, as far as I can tell. Camrose dinner one of the shortest and most sober in living memory, no doubt because almost everyone was driving home afterwards. Stanley's speech was appalling even by his standards, Howarth is no Geoff Evans, Jim couldn't tell his usual jokes because the Mayor was also the Vicar. Still, the food was OK for both quantity and quality, and they had a live clarinet quartet who were surprisingly good, so the thing wasnt' a total blast. Dave From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 07:38:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 07:38:45 +1100 Received: from m3.sprynet.com (m3.sprynet.com [165.121.1.55]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA17259 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 07:38:38 +1100 Received: from ivillage.ivillage.com (dal-qbu-zoy-vty12.as.wcom.net [209.154.127.12]) by m3.sprynet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA08715 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:51:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990113142748.009a35e0@m3.sprynet.com> X-Sender: baresch@m3.sprynet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:37:58 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: RE: Limited opening alerts In-Reply-To: <199901131840.KAA02601@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >|At least within the ACBL, any pair playing a system using limited opening= =20 >|bids has the responsibility to prealert their opponents about the system= =20 >|being before the start of the round.=20 > >This is not true. As a result, the rest of the >argument does not follow. > --Jeff I'm with Jeff on this one. The ACBL's Alert Procedure document (on their Web site at http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/alertproc.htm) says three things require pre-alerts: two-system methods, methods based on very light openings or unusually agressive methods, or: "SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS=20 "Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include either strong or weak no trumps with or without five-card majors. The forcing opening bid will most often be either a natural, strong two bid or an artificial forcing opening of 1C or 2C.=20 "When you play a system structured along different agreements than these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canap=E9 system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction begins (a 10 to 12 1NT range with distributional requirements for minor suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the opponents." So a strong-club system doesn't require pre-alerts. In practice, in team matches (including Swiss) I pre-alert our system anyway to save time with explanations later; I've found it speeds the game considerably because the opps don't need to ask about 1D* ("could be a doubleton") and so forth; the alert at the time of the bid is enough of a reminder. But in pairs games I don't bother unless the opps are true beginners (there are a few such folks, teenagers, playing at one of the local clubs these days, and I go out of my way to accommodate them). BTW, thanks to everyone who responded to my original inquiry, both on and off the list. I'm glad to be associated with this crew, and once I pass my director's exam (real soon now! I'm inspired) I think I'll be much the better director for it. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@m3.sprynet.com Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 08:12:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:12:40 +1100 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA17321 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:12:31 +1100 Received: from modem27.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.155] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 100XaS-0006Sl-00; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:12:25 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L25A and L16C Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 06:26:39 -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 "It is said the Athenians would not believe their loss, in great degree because of the person who first brought them news of it" ===================================== ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L25A and L16C > Date: 11 January 1999 03:26 > > Jan Kamras wrote: > > >I'm working of my old 1987 rulebook here (no mention in 25A of "until > >partner...." > ++++ Well, perhaps we could manage between the lot of us to raise enough to pay for a new law book for him? ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 08:12:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:12:43 +1100 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA17322 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:12:32 +1100 Received: from modem27.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.155] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 100XaU-0006Sl-00; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:12:26 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: L25A and L16C Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:30:01 -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 "It is said the Athenians would not believe their loss, in great degree because of the person who first brought them news of it" ===================================== ---------- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: L25A and L16C > Date: 11 January 1999 22:02 > ------------------ \x/ -------------------- > > L21 says nothing whatsoever about opponents' methods, except in the > parenthetical in L21B1, which merely tells us that a failure to alert is > one form of MI. L21B requires only that "he made the call as a result of > misinformation given to him by an opponent". When a player puts the 1H bid > card out in the course of actually bidding 1S (which is what happens when > the 1H "non-bid" is to be subsequently corrected without penalty to 1S > under L25A) and LHO calls based on the bid card, not the "real" bid (which > has yet to be heard), it sounds perfectly reasonable to conclude that LHO's > call was "made... as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent". > ------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- +++ I have been thinking this over. I cannot make up my mind whether your next statement following this would be that a psyche is misinformation by the same criterion? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 08:12:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:12:44 +1100 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA17323 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:12:34 +1100 Received: from modem27.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.155] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 100XaV-0006Sl-00; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:12:27 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: L25A and L16C Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 08:00:28 -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 "It is said the Athenians would not believe their loss, in great degree because of the person who first brought them news of it" ===================================== ---------- From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25A and L16C Date: 11 January 1999 22:14 ----------------- \x/ ------------------- I think you mean 16B3. +++ Yes +++ ---------------- \x/ ------------------- On the other hand, L25B uses the word "offender" about a player who has made a perfectly legal change of call - perhaps that is a sufficient excuse to call NS "offenders". (But I don't really like using the absurdities of L25B as an excuse for a ruling which otherwise is based on the very sensible L25A.) +++ The use of 'offender' in the law book is now loose, perhaps because laws have been changed piecemeal over the years. Given the 'Scope of the Laws' we possibly intend 'offender' only in circumstances where a penalty would be disciplinary; where any penalty or rectification would be procedural the word is perhaps used to designate a player whose irregular action has caused a problem for the Director. Something to think about, maybe. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 08:51:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:51:26 +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 IAA17428 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:51:16 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA03631 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:50:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990113165253.00699e24@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:52:53 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts In-Reply-To: <369CF1CE.28FA@mindspring.com> References: <199901131724.MAA14582@mime4.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:20 AM 1/13/99 -0800, John wrote: >While too many alerts can be annoying, I can't see a reason not to alert >this. Question: Suppose, while playing a strong-club, very light opener >system I alerted partner's 4H bid on this auction, *knowing* that ACBL >had ruled differently. Would it be appropriate to give me a PP? I can't imagine an ACBL TD ever issuing a penalty of any kind for an unnecessary alert. If it came up, you would, at most, be told very gently that the bid didn't need to be alerted. The ACBL's oft-repeated position is that you should, in effect, alert every bid your partner makes unless you are certain that it is not alertable, and then alert it anyhow if you have any reason to believe that your opponents might not be familiar with its (non-alertable) meaning. 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 Jan 14 09:36:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:36:15 +1100 Received: from smtp3.mindspring.com (smtp3.mindspring.com [207.69.200.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA17544 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:36:09 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka9ar.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.37.91]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA14994 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 17:36:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990113164251.006d9070@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:42:51 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L25A and L16C (Is THIS Legal?) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I still have some questions about the implications of the prevailing position about UI consequent to a L25A change of call. First let me summarize the view which seems to have emerged: If a player elects to change his call under L25A after LHO has called (but, perforce, prior to a call by his partner), then LHO may change his call to any call which would be legal with respect to the substitued call. The authority for this derives from L21B, Call based on Misinformation from an Opponent. The fact of the original calls, and any conclusion which may be derived from them, is UI to the player exercising his L25A rights and to his partner, but AI to the opponents, since we elect to treat that player as an "offender", notwithstanding the "without penalty" clause of 25A. As someone who approaches the Laws more from the perspective of a player than an adjudicator, it seems to me that this presents the opportunity for an interesting, if somewhat obscure, bit of strategy. It seems apparent that in the given situation, it is almost always in LHO's interest to change his call, given the possible restrictions forced upon his opponents by the consequent UI. But for such a tactic to be maximally effective it would be well to have agreements with one's partner concerning the meaning of these changed calls. As a starting point, I would propose that if LHO has not initally (re)doubled, then (re)double simply repeats or reinforces the meaning of the original call, while Pass repeats the meaning of a previous (re)double. I have other ideas in this vein, but would solicit input from other BLMLers about the legality of such understandings before investing too much energy in this project. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 09:44:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:44:45 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA17583 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:44:39 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n45.san.rr.com [204.210.46.69]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA10459 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:44:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901132244.OAA10459@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:43:09 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) wrote: > > |I sent a note to ACBL Tournament Department on on behalf of > |Brian and received the following response. > | > |-Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator > |=========================================================== > | > |The >>>> is from the ACBL Tournament Department > | > |Would you agree that when someone opens 2H weak and their partner jumps > |to game, that the 4H bidder could have either a hand in which they > |expect to make 4H or a hand where they are preempting the auction and > |making it tougher for the opponents to bid? > | > |>>>> Agreed. No alert required. > | > | > |This situation is being related to systems where an opening 1 bid is > |limited due to a strong opening 1C system. > | > |If someone bids 1H and their partner bids 4H, does 4H need an alert that > |it can be either a weak hand or a hand where game is expected to make? > |Does 1H X 4H change the obligation? > | > |>>>>No alert required in either case. > > The ACBL Tournament Department is wrong. > I quote from the current alert pamphlet: > "Treatments that show unusual strength... > should be Alerted." It is not usual for > 1H-(x)-4H to be able to have 14 HCP. > Therefore it must be alerted. > > Without reading the convention charts, > common sense should tell us that this > 4H bid should be alerted. It may take > the opponents by surprise and that surprise > could damage them. Therefore, it requires > an alert. That's the whole point of Alerting. Jeff is certainly right here. His opinion could be extended to jump rebids by openers who have denied 16 HCP by their opening. Another pertinent quote from the ACBL Alert Procedure: "Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted. This includes strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong, and all other bids that, by agreement, convey meanings different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning ascribed to them." I would say that 1H-P-4H sounds weak, but what makes a bid "sound" strong or weak? Does an opening 2S sound strong or weak? Whichever, why isn't the opposite meaning Alertable? And where is the document in which expected meanings are "ascribed"? The ACBL should provide the "ascribed" meaning for frequently-occurring calls, since many players do not know what the "expected meaning" is for all of them. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 10:46:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:46:53 +1100 Received: from spartacus (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA17731 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:46:35 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by spartacus with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 100ZzY-0005O2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:46:29 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990114003945.00a44610@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:39:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: L25A and L16C (Is THIS Legal?) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990113164251.006d9070@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:42 13-01-99 -0500, you wrote: >I still have some questions about the implications of the prevailing >position about UI consequent to a L25A change of call. First let me >summarize the view which seems to have emerged: > > If a player elects to change his call under L25A after LHO has called >(but, perforce, prior to a call by his partner), then LHO may change his >call to any call which would be legal with respect to the substitued call. >The authority for this derives from L21B, Call based on Misinformation from >an Opponent. The fact of the original calls, and any conclusion which may >be derived from them, is UI to the player exercising his L25A rights and to >his partner, but AI to the opponents, since we elect to treat that player >as an "offender", notwithstanding the "without penalty" clause of 25A. > >As someone who approaches the Laws more from the perspective of a player >than an adjudicator, it seems to me that this presents the opportunity for >an interesting, if somewhat obscure, bit of strategy. It seems apparent >that in the given situation, it is almost always in LHO's interest to >change his call, given the possible restrictions forced upon his opponents >by the consequent UI. But for such a tactic to be maximally effective it >would be well to have agreements with one's partner concerning the meaning >of these changed calls. As a starting point, I would propose that if LHO >has not initally (re)doubled, then (re)double simply repeats or reinforces >the meaning of the original call, while Pass repeats the meaning of a >previous (re)double. I have other ideas in this vein, but would solicit >input from other BLMLers about the legality of such understandings before >investing too much energy in this project. > >Mike Dennis > I really hope you never will put ANY energy in this kind of projects. It sounds rather illegal to me. If i would see this 'convention'on your card, i probably will ban you forever from my club (if you mean this seriously, what i doubt). regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 11:37:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:37:59 +1100 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA17833 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:37:51 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.37] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 100amo-0007GI-00; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:37:22 +0000 Message-ID: <199901140037290190.1DDE1DED@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <9901131150.aa12585@flash.irvine.com> References: <9901131150.aa12585@flash.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:37:29 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 13/01/99, at 11:50, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Richard F Beye wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John R. Mayne >> >> >While too many alerts can be annoying, I can't see a reason not to= alert >> >this. Question: Suppose, while playing a strong-club, very light opener >> >system I alerted partner's 4H bid on this auction, *knowing* that ACBL >> >had ruled differently. Would it be appropriate to give me a PP? >> > >> >--JRM >> >> Is it appropriate to intentionally violate the Laws or other regulations >> published by the sponsoring organization? I think we have answered that >> question in the past. > >Wait a minute---where does it say that alerting 4H would violate any >regulations? The last I saw from the ACBL (by way of Chyah) was "No >alert required"---but this is *not* the same as "Alerting is >illegal"!!! > >Am I missing something? I don't think so. There are a number of positions in which I offer the= opponents what I term a "courtesy alert" - this phrase did not originate= with me, but to my shame I cannot remember who coined it. I suppose that= this might get me into trouble one of these days. For example, if I open= 1H, the next hand doubles, and my partner bids 3H, I will (in a certain= standard of competition) alert. If I have gauged the standard of the= opponents correctly, my RHO might ask a question, and I will explain that= 3H is pre-emptive - he could have bid 2NT, etc... (He could, in our= methods, also have bid 2D transfer, followed by a game try, but they are= not interested in that - however, does that make 3H more or less= alertable?) So far, I have had no complaints. But in ACBL or even EBU land, I might= catch an RHO who passes, to his detriment, and then claims that "because= he alerted, I assumed that 3H must have an abnormal meaning - which could= only be a limit raise. So I passed, when I would have bid if he hadn't= alerted because then I would have known it was pre-emptive." I don't, as yet, know what to do about this case: I open 1H, LHO bids 2D= and partner bids 3D. I alert (of course). No one asks, and I bid 4H,= passed out. Dummy puts down an 11 count or so, and the opponents are= unhappy. "You forced to game on that?" "No, I didn't - I showed a limit= raise or better." "Well, if I'd known you didn't have to have a strong= hand, I'd have..." Having said that I don't know what to do, I need to qualify this. I know= exactly what to do - change the Laws so that [without screens] following= an alert, it is mandatory for the next hand to ask a question. You would= not believe the number of problems that this solves, while not creating= any apart from slowing down the game. But I don't expect any of you to buy= this one. At least, not yet - though the ACBL have taken a large step in= the right direction with their distinction between alerts and= announcements. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 11:46:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:46:41 +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 LAA17856 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:46:34 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.37] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 100avx-00041G-00; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:46:49 +0000 Message-ID: <199901140046130180.1DE61D04@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901131654.KAA17814@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <199901131654.KAA17814@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:46:13 +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 Craig wrote: [snip] > If the laws wanted to require claimer to make such a statement, >they would have to either use a word stronger than "should", or re-write >L70 to get rid of words like "equitably" and "irrational" and replace the >law with "Claimer will lose any trick he could possibly lose when his >clarification statement is enacted. If no clarification statement was >made, claimer loses all tricks that could be lost on any legal combination >of plays." The effect of the current law is to make the clarification >statement desirable but not required. Now, that's my kind of Law! And, when it comes down to it, my kind of game= - where everyone knows the rules and the penalties you pay for breaking= them. Why, in all seriousness, do we not write the Laws that way? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 11:58:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:58:36 +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 LAA17876 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:58:29 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100b78-00078m-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:58:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 17:05:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Back on line References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Dear Laura > >Sending this one from the Psion - only way to update its list of addresses, as >far as I can tell. Camrose dinner one of the shortest and most sober in living >memory, no doubt because almost everyone was driving home afterwards. Stanley's >speech was appalling even by his standards, Howarth is no Geoff Evans, Jim >couldn't tell his usual jokes because the Mayor was also the Vicar. Still, the >food was OK for both quantity and quality, and they had a live clarinet quartet >who were surprisingly good, so the thing wasnt' a total blast. > >Dave Whoops! :) -- 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 Jan 14 11:58:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:58:40 +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 LAA17882 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:58:34 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100b7D-00079E-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:58:28 +0000 Message-ID: <9j6W5AACHNn2Ewst@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 17:02:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this right? References: <199901130848.JAA08723@malibu.ehv.sc.philips.com> In-Reply-To: <199901130848.JAA08723@malibu.ehv.sc.philips.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Con Holzscherer wrote: >John R. Mayne recently wrote: > >> The question is, suppose you prematurely put the stop card out. >> Should you then make a skip bid, even if such bid has an >> entirely different meaning? > > There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say >that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete >bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. >Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled >this way? No. Perhaps one of these TDs could point me to the law that they are applying? -- 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 Jan 14 12:37:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA17959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:37:50 +1100 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA17954 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:37:36 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.37] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 100bij-0002TY-00; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 01:37:13 +0000 Message-ID: <199901140137100940.1E14C740@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990113133900.007ae100@eiu.edu> References: <369B3132.1D428C60@village.uunet.be> <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> <199901111429000220.1163D553@mail.btinternet.com> <369B3132.1D428C60@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990113133900.007ae100@eiu.edu> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 01:37:10 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: cfgcs@eiu.edu Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Grant Thanks for a fascinating and very well thought out analysis. My reply will be brief, and address only a single point - though a crucial= one to my arguments. I will consider the rest of what you say carefully at= some point in the near future, and try to do justice to your reasoning. [snip] > Claimer cannot be forced to follow an impossible line, because it is >impossible to figure out how many tricks he will take. :) Indeed. So far, as the man said when he fell off the Empire State Building= and went past the ninetieth-floor window, so good. >An incomplete >line must be filled out by the TD if the claim is contested, and will be= so >filled out based on 'normal lines'. These are very deep waters indeed. As you'll have gathered, a crucial= difference between Herman's position and mine is that I don't believe that= any line stated by declarer at the point of claiming can be regarded as= "incomplete". After all, when a man claims, he is doing so in order to= complete the play of the hand - in "fast forward" mode, as it were. Herman= thinks, as far as I can see, that declarer's incomplete statement of how= he will play may be filled in later by declarer (or in some circumstances= by the TD). I think that it may be filled in only by the most= disadvantageous legal play of the cards left out of declarer's statement.= From the above, it appears that you are of Herman's persuasion rather than= mine. However, that is not the point I wish to make at the present moment. >An unsuccessful line is, IMHO, ipso >facto incomplete--at some point it can be seen to break down, and= therefore >ceases at that moment. > > So there's my view--the moment an unsuccessful line can be seen to break >down, that line terminates. Yes - but seen *by whom*? If a man claims five heart tricks with AKQxx= facing xxxx, you and I can see that as soon as he plays the HA and someone= shows out, his line has "broken down". But what have you or I to do with= it? The evidence is that declarer, who assumed he had five heart tricks= when he claimed, would carry on cashing hearts until someone won the= fourth round - unless we stopped him, and what right have we to do that?= Of course we can count, but equally obviously he can't, or he would never= have claimed in the first place (without cashing one round of hearts, at= any rate). To go back to an earlier example of mine. Declarer in 6H has: x xx AKQJ109 xxxx Ax AKQxxxx x AKQJ The lead is SK. Declarer wins, curses his partner about the bidding for a= while, cashes HA on which East shows out, and has detached HK from his= hand when a kibitzer sitting behind him says: "Nasty trump break - good= job you weren't in seven!" He blinks, puts HK back in his hand, ruffs a= spade in dummy and makes his contract. West is void in diamonds, and= protests. What ruling would you give? I think I know the answer to that. Now, why is it OK for the TD to fulfil= the role of that kibitzer when declarer, instead of playing as I have= described, spreads his hand and says: "drawing trumps, making seven"? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 13:17:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA17991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:17:57 +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 NAA17986 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:17:48 +1100 Received: from modem5.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.133] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 100cLn-0003uZ-00; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 02:17:36 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Claim Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 02:16:03 -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 "It is said the Athenians would not believe their loss, in great degree because of the person who first brought them news of it" ===================================== ---------- > From: Adam Beneschan > To: Bridge Laws > Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com > Subject: Re: Claim > > ----------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > So while Jan is talking about declarer stating a really stupid line > that happens to work, the example you're citing is about whether to > assume a line THAT DECLARER DIDN'T STATE. Apples and oranges. ++++ Declarer nominated how many tricks in each suit. None of them in Hearts and no Heart play proposed. Within the scope of his statement he only has one route, one that some might think inferior but which is not nonsensical. When there is such a route which is embraced within his statement it should be followed. The directors persist in a fixation to do with the club tricks; claimer made no statement which club tricks he was to win - no doubt carelessly - but what he said would be satisfied by the tricks he actually has in clubs whereas the directors have taken it upon themselves to demand that they must be A.K.Q.J., something claimer omitted to say, and they have gone on to impose on him a play in hearts which his statement does not include. So it is the directors who are taking him outside of his statement when there is a 'normal' line which abides wholly within what he has actually said, presumably because they feel he should not get lucky with a sloppy claim. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 13:55:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:55:15 +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 NAA18035 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:55:09 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.92] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 100cuj-0000oh-00; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 02:53:41 +0000 Message-ID: <199901140253040480.1E5A453A@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE3F08.CC95A500@har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com> References: <01BE3F08.CC95A500@har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 02:53:04 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: rts48u@ix.netcom.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Back on line Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 13/01/99, at 14:43, Craig Senior wrote: >The question we are duty bound to examine in the claim statement that the >live clarinet quartet saved the evening is whether such a grouping should >be deemed irrational. Would it have been discovered early that the evening= >was void perhaps limiting the reeds to a trio? Almost certainly. But, during their rendition of the Chatanooga Choo Choo,= they were unanimously fined by the audience for slow play. At that rate,= we'd have been lucky to get to Pennsylvania station by a quarter past six. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 14:53:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:53:10 +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 OAA18102 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:53:04 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 100dq3-0002FX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:52:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:10:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts References: <01be3f27$fc341a20$LocalHost@default> In-Reply-To: <01be3f27$fc341a20$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: >>While too many alerts can be annoying, I can't see a reason not to alert >>this. Question: Suppose, while playing a strong-club, very light opener >>system I alerted partner's 4H bid on this auction, *knowing* that ACBL >>had ruled differently. Would it be appropriate to give me a PP? >Is it appropriate to intentionally violate the Laws or other regulations >published by the sponsoring organization? I think we have answered that >question in the past. It is difficult to give an overall answer to this. Surely, the answer is Yes, in certain circumstances. If a TD gives you an instruction, you *must* follow it - but not if it put your life in danger, such as telling you to sit down despite a fire. Furthermore, I think all bridge players violate Laws with no worry at all when it is to the benefit of their opponents, especially weak ones. There are also trivial cases where the Laws are broken, such as communication between partners. Dummies have told partner to claim when we know they should not - but since declarer was all top tricks, did it matter? However, any player who does violate a Law or regulation must realise that it is dangerous: he may have misjudged the situation: he may see things differently from a TD or an opponent who does not think it is trivial: he may even run into a Bridge Lawyer [normal meaning of term] who does not *care* whether it is trivial. Alerting is interesting, because players often assume they know better than the RA [regulating authority], and this may be wrong. On the other hand, many alerting rules have much flexibility in them, which means that a player is not *wrong* not to follow the apparently obvious rules on alerting. -- 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 Jan 14 15:05:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA18146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:05:31 +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 PAA18141 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:05:17 +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 SAA08272 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:39:35 -0900 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:39:35 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts In-Reply-To: <01be3f28$b5cceb60$LocalHost@default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Richard F Beye wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Goldsmith > > >The ACBL Tournament Department is wrong. > >I quote from the current alert pamphlet: > >"Treatments that show unusual strength... > >should be Alerted." It is not usual for > >1H-(x)-4H to be able to have 14 HCP. > >Therefore it must be alerted. > > > >Without reading the convention charts, > >common sense should tell us that this > >4H bid should be alerted. It may take > >the opponents by surprise and that surprise > >could damage them. Therefore, it requires > >an alert. That's the whole point of Alerting. > I too was surprised and disappointed by the missive from the ACBL tournament department. Hoepfully someone has the article at hand and can cnfirm or deny this; but my recollection is that the June 1996 Bulletin article on the new alerting rules specifically mentioned that the sequence 1M-P-4M in Precision must be alerted. (This is the same article that explained that 1C-P-1H is alertable if it promises 5 hearts, but not if it promises 4 hearts and is forcing one round.) I remember the article well, because I received this bulletin in the mail whiel I was away attending a regional in Salt Lake City. During the last round of the Sunday Swiss, partner and I had an auction beginning 1C-P-1H with the 1H bid being 8+ points. Opponents had a fit, called the director, and demanded we alert this bid "since everybody else responds 1H with even 3 points and a decent suit"... the TD didn't give a ruling but mumbled various things about making sure opponents understood our system. Very next board the oponents bid 1M-P-4M playing Precision; dummy hits with 11 HCP, 5 small trump, and a singleton in clubs. Declarer indicates to me that, yes, he considers this a normal raise to 4H; we call the director back and he looks like partner and me like we are from Mars, but aasks if we would have done anything different. (No. I had a double of a standard 4H preemptive raise but had an inkling that the opponents played 4H the usual Precision way even though they had not alerted, so I didn't double them. I suppose if I was more of a bridge lawyer I would have doubled, then called the director when I saw dummy and asked him to adjust to 4H not doubled.) And the worst part of it was -- up until the last hour of the tournament I was having a great time, the people and the hospitality were excellent -- and the jerk who gave me so much grief on the last round was the tournament chairman. End of anecdote; anyone still have the article? Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 15:14:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA18175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:14:14 +1100 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA18170 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:14:07 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.244] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 100eA6-0004Rt-00; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:13:39 +0000 Message-ID: <199901140413450560.1EA42682@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:13:45 +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="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 14/01/99, at 02:16, Grattan wrote: >> From: Adam Beneschan >> To: Bridge Laws >> Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com >> Subject: Re: Claim >> > ----------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- >> So while Jan is talking about declarer stating a really stupid line >> that happens to work, the example you're citing is about whether to >> assume a line THAT DECLARER DIDN'T STATE. Apples and oranges. > >++++ Declarer nominated how many tricks in each suit. None of >them in Hearts and no Heart play proposed. Within the scope of his >statement he only has one route, one that some might think inferior >but which is not nonsensical. When there is such a route which is >embraced within his statement it should be followed. The directors >persist in a fixation to do with the club tricks; claimer made no >statement which club tricks he was to win - no doubt carelessly - but >what he said would be satisfied by the tricks he actually has in clubs >whereas the directors have taken it upon themselves to demand that >they must be A.K.Q.J., something claimer omitted to say, and they >have gone on to impose on him a play in hearts which his statement >does not include. So it is the directors who are taking him outside of >his statement when there is a 'normal' line which abides wholly within >what he has actually said, presumably because they feel he should >not get lucky with a sloppy claim. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Too, as they say in Australia for reasons that I have yet to fathom, true,= blue. Of course he gets four club tricks. That's what he said he'd get,= wasn't it - and presumably, he had a reason for so saying. I had not paid= any attention to the "strange claim" thread while I was being so voluble= about the more recent one. But if the "majority view" was to deny= declarer's claim in the former, while allowing it in the latter, then the= majority is - well, "homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto", so I had= better say no more. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 16:29:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA18271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:29:35 +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 QAA18266 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:29:28 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka858.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.168]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA07079 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:29:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990114002912.006e21b0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:29:12 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L25A and L16C (Is THIS Legal?) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990114003945.00a44610@cable.mail.a2000.nl> References: <3.0.1.32.19990113164251.006d9070@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:39 AM 1/14/99 +0100, Anton wrote: >I really hope you never will put ANY energy in this kind of projects. >It sounds rather illegal to me. If i would see this 'convention'on your >card, i probably will ban you forever from my club (if you mean this >seriously, what i doubt). It seems illegal to me, too, but I'm not sure what law would apply. You would ban me forever for an apparently legal tactic? That seems a bit extreme. Am I serious? Completely, as to the tactical wisdom of LHO changing his call so as to create UI problems for the opponents, if the prevailing view of L25A is correct (which, frankly I still have my doubts about). Making one's bid UI to the opponents imposes a real and substantial penalty, and it would be foolish to pass up the opportunity for such mischief. Consider the original problem. Declarer had to guess trumps with KJ9xx opposite ATx in dummy. With the help of the retracted double from LHO, it was a no-brainer to play the suit "backwards" and run the J. But there might have been other clues from the bidding or play that pointed to this line, and in any case declarer might have guessed right without this hint. Perhaps he bangs down the J and watches LHO. Plenty of declarers pride themselves on their ability to pick up a missing Q, based in part on table feel. So when we determine that such a possiblity is out-of-bounds for this declarer on this hand, we have imposed a cost, or a "penalty", if you like. Well, maybe preventing declarer from taking an unusual "backwards" finesse is not _so_ bad. But it could be worse. Suppose it is his partner who winds up declaring, with KJ9xx opposite ATx. Assuming we impose the same UI restrictions on him, we have disallowed even the normal way to play the suit (small to the A, running the T), since surely there are logical alternatives, and this normal line is marked by the retracted double. Now there's a real penalty! This declarer will be tagged with down 1 on a hand where everyone's grandmother can take 9 tricks. For those who think that letting the table result stand is completely inequitable, I can only concur. But IMO it is not worse than penalizing North for the exercise of a lawfully protected right, one which is explicitly granted "without penalty". This Hobson's choice is the unavoidable logical consequence of two parts of the Laws which have been altered in the past two cycles. In 1987, the distinction between "bad" UI (i.e., derived from illegal or inappropriate action) and "good" UI (i.e., derived from fulfillment of legal obligations or otherwise beyond the control of the "offenders") was dropped. The effect was to subject all UI situations to the harshest light of L16, imposing on some players a no-win choice when they were in fact guilty of no offense whatsoever. The second ill-considered change came about in the 1997 cycle, when the right of players to change their calls under L25A was explicitly extended "until parter makes a call". Little thought was apparently given to the type of problem we are seeing here, and the need for such an extension is unclear indeed. The really discouraging thing is that according to David, BLML played some role in promoting that change. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 17:06:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA18352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:06:59 +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 RAA18337 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:06:50 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100fvX-0004Jf-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:06:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:04:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Scoring Question In-Reply-To: <2e8c2oAyDAn2Ew+k@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <2e8c2oAyDAn2Ew+k@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Bruce McIntyre wrote >> >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote in message ... >> >>|In matchpointing, the base for the matchpoints (UK method) is -1, not 0. >> >> >>How interesting. A bottom in Britain is worse than a zero! Not sure I >>quite understand why this might seem logical, but I would be tempted to try >>for a negative total in a game that had gone really badly, just to say I'd >>done it! :) > > I think you will find it only happens when Papa John is scoring. > Ok I'll 'fess up. I have awarded negative matchpoints once. I had a movement where 22 boards had been played 11 times and 2 twelve times. (Probably an 11 table hesitation mitchell which wouldn't move to time, so I chopped the last round) Using Neuberg I manually matchpointed to a top of 20 for the 22 boards, and a bottom on the other two boards was minus 0.09, with a top of 20.09 :) Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 17:07:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA18353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:07:00 +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 RAA18338 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:06:51 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100fvY-0004Ju-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:06:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 05:36:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Is this right? In-Reply-To: <199901130848.JAA08723@malibu.ehv.sc.philips.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199901130848.JAA08723@malibu.ehv.sc.philips.com>, Con Holzscherer writes >John R. Mayne recently wrote: > >> The question is, suppose you prematurely put the stop card out. >> Should you then make a skip bid, even if such bid has an >> entirely different meaning? > > There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say >that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete >bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. >Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled >this way? > > Not in the UK. The bid has not been made. The stop card is returned to the box and the partner has the UI implications explained to them. >-- >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 -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 17:06:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA18351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:06:58 +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 RAA18336 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:06:50 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 100fvX-0005RE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:06:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 05:51:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Back on line In-Reply-To: <01BE3F08.CC95A500@har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01BE3F08.CC95A500@har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com>, Craig Senior writes >The question we are duty bound to examine in the claim statement that the >live clarinet quartet saved the evening is whether such a grouping should >be deemed irrational. Would it have been discovered early that the evening >was void perhaps limiting the reeds to a trio? > I'm seriously concerned that there was no bassoon. It seems to me that the minority interests were not properly served. A bit like not having a senior's game, a B flight, a C flight etc etc :)) >---------- >From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] >Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 6:30 AM >To: woodruffld@cardiff.ac.uk; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re:Back on line > >Dear Laura > >Sending this one from the Psion - only way to update its list of addresses, >as far as I can tell. Camrose dinner one of the shortest and most sober in >living memory, no doubt because almost everyone was driving home >afterwards. Stanley's speech was appalling even by his standards, Howarth >is no Geoff Evans, Jim couldn't tell his usual jokes because the Mayor was >also the Vicar. Still, the food was OK for both quantity and quality, and >they had a live clarinet quartet who were surprisingly good, so the thing >wasnt' a total blast. > >Dave > > > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 17:10:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA18385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:10:41 +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 RAA18380 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:10:34 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990114061026.BXUB6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:10:26 -0800 Message-ID: <369D8B2C.881DDBA7@home.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:14:04 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim References: <199901121005.KAA29411@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <369BB0B6.7F52C80C@home.com> <369C8C72.D60E47C5@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > I wrote: > > > > If I claim 12 tricks, stating a really stupid line that > > happens to succeed this time, should TD disallow my claim on the > > grounds that I may only chose a "normal" line?? > > Yes, could happen. > > See the strange claim. > > Claimer stated a line which it would be very difficult for > him to follow in real life, and yet it worked. > The -majority- ruling was that claimer would realise before > playing that that line was an irrational one, and we imposed > on him other "normal" lines, one of which failed. Enough is enough. I'll now end this exchange. If HdW is stating a valid comparison, a big if, then it just goes to show that sometimes the majority is wrong. The day I declare a contract, playing on a 10% line, that happens to succeed this once in a blue moon only to have the TD telling me I'm not allowed to play like that and forcing me to take the 67% line that fails, that's the day I leave this game for good. To pretend that this would be mandated by the FLB is an insult to everyone's intelligence - especially that of the law-makers. Get real! From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 17:29:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA18415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:29:25 +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 RAA18410 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:29:18 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990114062912.CEMR6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:29:12 -0800 Message-ID: <369D8F92.5EA990BD@home.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:32:51 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim References: <000201be3f18$e5ec82c0$e38493c3@pacific> <369df681.13015565@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > We are TDs: it is our job to judge what is normal and what is not > in claims situations. The law book says so. In a disputed claim where claimer wants to change his line yes, but surely not if claimer follows L68C, making a detailed claim-statement including the line (singular) of play he intends to follow, and that leads to success. Has everyone (except GE) lost there minds here? (or is it only me:-)) > >whence came this mighty power with which "We" was > >invested that allowed him to deny the player his choice > >whether it were judged normal or not? > > Nobody denied him anything. A TD ruled a contested claim, and > BLML discussed it. > > Are you saying that a player who has claimed has a choice of > lines of play when his claim turns out to be meaningless? So this is it - we speak of different things. This latest angle was brought by me, and HdW chose to relate it to the old "strange claim" thread. Everyone seems to just accept the analogy, and maybe that's what's wrong. Jesper, forgetting the "strange claim" - thread, If a claimer states one line, and one line only, and it succeeds, can the opponent's get a TD to disallow the claim on the grounds that claimer picked a ridiculous line? That, and only that, was the question here. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 18:40:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA18500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:40:19 +1100 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA18495 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:40:13 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n45.san.rr.com [204.210.46.69]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA08397 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:40:06 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901140740.XAA08397@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:37:58 -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 David Burn wrote: > On 13/01/99, at 11:50, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >Richard F Beye wrote: > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: John R. Mayne > >> > >> >While too many alerts can be annoying, I can't see a reason not to alert > >> >this. Question: Suppose, while playing a strong-club, very light opener > >> >system I alerted partner's 4H bid on this auction, *knowing* that ACBL > >> >had ruled differently. Would it be appropriate to give me a PP? > >> > > >> >--JRM > >> > >> Is it appropriate to intentionally violate the Laws or other regulations > >> published by the sponsoring organization? I think we have answered that > >> question in the past. > > > >Wait a minute---where does it say that alerting 4H would violate any > >regulations? The last I saw from the ACBL (by way of Chyah) was "No > >alert required"---but this is *not* the same as "Alerting is > >illegal"!!! > > > >Am I missing something? > > I don't think so. There are a number of positions in which I offer the opponents what I term a "courtesy alert" - this phrase did not originate with me, but to my shame I cannot remember who coined it. I suppose that this might get me into trouble one of these days. For example, if I open 1H, the next hand doubles, and my partner bids 3H, I will (in a certain standard of competition) alert. If I have gauged the standard of the opponents correctly, my RHO might ask a question, and I will explain that 3H is pre-emptive - he could have bid 2NT, etc... (He could, in our methods, also have bid 2D transfer, followed by a game try, but they are not interested in that - however, does that make 3H more or less alertable?) Why not just follow the ACBL Alert Procedure? 1H-Dbl-3H is not Alertable if preemptive, weak. While Alerting may be a good idea in doubtful situations, this is not one of them. > > So far, I have had no complaints. But in ACBL or even EBU land, I might catch an RHO who passes, to his detriment, and then claims that "because he alerted, I assumed that 3H must have an abnormal meaning - which could only be a limit raise. So I passed, when I would have bid if he hadn't alerted because then I would have known it was pre-emptive." That's why you should follow the ACBL Alert Procedure. You won't get into trouble doing that. > > I don't, as yet, know what to do about this case: I open 1H, LHO bids 2D and partner bids 3D. I alert (of course). Why "of course"? Cue bids are not Alertable unless they have an uncommon meaning. > No one asks, and I bid 4H, passed out. Dummy puts down an 11 count or so, and the opponents are unhappy. "You forced to game on that?" "No, I didn't - I showed a limit raise or better." "Well, if I'd known you didn't have to have a strong hand, I'd have..." The meaning of this cue bid is shown on the ACBL convention card, which should be readily available for view, under SIMPLE OVERCALL. Check that!--It used to be shown on the cc, but no longer is. Who the hell made that change, and why? I guess you have to write it in. It is not Alertable, because it does not have a "very unusual or unexpected meaning." If the opponents have been too lazy to learn the ACBL Alert Procedure, or don't consult the opposing cc about a call that's shown there, that's their choice. > > Having said that I don't know what to do, I need to qualify this. I know exactly what to do - change the Laws so that [without screens] following an alert, it is mandatory for the next hand to ask a question. You would not believe the number of problems that this solves, while not creating any apart from slowing down the game. But I don't expect any of you to buy this one. At least, not yet - though the ACBL have taken a large step in the right direction with their distinction between alerts and announcements. What you should do is follow the ACBL Alert Procedure, and fill out your convention card completely and legibly. You would not believe the number of problems that this solves. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 19:11:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:11:04 +1100 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA18532 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:10:58 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n45.san.rr.com [204.210.46.69]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA11965 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:10:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901140810.AAA11965@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:09:11 -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 Gordon Bower wrote: > > > On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Richard F Beye wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeff Goldsmith > > > > >The ACBL Tournament Department is wrong. > > >I quote from the current alert pamphlet: > > >"Treatments that show unusual strength... > > >should be Alerted." It is not usual for > > >1H-(x)-4H to be able to have 14 HCP. > > >Therefore it must be alerted. > > > > > >Without reading the convention charts, > > >common sense should tell us that this > > >4H bid should be alerted. It may take > > >the opponents by surprise and that surprise > > >could damage them. Therefore, it requires > > >an alert. That's the whole point of Alerting. > > > > I too was surprised and disappointed by the missive from the ACBL > tournament department. Hoepfully someone has the article at hand and can > cnfirm or deny this; but my recollection is that the June 1996 Bulletin > article on the new alerting rules specifically mentioned that the sequence > 1M-P-4M in Precision must be alerted. (This is the same article that > explained that 1C-P-1H is alertable if it promises 5 hearts, but not if it > promises 4 hearts and is forcing one round.) The current ACBL Alert Procedure on the ACBL website, dated 19 September 1997, is the current regulation for Alerts. Anything older is liable to be wrong in some way and should not be trusted. However, 1M-P-4M is currently Alertable if 4M could be based on a good hand. It conveys a meaning "different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning," as the ACBL puts it. That wording makes it Alertable even if it could be based on a weak hand as well as a good hand. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 19:21:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:21:22 +1100 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA18568 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:21:16 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n45.san.rr.com [204.210.46.69]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA12917; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:21:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901140821.AAA12917@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: Claim Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:19:48 -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: - > On 14/01/99, at 02:16, Grattan wrote: > > >> From: Adam Beneschan > >> > >> > ----------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > >> So while Jan is talking about declarer stating a really stupid line > >> that happens to work, the example you're citing is about whether to > >> assume a line THAT DECLARER DIDN'T STATE. Apples and oranges. > > > >++++ Declarer nominated how many tricks in each suit. None of > >them in Hearts and no Heart play proposed. Within the scope of his > >statement he only has one route, one that some might think inferior > >but which is not nonsensical. When there is such a route which is > >embraced within his statement it should be followed. The directors > >persist in a fixation to do with the club tricks; claimer made no > >statement which club tricks he was to win - no doubt carelessly - but > >what he said would be satisfied by the tricks he actually has in clubs > >whereas the directors have taken it upon themselves to demand that > >they must be A.K.Q.J., something claimer omitted to say, and they > >have gone on to impose on him a play in hearts which his statement > >does not include. So it is the directors who are taking him outside of > >his statement when there is a 'normal' line which abides wholly within > >what he has actually said, presumably because they feel he should > >not get lucky with a sloppy claim. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > > Too, as they say in Australia for reasons that I have yet to fathom, true, blue. Of course he gets four club tricks. That's what he said he'd get, wasn't it - and presumably, he had a reason for so saying. I had not paid any attention to the "strange claim" thread while I was being so voluble about the more recent one. But if the "majority view" was to deny declarer's claim in the former, while allowing it in the latter, then the majority is - well, "homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto", so I had better say no more. Terence has another pertinent saying: "Quot homines tot sententiae: suo' quoique mos"-- There as many opinions as there are people: each has his own correct way. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 19:41:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:41:58 +1100 Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA18603 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:41:52 +1100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA10422 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:41:45 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01J6IYMOVFFA004DT2@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:41:42 +0100 Received: by AGRO005S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:44:39 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:46:21 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Is this right? To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C11D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't know of an instruction saying that the bid has to be completed after showing the stopcard. It certainly is not given by the "Weko" (the technical committee of the federation).I can't control what experts in the field are doing. So in the Dutch BF officially this stopcard is considered to give UI, not more nor less. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Con Holzscherer [mailto:holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com] Verzonden: woensdag 13 januari 1999 13:40 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: Is this right? CH> There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say CH> that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete CH> bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. CH> Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled CH> this way? Robin Barker wrote: > Not in this country (England) if they want to remain a TD :-) > > When a dutch TD rules this way, does the player ever ask to be > read the law/regulation which requires him to make a BOOT? I would in case it happened to me, but I don't SOOT, so this will not happen to me. Last Sunday this happened to my partner and she submitted to the ruling docilely. I was thinking about going in appeal, but the result on the board was satisfactory for us, so there was no reason. The TD explained that he had asked for and received explicit instructions how to handle a SOOT from the Dutch organisation that is responsible for the instruction(s) of TDs in the Netherlands (the WEKO). Perhaps Ton Kooijman can shed some light on this. -- 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 Jan 14 21:35:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 21:35:04 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA18742 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 21:34:56 +1100 Received: from p43s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.68] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 100k6t-0003fo-00; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:34:44 +0000 Message-ID: <001201be3fa9$111ba580$448993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robin Barker" , Subject: Re: Claim Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:30:42 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 13 January 1999 19:23 Subject: Re: Claim > >You may well laugh Grattan, but what do you rule? > >- - >xx KJx >KQx - >KQ AJ9x > >West (declarer) is on lead, puts his hand down and says >"I will take KQ of diamonds and AKQJ of clubs". >Why should we give him C9 ? > ++++ Exactly so. Here it is not the great god "We" that has fitted cards to "four club tricks" but claimer himself who has made a carefully screwed up claim. So he is in trouble that does not attach to the words used in the other claim. I was particularly careful when the argument was going on to watch for his words, and claimer did not specify his four tricks nor had he been asked to specify - it was all the little gods around who decided what was "obvious", so that they could then take it away from him. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 23:22:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:22:41 +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 XAA18925 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:22:35 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-118.uunet.be [194.7.13.118]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28729 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:22:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <369DD7A8.5E61D70F@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:40:24 +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: <000201be3f18$e5ec82c0$e38493c3@pacific> <369df681.13015565@post12.tele.dk> <369D8F92.5EA990BD@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > > Jesper, forgetting the "strange claim" - thread, If a claimer states one > line, and one line only, and it succeeds, can the opponent's get a TD to > disallow the claim on the grounds that claimer picked a ridiculous line? > That, and only that, was the question here. I realise that the analogy with the strange claim is just that, an analogy, not completely the same thing. I agree we don't want to reopen the can of worms that is the strange claim. To answer your question, Jan, suppose it goes something like this : Claimer : I make so many tricks, by playing so-and-so Opponent : But that is irrational, you don't have ... Claimer : Oh yes that's right, I shall play like this ... Opponent : Stop, let's first call the director TD : What was your original statement ? Claimer : Playing so-and-so, but I now realise this is irrational, and I want to change it to TD : Let's face the cards Claimer : hey, look at that, my irrational line actually works ! Do you expect the man to get his contract ? Well, you might, but I don't. In 99.5% of these cases, the irrational line does not work, and in 20% of them, there is no normal line that fails, so we award the claim. This is the 0.5% case. Claimer shall also get the worst of all normal lines. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 14 23:22:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:22:58 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18932 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:22:51 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-118.uunet.be [194.7.13.118]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28780 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:22:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <369DDD8D.A6BFCE4C@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:05:33 +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: Scoring Question References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article <2e8c2oAyDAn2Ew+k@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes > >Bruce McIntyre wrote > >> > >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote in message ... > >> > >>|In matchpointing, the base for the matchpoints (UK method) is -1, not 0. > >> Exactly ! In Ascherman counting, the base is 0, the normal least score is 1. > >> > >>How interesting. A bottom in Britain is worse than a zero! Not sure I > >>quite understand why this might seem logical, but I would be tempted to try > >>for a negative total in a game that had gone really badly, just to say I'd > >>done it! :) > > > > I think you will find it only happens when Papa John is scoring. > > > Ok I'll 'fess up. I have awarded negative matchpoints once. I had a > movement where 22 boards had been played 11 times and 2 twelve times. > (Probably an 11 table hesitation mitchell which wouldn't move to time, > so I chopped the last round) Using Neuberg I manually matchpointed to a > top of 20 for the 22 boards, and a bottom on the other two boards was > minus 0.09, with a top of 20.09 :) Cheers John Absolutely correct reasoning. A bottom score out of 12 tables is worse bridge than a bottom out of 11, so if you award 0.00 to the latter, you must be prepared to award -0.09 to the former. In Ascherman, the bottom out of 11 can be awarded 1/22, and the bottom out of 12 will then be 0.91/22. This is exactly the same as awarding 1.09/24 to the first and 1/24 to the second. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 00:18:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:18:01 +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 AAA21254 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:17:55 +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 NAA25508 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:17:34 GMT Received: by nlxrtd1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:17:18 +0100 Message-ID: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B3C@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> From: "Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam)" To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: Is this right? Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:17:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: ... > > There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say > >that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete > >bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. > >Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled > >this way? > > > > > Not in the UK. The bid has not been made. The stop card is returned to > the box and the partner has the UI implications explained to them. > >-- and David Stevenson wrote: > No. > Perhaps one of these TDs could point me to the law that they are >applying? Of course the laws don't cover the use of the stop card or the procedures for the use of bidding boxes in general. The Nederlandse Bridge Bond has rules for the use of bidding boxes in its Competition Rules but even these don't really go far enough. The laws ought to be modernised to include the procedure for using bidding boxes in the same way that the procedure for playing cards is specified. That said, the general approach in my experience (in the Netherlands) is that once the bidding card has left the box (the bottom of the card approx 1 cm from the top of the box), then the bid has been made, even if is not visible to the other players. The stop card procedure (i.e. treating it as merely part of the bid) is merely an extension of this approach. Similar situations can arise without bidding boxes. e.g. A player says "Stop", pauses and then the other players say "it is not your turn to bid". Or even without the "stop" a player could make an incomplete bid such as "Two...." (e.g. deciding whether to open 2NT or 2S holding 20 points and a good 5 card spade, or notices that he has 7 cards in the suit so deciding whether or not to bid "Three...") and then the OOT its noticed. The laws just don't cover this situation! It could just be treated as UI but it could be argued that it is a BOOT (or was the player going to continue after "Stop" with "wasting time dealer, get on and bid", or after "Two..." with "beers please waiter") and handle the UI which goes with a BOOT according to the laws 28 to 31. When bidding boxes are used, it is obvious when a player is bidding, even if the action is not completed, as in this stop card situation, but also when the cards have been removed from the box and placed face down on the table while the player thinks whether he really wants to make this bid. It feels correct to me to require the player to complete his bid and then rule on OOT, insufficient bid or whatever. Geoff. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 00:25:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:25:41 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA21285 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:25:35 +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 IAA20949 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:24:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990114082704.0069b824@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:27:04 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L25A and L16C In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:30 AM 1/13/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: >---------- >> From: Eric Landau >> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >> Subject: Re: L25A and L16C >> Date: 11 January 1999 22:02 >> >------------------ \x/ -------------------- >> >> L21 says nothing whatsoever about opponents' methods, except in the >> parenthetical in L21B1, which merely tells us that a failure to alert is >> one form of MI. L21B requires only that "he made the call as a result of >> misinformation given to him by an opponent". When a player puts the 1H bid >> card out in the course of actually bidding 1S (which is what happens when >> the 1H "non-bid" is to be subsequently corrected without penalty to 1S >> under L25A) and LHO calls based on the bid card, not the "real" bid (which >> has yet to be heard), it sounds perfectly reasonable to conclude that LHO's >> call was "made... as a result of misinformation given to him by an >opponent". >> >------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- >+++ I have been thinking this over. I cannot make up my >mind whether your next statement following this would be >that a psyche is misinformation by the same criterion? The dictionary might think so, but it seems natural to interpret the "misinformation" addressed in L21 as not merely incorrect information, but as incorrect information on a matter about which the opponents are entitled to correct information (such as RHO's bid, or systemic agreements). Admittedly, L21 doesn't say so explicitly, but I can only assume that the writers of the law didn't see the need to state the obvious. If we were to interpret psychs as misinformation under L21, wouldn't we have to similarly interpret false signals as misinformation under L47E2? 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 Jan 15 00:32:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:32:09 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA21304 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:32:03 +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 IAA21137 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:31:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990114083347.006dce60@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:33:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L25A and L16C (Is THIS Legal?) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990113164251.006d9070@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:42 PM 1/13/99 -0500, Michael wrote: >As someone who approaches the Laws more from the perspective of a player >than an adjudicator, it seems to me that this presents the opportunity for >an interesting, if somewhat obscure, bit of strategy. It seems apparent >that in the given situation, it is almost always in LHO's interest to >change his call, given the possible restrictions forced upon his opponents >by the consequent UI. But for such a tactic to be maximally effective it >would be well to have agreements with one's partner concerning the meaning >of these changed calls. As a starting point, I would propose that if LHO >has not initally (re)doubled, then (re)double simply repeats or reinforces >the meaning of the original call, while Pass repeats the meaning of a >previous (re)double. I have other ideas in this vein, but would solicit >input from other BLMLers about the legality of such understandings before >investing too much energy in this project. This would presumably be illegal in the ACBL, which has forbidden specific agreements about actions taken after an opponent's irregularity. 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 Jan 15 00:38:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:38:59 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f223.hotmail.com [207.82.251.114]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA21340 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:38:53 +1100 Received: (qmail 8151 invoked by uid 0); 14 Jan 1999 13:38:18 -0000 Message-ID: <19990114133818.8150.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 05:38:18 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Back on line Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 05:38:18 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote >Almost certainly. But, during their rendition of the Chatanooga Choo Choo,= > they were unanimously fined by the audience for slow play. At that rate,= > we'd have been lucky to get to Pennsylvania station by a quarter past six. > > > You're leaving that Pennsylvania station at a quarter to four, not going to it. Norman (putting in an early bid for the Pedantic Twerp of the Year Award. I may not know much about claims and leads out of turn, but I do know the words of Chatanooga Choo Choo...) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 00:57:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:57:12 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA21365 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:57:05 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA21849 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:56:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990114085852.006e2860@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:58:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts In-Reply-To: <199901132244.OAA10459@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:43 PM 1/13/99 -0800, mlfrench wrote: >Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > >> The ACBL Tournament Department is wrong. >> I quote from the current alert pamphlet: >> "Treatments that show unusual strength... >> should be Alerted." It is not usual for >> 1H-(x)-4H to be able to have 14 HCP. >> Therefore it must be alerted. >> >> Without reading the convention charts, >> common sense should tell us that this >> 4H bid should be alerted. It may take >> the opponents by surprise and that surprise >> could damage them. Therefore, it requires >> an alert. That's the whole point of Alerting. > >Jeff is certainly right here. His opinion could be extended to jump >rebids by openers who have denied 16 HCP by their opening. > >Another pertinent quote from the ACBL Alert Procedure: > >"Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted. >This includes strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound >strong, and all other bids that, by agreement, convey meanings >different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning ascribed to >them." But the 4H bid here is defined as neither strong nor weak. It is "any hand that wants to win the contract at 4H but no higher", without reference to strength. That is precisely the meaning that non-big-clubbers give to the bid, notwithstanding that the inferences available in a big club system result in its being used on a somewhat different set of hands. IMO it should be alerted because (if), as Jeff says, "it may take the opponents by surprise", not because it is strong and sounds weak, or is weak and sounds strong. >I would say that 1H-P-4H sounds weak, but what makes a bid "sound" >strong or weak? The fact that the other would be an unusual, uncommon or unexpected agreement. >Does an opening 2S sound strong or weak? Yes, it does. >Whichever, >why isn't the opposite meaning Alertable? What is the opposite of "strong or weak"? >And where is the document >in which expected meanings are "ascribed"? The alert rules. Any agreement which is not alertable is considered "expected". >The ACBL should provide >the "ascribed" meaning for frequently-occurring calls, since many >players do not know what the "expected meaning" is for all of them. Life isn't that simple. Some "expected" meanings are ambiguous (AHD: "1. Susceptible of multiple interpretation"), in that a call may have more than one possible meaning that doesn't meet the test of being "unusual, uncommon or unexpected". 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 Jan 15 01:09:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 01:09:26 +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 BAA21409 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 01:09:17 +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 JAA22301 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:08:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990114091104.006e3d88@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:11:04 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <199901140046130180.1DE61D04@mail.btinternet.com> References: <199901131654.KAA17814@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <199901131654.KAA17814@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:46 AM 1/14/99 +0000, dburn wrote: >Craig wrote: > >> If the laws wanted to require claimer to make such a statement, >>they would have to either use a word stronger than "should", or re-write >>L70 to get rid of words like "equitably" and "irrational" and replace the >>law with "Claimer will lose any trick he could possibly lose when his >>clarification statement is enacted. If no clarification statement was >>made, claimer loses all tricks that could be lost on any legal combination >>of plays." The effect of the current law is to make the clarification >>statement desirable but not required. > >Now, that's my kind of Law! And, when it comes down to it, my kind of game - where everyone knows the rules and the penalties you pay for breaking them. Why, in all seriousness, do we not write the Laws that way? I think it's because "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." Now where oh where could I have recalled that language from? 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 Jan 15 01:47:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 01:47:56 +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 BAA21495 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 01:47:49 +1100 Received: from hlyxzurz (dialup-023.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.215]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA28088 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:47:43 GMT Message-ID: <009901be3fcd$5bb3ace0$d7307dc2@hlyxzurz> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Law 6 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:51:21 -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 DWS are you nit-picking with Law 6 when you write 'it is incorrect to deal and play a board, then deal and play another.' in your excellent Simplified Rules? Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 03:10:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:10:22 +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 DAA21758 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:10:13 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100pLR-0007Sn-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:10:08 +0000 Message-ID: <7hU3ZjA7Jfn2EwNL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:34:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <199901121005.KAA29411@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <369BB0B6.7F52C80C@home.com> <369C8C72.D60E47C5@village.uunet.be> <369D8B2C.881DDBA7@home.com> In-Reply-To: <369D8B2C.881DDBA7@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> I wrote: >> > >> > If I claim 12 tricks, stating a really stupid line that >> > happens to succeed this time, should TD disallow my claim on the >> > grounds that I may only chose a "normal" line?? >> >> Yes, could happen. >> >> See the strange claim. >> >> Claimer stated a line which it would be very difficult for >> him to follow in real life, and yet it worked. >> The -majority- ruling was that claimer would realise before >> playing that that line was an irrational one, and we imposed >> on him other "normal" lines, one of which failed. > >Enough is enough. I'll now end this exchange. If HdW is stating a valid >comparison, a big if, then it just goes to show that sometimes the >majority is wrong. >The day I declare a contract, playing on a 10% line, that happens to >succeed this once in a blue moon only to have the TD telling me I'm not >allowed to play like that and forcing me to take the 67% line that >fails, that's the day I leave this game for good. Look, Jan, don't be like that. That is not what happened. If the claim had been good without question on the way it was said then there would have been no discussion. No more OKB Discuss arguments, please! >To pretend that this would be mandated by the FLB is an insult to >everyone's intelligence - especially that of the law-makers. >Get real! To pretend that you definitely had the tricks on your claim is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Get real! -- 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 Jan 15 03:10:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:10:25 +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 DAA21761 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:10:16 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 100pLW-0006jj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:10:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:12:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts References: <199901140740.XAA08397@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199901140740.XAA08397@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: >David Burn wrote: >> I don't think so. There are a number of positions in which I >offer the opponents what I term a "courtesy alert" - this phrase >did not originate with me, but to my shame I cannot remember who >coined it. I suppose that this might get me into trouble one of >these days. For example, if I open 1H, the next hand doubles, and >my partner bids 3H, I will (in a certain standard of competition) >alert. If I have gauged the standard of the opponents correctly, my >RHO might ask a question, and I will explain that 3H is pre-emptive >- he could have bid 2NT, etc... (He could, in our methods, also >have bid 2D transfer, followed by a game try, but they are not >interested in that - however, does that make 3H more or less >alertable?) >Why not just follow the ACBL Alert Procedure? 1H-Dbl-3H is not >Alertable if preemptive, weak. While Alerting may be a good idea in >doubtful situations, this is not one of them. Probably because David was referring to playing in an EBU event. -- 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 Jan 15 03:10:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:10:26 +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 DAA21759 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:10:16 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100pLV-0007Sj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:10:10 +0000 Message-ID: <5x43dkAKKfn2EwtH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:35:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <001201be3fa9$111ba580$448993c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001201be3fa9$111ba580$448993c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Over the last three months or so, there have been a spate of really offensive comments form certain people writing to this list. Notably this has not been the lesser lights, but has emanated from people whose knowledge of the Laws of the game is very good, and their words should be listened to. Mainly it has come from a couple of people who use offensiveness to strengthen poor positions who belittle people who do not agree with them. I think it is very unfortunate. I have talked to the originators of BLML privately, and there is a feeling that we are going to have to control writing here in some way, perhaps publishing guidelines - and the first guideline would seem to be that to belittle others to shore up a weak position is not acceptable. I am very worried and distressed that people do it. Most lists and newsgroups have people who leave them because they have been flamed. My experience on other groups is that it is usually a type of person that commands no respect and who wishes notoriety who does the flaming. That is not the case here. The 'lesser lights' who sometimes post are courteous, helpful, and often produce excellent and cogent arguments. However, we have a very small group who use offensiveness as a tactic. There is no-one here who is right all the time, though I am afraid there are a few who believe themselves to be. It is time that anyone who does so believe themselves to be perfect should re-assess their own feelings. Furthermore, what is such a person doing here if he has nothing to learn? I think this is a growing problem, and I am going to ask everyone to re-consider each time they post as to whether the post is unnecessarily offensive. If it contains name-calling of any sort [unless clearly humorous] then perhaps you could reconsider before sending it to the list. Why are you calling people names: are you sure that your position is such that it is necessary? For my own part, I have given up answering certain posts because while I am trying to help everyone on this list I find it too upsetting to be attacked in this way. A friend of mine, Mike Swanson, has accused me over the years of being too thin-skinned, and I nearly left the list a couple of years ago because of the method of posting by certain people. Perhaps I am, and perhaps the current wave of offensiveness would not affect others - but when I wrote to the other originators of the list, they agreed with me. Let me ask *everyone* a question. If you believe what you write, why do you need to belittle people who do not agree with you? -- 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 Jan 15 03:10:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:10:23 +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 DAA21757 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:10:13 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100pLR-0007Sj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:10:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:23:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A and L16C (Is THIS Legal?) References: <3.0.1.32.19990113164251.006d9070@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.5.32.19990114003945.00a44610@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <3.0.1.32.19990114002912.006e21b0@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990114002912.006e21b0@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 12:39 AM 1/14/99 +0100, Anton wrote: >>I really hope you never will put ANY energy in this kind of projects. >>It sounds rather illegal to me. If i would see this 'convention'on your >>card, i probably will ban you forever from my club (if you mean this >>seriously, what i doubt). > >It seems illegal to me, too, but I'm not sure what law would apply. You >would ban me forever for an apparently legal tactic? That seems a bit extreme. > >Am I serious? Completely, as to the tactical wisdom of LHO changing his >call so as to create UI problems for the opponents, if the prevailing view >of L25A is correct (which, frankly I still have my doubts about). Making >one's bid UI to the opponents imposes a real and substantial penalty, and >it would be foolish to pass up the opportunity for such mischief. > >Consider the original problem. Declarer had to guess trumps with KJ9xx >opposite ATx in dummy. With the help of the retracted double from LHO, it >was a no-brainer to play the suit "backwards" and run the J. But there >might have been other clues from the bidding or play that pointed to this >line, and in any case declarer might have guessed right without this hint. >Perhaps he bangs down the J and watches LHO. Plenty of declarers pride >themselves on their ability to pick up a missing Q, based in part on table >feel. So when we determine that such a possiblity is out-of-bounds for this >declarer on this hand, we have imposed a cost, or a "penalty", if you like. > >Well, maybe preventing declarer from taking an unusual "backwards" finesse >is not _so_ bad. But it could be worse. Suppose it is his partner who winds >up declaring, with KJ9xx opposite ATx. Assuming we impose the same UI >restrictions on him, we have disallowed even the normal way to play the >suit (small to the A, running the T), since surely there are logical >alternatives, and this normal line is marked by the retracted double. Now >there's a real penalty! This declarer will be tagged with down 1 on a hand >where everyone's grandmother can take 9 tricks. > >For those who think that letting the table result stand is completely >inequitable, I can only concur. But IMO it is not worse than penalizing >North for the exercise of a lawfully protected right, one which is >explicitly granted "without penalty". This Hobson's choice is the >unavoidable logical consequence of two parts of the Laws which have been >altered in the past two cycles. In 1987, the distinction between "bad" UI >(i.e., derived from illegal or inappropriate action) and "good" UI (i.e., >derived from fulfillment of legal obligations or otherwise beyond the >control of the "offenders") was dropped. The effect was to subject all UI >situations to the harshest light of L16, imposing on some players a no-win >choice when they were in fact guilty of no offense whatsoever. > >The second ill-considered change came about in the 1997 cycle, when the >right of players to change their calls under L25A was explicitly extended >"until parter makes a call". Little thought was apparently given to the >type of problem we are seeing here, and the need for such an extension is >unclear indeed. The really discouraging thing is that according to David, >BLML played some role in promoting that change. If you are going to consider one aspect of a situation only, and a pretty rare one, and base all decisions on that, then yes, probably a different rule would have been better. The extension you refer to is fictitious: there was no such rule under the 1985 Laws. While there may be UI problems occasionally, and BLs trying to work the Laws to their benefit, it is my view that allowing players to make such a change, without allowing opponents to impede them, is the correct way to go. Furthermore, that is with a lot of experience since in this country we allowed changes with such a time limit under the 1985 Laws. Why have we not considered in depth the UI problems? Because, despite playing and ruling this way for at least 14 years, this is the first problem case of this type that has come my way. Perhaps the problem is not as great as all that. As for the rule against BLs, I am not sure whether I can find one. I find the whole BL approach anathema, but I am not sure it is illegal, and it is difficult at any time to legislate against such people. If players consider use of the Laws part of their game, how can we stop them? Only really by changing the Laws. Well, that is a gain v loss situation, and I am quite sure that in this case the gain far outweighs the loss. -- 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 Jan 15 04:24:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 04:24:15 +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 EAA21972 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 04:24:09 +1100 Received: from [128.206.29.140] ([128.206.29.140]) by sp2n17.missouri.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA52942 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:23:53 -0600 X-Sender: chemrh@pop.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B3C@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:29:44 -0600 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: RE: Is this right? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The Laws (18a) specify a bid as a number and a denomination. I was directing (years ago) when one player said, "One ..." and then declined to complete the statement. After much discussion of this, I ruled it was not a bid. (Obvious information, however!) So I allowed the bidder to pass. (He was not out of rotation.) I was encouraged to seek higher authority, so I wrote to Edgar Kaplan, and he agreed with my view. It seems to me that premature pulling of a stop card (or out of rotation) is not a bid, but does convey information. Robert E. Harris Columbia, Missouri USA Cat: Bobbsie, 18 year old female of bad claw habits. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 04:49:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 04:49:33 +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 EAA22048 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 04:49:25 +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 MAA04308 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:49:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id MAA21803; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:49:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:49:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901141749.MAA21803@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25A and L16C (Is THIS Legal?) Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >At 16:42 13-01-99 -0500, you wrote: >>I still have some questions about the implications of the prevailing >>position about UI consequent to a L25A change of call. First let me >>summarize the view which seems to have emerged: >> >> If a player elects to change his call under L25A after LHO has called >>(but, perforce, prior to a call by his partner), then LHO may change his >>call to any call which would be legal with respect to the substitued call. >>The authority for this derives from L21B, Call based on Misinformation from >>an Opponent. The fact of the original calls, and any conclusion which may >>be derived from them, is UI to the player exercising his L25A rights and to >>his partner, but AI to the opponents, since we elect to treat that player >>as an "offender", notwithstanding the "without penalty" clause of 25A. >> >>As someone who approaches the Laws more from the perspective of a player >>than an adjudicator, it seems to me that this presents the opportunity for >>an interesting, if somewhat obscure, bit of strategy. It seems apparent >>that in the given situation, it is almost always in LHO's interest to >>change his call, given the possible restrictions forced upon his opponents >>by the consequent UI. But for such a tactic to be maximally effective it >>would be well to have agreements with one's partner concerning the meaning >>of these changed calls. As a starting point, I would propose that if LHO >>has not initally (re)doubled, then (re)double simply repeats or reinforces >>the meaning of the original call, while Pass repeats the meaning of a >>previous (re)double. I have other ideas in this vein, but would solicit >>input from other BLMLers about the legality of such understandings before >>investing too much energy in this project. >> >>Mike Dennis >> > > >I really hope you never will put ANY energy in this kind of projects. >It sounds rather illegal to me. If i would see this 'convention'on your >card, i probably will ban you forever from my club (if you mean this >seriously, what i doubt). >regards, >anton >Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) >Tel: 020 7763175 >ICQ 7835770 > I strongly suspect the ACBL, for one, would use its L40D rights to prevent this type of agreement, the same way it used L40D to prevent creating agreements over other irregularities, such as when an opponent makes an insufficient bid. I may not like the ACBL doing this, but it seems they do have the right to do it. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 04:58:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 04:58:19 +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 EAA22062 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 04:58:12 +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 MAA06268 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:58:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id MAA25070; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:58:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:58:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901141758.MAA25070@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Back on line Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >David Burn wrote: >>Dear Laura >> >>Sending this one from the Psion - only way to update its list of addresses, as >>far as I can tell. Camrose dinner one of the shortest and most sober in living >>memory, no doubt because almost everyone was driving home afterwards. Stanley's >>speech was appalling even by his standards, Howarth is no Geoff Evans, Jim >>couldn't tell his usual jokes because the Mayor was also the Vicar. Still, the >>food was OK for both quantity and quality, and they had a live clarinet quartet >>who were surprisingly good, so the thing wasnt' a total blast. >> >>Dave > There must have been a breach of regulation somewhere-- can a Vicar really be a Mayor (the Vicar of Dibley excepted, of course)? Perhaps if we use L82C, but rub out "director" and put "electorate" in its place... Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 07:20:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:20:14 +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 HAA22381 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:20:02 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa17124; 14 Jan 99 12:19 PST To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 14 Jan 1999 02:16:03 PST." Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:19:26 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901141219.aa17124@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, I didn't intend to dredge up the Strange Claim argument again. My original purpose was simply to show that the situation we discussed there was significantly different from the one Jan brought up, and that therefore Herman should not have tried to make an analogy out of the two. But I believe Grattan is saying some things that are very wrong, that I feel need to be addressed. My purpose is not to settle the question of how the claim should be adjudicated. After our long discussion of two years ago, some of us came to the conclusion that the Law that would tell us exactly how to handle the situation was missing. David Stevenson ended up enumerating two reasonable possibilities for a mythical L70B4, neither of which is inconsistent with the existing Laws, but which would lead to different results. However, I do believe it's necessary to get to the same starting point, and that point is that we MUST assume declarer intended to take the A,K,Q,J, and that our decision about how to rule on the claim must proceed from there. Here's the original post, for those whose memories don't go back to Feburary 1997: # E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: # Jx # Axx # Jxxx # 8642 # AQTxx Kx # xx KJxxx # AKQ2 xx # KQ AJ97 # 9xxx # Qxx # xxx # T53 # # Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of # Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. Law 68C says: A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. This was not fulfilled by East's claim, since East stated neither the order in which cards should be played nor a line of play. Simply stating a number of tricks does not imply an order; if someone in a Flight A event has this diamond suit AK QJ10xx and claims stating something like "5 diamond tricks, 2 spades and 2 clubs", assuming that there's a spade entry to the diamonds (and that using this entry doesn't cause other problems), is anyone going to complain that it's a bogus claim because he has to play 2 diamond tricks and then a spade and then 3 diamonds? I don't think so. I think just about all of us would assume that's what she meant, because she's a good player who's just trying to speed up the game. (Now, I think some people here feel that claims like this *should* be disallowed, or at least be subject to a PP, and there may be some merit in their position; but since L68C uses the word "should", it would require a Law change to make this happen.) So I think we can agree that when someone claims "N club tricks", we cannot conclude that their intent is to run the suit with no tricks in another suit intervening. Thus, we can't tell from East's claim statement whether he intended his four club tricks to be A,K,Q,J or K,A,J,9. However, in order to adjudicate the claim properly, we need to make some determination about which club tricks to assume. How can we possibly rule on the claim without such a determination? Now, my experience as a player would tell me that A,K,Q,J is East's clear intent, since the 9 isn't a top trick (on the other hand, with KQ opposite AJ107, my experience would tell me that K,A,J,10 is clear). But Grattan would think of me as one of "the little gods around who decided what was 'obvious'" if I let my decision be based on my own experience. Fair enough; so how would we make the determination without arrogating a divine omniscience for ourselves? I can see three ways to make this determination: (1) Ask East for clarification. (2) Assume that the club tricks are K,A,J,9, since that's the only possibility consistent with a line of play (since the other possibility, A,K,Q,J, cannot be executed). (3) Of the two possibilities, choose the one that would be worst for the claimer (applying L70A, in effect). I believe (1) is the best answer, assuming we can get an honest response. (The best solution might be to wire up East to a polygraph and then ask, but I don't think we want to take bridge in that direction.) The problem is that asking a question might tip East off to the fact that his claim had a major flaw, and the response might be based on that. Suppose East says, "Well, I'll overtake the clubs and hope the 10 drops." Suppose we can't assume that this statement was an honest reflection of what he meant when he made the original claim. The first question we need to ask is, is this a "new line" as stated in L70D? This Law says "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement . . .", so we have to determine whether his latest statement was embraced in the original claim. To do this, we have to determine which clubs were meant by the original claim statement, and this takes us in a circle, right back where we started! Or, if we assume that the statement was *not* embraced in the original claim, and that L70D applies, the only effect would be that East's latest answer is not accepted, with the result that (1) doesn't produce any useful answer. So assuming that (1) is unfruitful or unfeasible, we're left with (2) and (3). It seems that Grattan is assuming (2) is the case: > Within the scope of his statement he only has one route, one that > some might think inferior but which is not nonsensical. When there > is such a route which is embraced within his statement it should be > followed. However, there's no basis in Law for making this assumption. After all, if declarers are careless enough to claim 5 tricks with AKQxx opposite xxxx, whether it be due to miscounting the suit or ignoring the possibility of a bad break, then mustn't we assume that declarers can be careless enough to claim tricks in a blocked suit that they can't take? So I think we can all agree that declarers are capable of making claims that don't correspond to any line of play. Given this, supposing declarer makes an ambiguous claim statement that reasonably has more than one interpretation, and one corresponds to a line of play and the other doesn't, which interpretation should be assumed? THE LAWS DO NOT GIVE US ANY GUIDANCE. You cannot point to a Law that tells us that we must prefer an interpretation that corresponds to a line of play over one that doesn't. I think perhaps such a Law would be useful, particularly one like 70F. Unstated Line of Play (Blocked Suits) but we don't have a Law like that. Nor can we assume that declarer must have meant the interpretation that can actually be executed, since we're agreed that declarers can be sloppy enough to claim tricks that can't be taken due to blockage. So I think (2) must be rejected, and that leaves us with (3). Deciding between the two possible interpretations is a "doubtful point" that must be "resolved against the claimer", according to L70A, and in this case, that means assuming that claimer meant to claim the A,K,Q,J of clubs. This brings us to the starting point I promised we'd get to. Yes, we must assume declarer meant to claim AKQJ. This leads to a situation where declarer is claiming a line that's logically impossible. So how do we deal with that? That's the question we don't have a certain answer to. Grattan wrote: > ---------- > > From: Adam Beneschan > > To: Bridge Laws > > Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com > > Subject: Re: Claim > > > ----------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > > So while Jan is talking about declarer stating a really stupid line > > that happens to work, the example you're citing is about whether to > > assume a line THAT DECLARER DIDN'T STATE. Apples and oranges. > > ++++ Declarer nominated how many tricks in each suit. None of > them in Hearts and no Heart play proposed. Within the scope of his > statement he only has one route, one that some might think inferior > but which is not nonsensical. When there is such a route which is > embraced within his statement it should be followed. I disagree; as I've tried to show, there's no reason to assume this. > The directors > persist in a fixation to do with the club tricks; claimer made no > statement which club tricks he was to win - no doubt carelessly - but > what he said would be satisfied by the tricks he actually has in clubs > whereas the directors have taken it upon themselves to demand that > they must be A.K.Q.J., something claimer omitted to say, I believe there is every reason to believe claimer meant to say this despite his omission. However, I've provided what I believe are logical reasons why we should demand this even without making any assumptions about claimer's intent. > and they > have gone on to impose on him a play in hearts which his statement > does not include. This is a consequence of the requirement that we interpret claimer's statement to refer to AKQJ of clubs. It's impossible to play this way, so we don't know what to do and the Laws don't tell us. It seems reasonable in a case like this, when declarer can't do what he said, to look at all the normal lines that declarer *could* take and award him the worst result possible, but there are other reasonable resolutions. > So it is the directors who are taking him outside of > his statement when there is a 'normal' line which abides wholly within > what he has actually said It's not wholly within. As I've tried to show, declarer's statement is ambiguous, so stipulating a club overtake is adding to declarer's original statement in a way that makes it "not embraced in the original clarification statement." > presumably because they feel he should > not get lucky with a sloppy claim. No, because we feel that the assumption declarer takes a line (overtaking in clubs) when it's far from clear that that line was in his mind, is going outside of the intent and purpose of the Laws that deal with claims. If declarer's intent were clearly to execute a 2% line that happens to work, we give him the claim. But to assume a lucky line that most likely wasn't declarer's intention at all, seems bizarre. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 07:25:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:25:02 +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 HAA22401 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:24:55 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h37.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id XAA02371; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:23:59 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <369EED52.2D4@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:25:06 -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: Claim References: <001201be3fa9$111ba580$448993c3@pacific> <5x43dkAKKfn2EwtH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David Stevenson wrote: > Let me ask *everyone* a question. If you believe what you write, why > do you need to belittle people who do not agree with you? Absolutely agree - and sorry in advance if I make something like that: it will be unvillingly Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 07:25:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:25:31 +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 HAA22415 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:25:25 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA26091 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:24:43 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-16.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.48) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026032; Thu Jan 14 14:23:57 1999 Received: by har-pa1-16.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE3FD1.FE75CB80@har-pa1-16.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:24:36 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE3FD1.FE75CB80@har-pa1-16.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Claim Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:33:00 -0500 Encoding: 94 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While I am not one of the originators of the list and am certainly one of the "lesser lights" I do want to add my unqualified support to this plea for civility. We are, as a group, above average in both knowledge and intelligence; there is none among us who lacks the ability to express himself effectively, not even those burdened by having to use English. There is little reason for any poster to cheapen himself by a post that attacks personalities and calls names. It is certainly acceptable to disagree with others opinions, or even to attack their arguments when appropriate. I don't believe for a moment DWS is seeking to censor ideas. What he does quite correctly point out is that countering arguments with superior ones or presenting alternative ways of viewing a situation is a better way to win another over to your opinion...and considerably more pleasant for everyone else to read. Who among you is going to listen with a fully open mind to someone who has just called you a despicable jackass, with a mentality bordering on the cretinous? Will you be more likely to accept his viewpoint if he tells you that you play bridge like one of Al Roth's partners, and do other things as badly? This is not alt.stupid.flames. This being said, I do not believe we need to "control" writing here. Nor do I believe that the originators of the list are solely responsible for setting its guidelines. What we all need to do is control our own comments to what is acceptable in polite society, and cooperate, regardless of our lineage on list, in making it a more cicilised, productive and effective forum for the friendly exchange of ideas. David has said something that has needed to be said again...we should immediately and unanimously support this initiative. Craig ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 8:35 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Over the last three months or so, there have been a spate of really offensive comments form certain people writing to this list. Notably this has not been the lesser lights, but has emanated from people whose knowledge of the Laws of the game is very good, and their words should be listened to. Mainly it has come from a couple of people who use offensiveness to strengthen poor positions who belittle people who do not agree with them. I think it is very unfortunate. I have talked to the originators of BLML privately, and there is a feeling that we are going to have to control writing here in some way, perhaps publishing guidelines - and the first guideline would seem to be that to belittle others to shore up a weak position is not acceptable. I am very worried and distressed that people do it. Most lists and newsgroups have people who leave them because they have been flamed. My experience on other groups is that it is usually a type of person that commands no respect and who wishes notoriety who does the flaming. That is not the case here. The 'lesser lights' who sometimes post are courteous, helpful, and often produce excellent and cogent arguments. However, we have a very small group who use offensiveness as a tactic. There is no-one here who is right all the time, though I am afraid there are a few who believe themselves to be. It is time that anyone who does so believe themselves to be perfect should re-assess their own feelings. Furthermore, what is such a person doing here if he has nothing to learn? I think this is a growing problem, and I am going to ask everyone to re-consider each time they post as to whether the post is unnecessarily offensive. If it contains name-calling of any sort [unless clearly humorous] then perhaps you could reconsider before sending it to the list. Why are you calling people names: are you sure that your position is such that it is necessary? For my own part, I have given up answering certain posts because while I am trying to help everyone on this list I find it too upsetting to be attacked in this way. A friend of mine, Mike Swanson, has accused me over the years of being too thin-skinned, and I nearly left the list a couple of years ago because of the method of posting by certain people. Perhaps I am, and perhaps the current wave of offensiveness would not affect others - but when I wrote to the other originators of the list, they agreed with me. Let me ask *everyone* a question. If you believe what you write, why do you need to belittle people who do not agree with you? -- 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 Jan 15 07:40:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:40:03 +1100 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA22513 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:39:56 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa18328; 14 Jan 99 12:39 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:13:45 PST." <199901140413450560.1EA42682@mail.btinternet.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:39:13 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901141239.aa18328@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > On 14/01/99, at 02:16, Grattan wrote: > > >> From: Adam Beneschan > >> To: Bridge Laws > >> Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com > >> Subject: Re: Claim > >> > ----------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > >> So while Jan is talking about declarer stating a really stupid line > >> that happens to work, the example you're citing is about whether to > >> assume a line THAT DECLARER DIDN'T STATE. Apples and oranges. > > > >++++ Declarer nominated how many tricks in each suit. None of > >them in Hearts and no Heart play proposed. Within the scope of his > >statement he only has one route, one that some might think inferior > >but which is not nonsensical. When there is such a route which is > >embraced within his statement it should be followed. The directors > >persist in a fixation to do with the club tricks; claimer made no > >statement which club tricks he was to win - no doubt carelessly - but > >what he said would be satisfied by the tricks he actually has in clubs > >whereas the directors have taken it upon themselves to demand that > >they must be A.K.Q.J., something claimer omitted to say, and they > >have gone on to impose on him a play in hearts which his statement > >does not include. So it is the directors who are taking him outside of > >his statement when there is a 'normal' line which abides wholly within > >what he has actually said, presumably because they feel he should > >not get lucky with a sloppy claim. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > > Too, as they say in Australia for reasons that I have yet to fathom, true,= > blue. Of course he gets four club tricks. That's what he said he'd get,= > wasn't it - and presumably, he had a reason for so saying. I had not paid= > any attention to the "strange claim" thread while I was being so voluble= > about the more recent one. But if the "majority view" was to deny= > declarer's claim in the former, while allowing it in the latter, then the= > majority is - well, "homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto", so I had= > better say no more. Is this a shift in position for you? I saved the original "Strange Claim" thread, because it was a very interesting discussion, but also because it may well be the only time in my life I'm able to make an argument good enough to get David Stevenson to change a position. It's kind of like a trophy, something I can look at after one of those numerous occasions where David correctly points out how I haven't read the FLB, and say, "Well, at least I was right *once*." Anyway, here's a quote by you from the original thread: # (a) Much argument has centered around whether playing # for the drop of C10 is "an alternative line of play not embraced # in the original clarification statement." Labeo and others have # argued that since declarer said that he was taking four club # tricks, he should - nay, must - be permitted to overtake the # CQ because that would become the only line consistent with # the original statement. I have some sympathy with this view, # but I firmly believe it to be wrong. At the time of making his # statement, declarer was clearly unaware of the blockage; # the four club tricks he alluded to were obviously the ace, # king, queen and jack, and equally obviously he cannot take # those tricks. Any line of play that results in the nine of clubs # becoming a trick is in my view well outside the terms of the # original statement. Thus, declarer may not overtake the CQ. . . . # # Well, what did the original statement mean? At the time # declarer made it, it is clear that he intended to cash the CK, # the CQ, the CJ and the CA. In following this statement as # far as possible, declarer becomes stranded in dummy after # the CQ (and must now misguess hearts). If at the time declarer # made his statement, he were compelled to play the hand in # terms of *what was in his mind at the time the statement was # made*, then he would not overtake the CQ, nor should he be # permitted to do so simply because of the form of words that # he used. To rule otherwise is wholly inequitable. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 08:43:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:43:25 +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 IAA22754 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:43:17 +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 MAA15714 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:17:37 -0900 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:17:37 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25A and L16C (Is THIS Legal?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > > >The second ill-considered change came about in the 1997 cycle, when the > >right of players to change their calls under L25A was explicitly extended > >"until parter makes a call". Little thought was apparently given to the > >type of problem we are seeing here, and the need for such an extension is > >unclear indeed. The really discouraging thing is that according to David, > >BLML played some role in promoting that change. L25A does include the phrase "but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought" in the 1997 laws, just as it did before. I sympathize with the desire to keep LHO from cutting one off from correcting a misbid/mispull by calling excessively quickly. It seems though that it is not too much of a stretch to use L74C7 ("varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent" is a violation) to give redress if LHO makes a lightning-fast call to prevent a correction. Perhaps a better solution than altering L25A would have been to change the word "disconcerting" in 74C7 to something a bit broader. In practice I don't recall ever seeing someone ever try to prevent a correction by calling fast; the new L25A, though, if anything, makes this even more tempting: now you can make two calls for the price of one if you are fast enough on the trigger after your RHO misbids. I like that even less! There also seems to be a lot of room for interpretation of the "without pause for thought" part. The current tendency seems to be to allow a correction any time you look down and suddenly realize "oh -- I pulled THAT card out of my box 30 seconds ago and have been daydreaming ever since then? Let me fix it!" My own inclination is that one ought to look at the bidding card as one pulls it from the box, and there is no excuse for discovering long after the fact that you didn't pull what you thought you did. If someone waits 30 seconds (or however long, if it isn't essentially immediately) and then says they want to change an inadvertent call "without pause for thought", my solution is to note that there was a pause more than long enough for any thinking they should have done, read him L74B1 for not noticing the error when they should have, read him L74C4 for not keeping their mouth shut when they did notice it, read his partner L16A, and tell them to continue the auction, original call stands. Thus, to me, the change in L25A is essentially meaningless since 99% of the time (in my judgment) we are in L25B territory long before LHO calls. The only effect I see from the 1997 change is that players are going to gratuitously tell their partners about their own noncorrectible mistakes much more often, in the mistaken belief they would be allowed to correct them. I will come down off my soapbox now and brace myself for the flames from all those who think I am being too heavy-handed with the mispullers. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 08:43:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:43:26 +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 IAA22755 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:43:19 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka93e.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.36.110]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA03892 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:43:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990114164258.006e06e0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:42:58 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L25A and L16C (Is THIS Legal?) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990114083347.006dce60@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990113164251.006d9070@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:33 AM 1/14/99 -0500, Eric wrote: >At 04:42 PM 1/13/99 -0500, Michael wrote: > >>As someone who approaches the Laws more from the perspective of a player >>than an adjudicator, it seems to me that this presents the opportunity for >>an interesting, if somewhat obscure, bit of strategy. It seems apparent >>that in the given situation, it is almost always in LHO's interest to >>change his call, given the possible restrictions forced upon his opponents >>by the consequent UI. But for such a tactic to be maximally effective it >>would be well to have agreements with one's partner concerning the meaning >>of these changed calls. As a starting point, I would propose that if LHO >>has not initally (re)doubled, then (re)double simply repeats or reinforces >>the meaning of the original call, while Pass repeats the meaning of a >>previous (re)double. I have other ideas in this vein, but would solicit >>input from other BLMLers about the legality of such understandings before >>investing too much energy in this project. > >This would presumably be illegal in the ACBL, which has forbidden specific >agreements about actions taken after an opponent's irregularity. > You're right, of course, or would be at any rate if we identify the change of call under L25A as an "irregularity". But it's not, at least according to the definition supplied by the Laws: "A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Law". A player exercising his L25A rights is fully in compliance with the correct procedures set forth in the Laws, as misguided as that particular procedure seems to me. So no irregularity in this situation and no fussbudget ACBL regs to stifle our creativity. ;) Mike From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 08:46:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:46:11 +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 IAA22786 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:46:02 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100uaO-00055x-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 21:45:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:42:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this right? References: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B3C@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> In-Reply-To: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B3C@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: > >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >... >> > There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say >> >that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete >> >bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. >> >Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled >> >this way? >> > >> > >> Not in the UK. The bid has not been made. The stop card is returned to >> the box and the partner has the UI implications explained to them. >> >-- >and David Stevenson wrote: >> No. > >> Perhaps one of these TDs could point me to the law that they are >>applying? >Of course the laws don't cover the use of the stop card or the procedures >for the use of bidding boxes in general. The Nederlandse Bridge Bond has >rules for the use of bidding boxes in its Competition Rules but even these >don't really go far enough. The laws ought to be modernised to include the >procedure for using bidding boxes in the same way that the procedure for >playing cards is specified. I am not suggesting that forcing a player to complete a partial call has anything to do with bidding boxes. A player may make a partial call with spoken bidding: with written bidding: with bidding boards. To force a player to complete a call requires a Law or a regulation. >That said, the general approach in my experience (in the Netherlands) is >that once the bidding card has left the box (the bottom of the card approx 1 >cm from the top of the box), then the bid has been made, even if is not >visible to the other players. The stop card procedure (i.e. treating it as >merely part of the bid) is merely an extension of this approach. No, not at all. Regulations say that a call has been made using bidding boxes once the bidding card has left the box. You cannot extend it to say that that means something has happened because something totally different has happened. When the stop card is removed from the box the call has *not* cleared the box so has not been made. >Similar situations can arise without bidding boxes. e.g. A player says >"Stop", pauses and then the other players say "it is not your turn to bid". >Or even without the "stop" a player could make an incomplete bid such as >"Two...." (e.g. deciding whether to open 2NT or 2S holding 20 points and a >good 5 card spade, or notices that he has 7 cards in the suit so deciding >whether or not to bid "Three...") and then the OOT its noticed. The laws >just don't cover this situation! It could just be treated as UI but it >could be argued that it is a BOOT (or was the player going to continue after >"Stop" with "wasting time dealer, get on and bid", or after "Two..." with >"beers please waiter") and handle the UI which goes with a BOOT according to >the laws 28 to 31. > >When bidding boxes are used, it is obvious when a player is bidding, even if >the action is not completed, as in this stop card situation, but also when >the cards have been removed from the box and placed face down on the table >while the player thinks whether he really wants to make this bid. It feels >correct to me to require the player to complete his bid and then rule on >OOT, insufficient bid or whatever. A call has been made when all of it has been said, or when all the cards have been removed from the box, or when it has been written down, or when all the relevant parts of a bidding board have been touched. No call has been made when the word "one" or the word "stop" has been said or written nor when a "stop" card has been removed from the box nor when part of a call has been touched on a bidding board. It seems extremely wrong to force someone to make a call out of turn, and I can see no justification for doing it in the absence of a Law or regulation saying so. The call has not been made, so treating it as though it has seems totally unfair. European Bridge League Director's Guide, Endicott + Hansen 18.1 Utterances such as "one..." and "I am about to make a skip bid..." do not constitute bids or even calls. This type of situation is to be dealt with using Law 16A. In no case should the Director ever require that the offender name a denomination or otherwise complete his "call" - unless it is obvious what the player intended to bid. The Director has to judge whether any convulsive utterance, subsequently changed into a bid, has conveyed unauthorized information - and whether this eventually becomes significant. -- 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 Jan 15 08:46:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:46:10 +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 IAA22787 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:46:02 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100uaO-00055y-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 21:45:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:45:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 6 References: <009901be3fcd$5bb3ace0$d7307dc2@hlyxzurz> In-Reply-To: <009901be3fcd$5bb3ace0$d7307dc2@hlyxzurz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >DWS are you nit-picking with Law 6 when you write 'it is incorrect to deal >and play a board, then deal and play another.' in your excellent Simplified >Rules? Yes. :) ... but it does speed the game 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 Fri Jan 15 08:51:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:51:12 +1100 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA22815 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:51:06 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n45.san.rr.com [204.210.46.69]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA17635 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:51:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901142151.NAA17635@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Claim Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:49:25 -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: > Over the last three months or so, there have been a spate of really > offensive comments form certain people writing to this list. Notably > this has not been the lesser lights, but has emanated from people whose > knowledge of the Laws of the game is very good, and their words should > be listened to. Mainly it has come from a couple of people who use > offensiveness to strengthen poor positions who belittle people who do > not agree with them. How about some quotes so we all know what you mean? Maybe I'm insensitive or have deleted too many "claim" articles without reading them, but I haven't noticed anything really offensive on BLML. I do see a lot of such stuff on RGB. Example: "Try not to be too stupid. If the call was just natural, then why did North not say so? OK, you like producing BL arguments - I have seen your venom before - but this one is just too much. You know perfectly well that the bid was probably conventional, so why the song and dance?" Oh, wait. This language was justified because the writer was not strengthening a poor position, only criticizing one. Evidently that makes it okay. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 09:46:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:46:29 +1100 Received: from spartacus (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA22914 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:45:47 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by spartacus with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 100vWB-0005KE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:45:35 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990114233849.00a49cd0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:38:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Is this right? In-Reply-To: References: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B3C@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B3C@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:42 14-01-99 +0000, you wrote: >Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) wrote: >> >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>... >>> > There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say >>> >that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete >>> >bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. >>> >Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled >>> >this way? >>> > >>> > >>> Not in the UK. The bid has not been made. The stop card is returned to >>> the box and the partner has the UI implications explained to them. >>> >-- >>and David Stevenson wrote: >>> No. >> >>> Perhaps one of these TDs could point me to the law that they are >>>applying? >>Of course the laws don't cover the use of the stop card or the procedures >>for the use of bidding boxes in general. The Nederlandse Bridge Bond has >>rules for the use of bidding boxes in its Competition Rules but even these >>don't really go far enough. The laws ought to be modernised to include the >>procedure for using bidding boxes in the same way that the procedure for >>playing cards is specified. > > I am not suggesting that forcing a player to complete a partial call >has anything to do with bidding boxes. A player may make a partial call >with spoken bidding: with written bidding: with bidding boards. To >force a player to complete a call requires a Law or a regulation. > >>That said, the general approach in my experience (in the Netherlands) is >>that once the bidding card has left the box (the bottom of the card approx 1 >>cm from the top of the box), then the bid has been made, even if is not >>visible to the other players. The stop card procedure (i.e. treating it as >>merely part of the bid) is merely an extension of this approach. > > No, not at all. Regulations say that a call has been made using >bidding boxes once the bidding card has left the box. You cannot extend >it to say that that means something has happened because something >totally different has happened. When the stop card is removed from the >box the call has *not* cleared the box so has not been made. > We still have the problem that when one or more cards are being removed from the box, normally all/some can see the bidding (even if it is held a few cm (or inch) from the bottom), you can try this out. The question should then be probably: Is a bid made if one (or more, and then which) contestant could have seen the intention of the bidder, cq the bidding card. regards, anton PS, I totally agree that we lack the humour in the group and shouldnt impose zero tolerance on ourselves. Thanks for the encouraging words, but perhaps some of us are infected with the bugs some nasty players spread over us. Lets stamp it out in a good way (Beerfines perhaps) anton >>Similar situations can arise without bidding boxes. e.g. A player says >>"Stop", pauses and then the other players say "it is not your turn to bid". >>Or even without the "stop" a player could make an incomplete bid such as >>"Two...." (e.g. deciding whether to open 2NT or 2S holding 20 points and a >>good 5 card spade, or notices that he has 7 cards in the suit so deciding >>whether or not to bid "Three...") and then the OOT its noticed. The laws >>just don't cover this situation! It could just be treated as UI but it >>could be argued that it is a BOOT (or was the player going to continue after >>"Stop" with "wasting time dealer, get on and bid", or after "Two..." with >>"beers please waiter") and handle the UI which goes with a BOOT according to >>the laws 28 to 31. >> >>When bidding boxes are used, it is obvious when a player is bidding, even if >>the action is not completed, as in this stop card situation, but also when >>the cards have been removed from the box and placed face down on the table >>while the player thinks whether he really wants to make this bid. It feels >>correct to me to require the player to complete his bid and then rule on >>OOT, insufficient bid or whatever. > > A call has been made when all of it has been said, or when all the >cards have been removed from the box, or when it has been written down, >or when all the relevant parts of a bidding board have been touched. No >call has been made when the word "one" or the word "stop" has been said >or written nor when a "stop" card has been removed from the box nor when >part of a call has been touched on a bidding board. > > It seems extremely wrong to force someone to make a call out of turn, >and I can see no justification for doing it in the absence of a Law or >regulation saying so. The call has not been made, so treating it as >though it has seems totally unfair. > >European Bridge League Director's Guide, Endicott + Hansen > >18.1 Utterances such as "one..." and "I am about to make a skip > bid..." do not constitute bids or even calls. This type of > situation is to be dealt with using Law 16A. In no case should > the Director ever require that the offender name a denomination > or otherwise complete his "call" - unless it is obvious what the > player intended to bid. > > The Director has to judge whether any convulsive utterance, > subsequently changed into a bid, has conveyed unauthorized > information - and whether this eventually becomes significant. > >-- >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 ~ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 11:30:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:30:58 +1100 Received: from pm1-1.dial.qual.net (moorebj@pm1-1.dial.qual.net [205.212.1.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA23058 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:30:49 +1100 Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by pm1-1.dial.qual.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA09774 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:30:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:30:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dlr:N Vul:? KQ9 964 T7 AT972 A8432 [_] JT KQ [_] AJT52 AJ982 [_] KQ3 5 [_] Q86 765 873 654 KJ43 W N E S P P P 1S P 2N(1) P 3C P 3N(2) AP West alerts the 2N call (and presumably explains it as Jacoby 2NT -- the article implies, but does not specify this). After 3N, West states this his previous explanation was in error. Presumably he wakes up after partner fails to alert his 3C and remembers that the partnership is *not* playing Jacoby 2N in this sequence. East makes 660 on a heart lead and the director is called. North suggests that they could take the first 5 tricks on a club lead. The director adjusts the score to 3N-1. Moran agrees with the ruling under Law 75D2 (basically, one is compelled to correct errors in explanation made by one's partner at the earliest legal opportunity). In Moran's opinion, West was compelled to state (at the conclusion of the auction) that there was a failure to alert the 3C bid. This cannot be right. At this point, West knows that 3C is not alertable by their agreements. Why should he be compelled to: 1. Lie to his opponents 2. Provide the opponents with information that his partner did not have available to him (as AI) during the auction. This is clearly an instance of "Mistaken Bid" analogous to the second example under the same Law 75D2 that Moran cites. Further, it seems at least a bit odd that after the alert (and explanation?) of the original 2N, that South was unaware that 3C was a shortness bid. If South is a BL (in the pejorative sense), a heart lead is perfect. If it works -- great!; if it doesn't you'll get a second chance. Did Moran (and the original director) err in this ruling? If not, what am I missing? Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 12:19:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:19:43 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f252.hotmail.com [207.82.251.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA23103 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:19:37 +1100 Received: (qmail 23553 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jan 1999 01:18:56 -0000 Message-ID: <19990115011856.23552.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.128.91 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:18:55 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.128.91] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this right? Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:18:55 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First, I hope I've got the quoting right. If I don't, I apologize. >From: Anton Witzen >Subject: Re: Is this right? > >At 17:42 14-01-99 +0000, you wrote: >>Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) wrote: >>> >>>and David Stevenson wrote: >>>That said, the general approach in my experience (in the Netherlands) is >>>that once the bidding card has left the box (the bottom of the card approx 1 >>>cm from the top of the box), then the bid has been made, even if is not >>>visible to the other players. The stop card procedure (i.e. treating it as >>>merely part of the bid) is merely an extension of this approach. >> >> No, not at all. Regulations say that a call has been made using >>bidding boxes once the bidding card has left the box. You cannot extend >>it to say that that means something has happened because something >>totally different has happened. When the stop card is removed from the >>box the call has *not* cleared the box so has not been made. >> > >We still have the problem that when one or more cards are being removed >from the box, normally all/some can see the bidding (even if it is held a >few cm (or inch) from the bottom), you can try this out. The question >should then be probably: Is a bid made if one (or more, and then which) >contestant could have seen the intention of the bidder, cq the bidding card. > My problem with this regulation, and I've had it since I first saw it, is simply mechanical. I have long thumbnails (it's an affectation, I know. But many women have this problem, and it's societally acceptable for them :-) and often (once a session or so) when I grab a bid, my nail gets the next one. So I pull out my 1H call and the 1S card comes with. I have a habit - I pull the bid, look at it, then put it on the table. When I have mispulled like this, I shake the cards until the unwanted card falls away, then put my real bid down. How many Laws have I just violated? And should I call the director every time for a L25A ruling? (I don't believe that this "when a bid is made" regulation is in force in the ACBL. So assume I'm in the Netherlands.) No, I have no input to the discussion that started this :-) Michael. As far as the "civility" thread goes, I think we can and do police ourselves quite well, without the need to regulate BLML. Occasionally, someone will have to stick their neck out (and get it painted black by the kettles) to remind us. I think this is neither unwanted nor unworkable. The last time this came up was when an ACBL "big light" got an over-warm reception to his first post, six months ago or so, right? mdf ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 12:48:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:48:54 +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 MAA23178 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:48:47 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa07998; 14 Jan 99 17:48 PST To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:30:31 PST." Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:48:09 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901141748.aa07998@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Dlr:N > Vul:? KQ9 > 964 > T7 > AT972 > A8432 [_] JT > KQ [_] AJT52 > AJ982 [_] KQ3 > 5 [_] Q86 > 765 > 873 > 654 > KJ43 > > W N E S > P P P > 1S P 2N(1) P > 3C P 3N(2) AP > > West alerts the 2N call (and presumably explains it as Jacoby > 2NT -- the article implies, but does not specify this). After 3N, West > states this his previous explanation was in error. Presumably he wakes > up after partner fails to alert his 3C and remembers that the > partnership is *not* playing Jacoby 2N in this sequence. > > East makes 660 on a heart lead and the director is called. > North suggests that they could take the first 5 tricks on a club > lead. The director adjusts the score to 3N-1. > > Moran agrees with the ruling under Law 75D2 (basically, one > is compelled to correct errors in explanation made by one's partner at > the earliest legal opportunity). In Moran's opinion, West was > compelled to state (at the conclusion of the auction) that there was a > failure to alert the 3C bid. > > This cannot be right. At this point, West knows that 3C is not > alertable by their agreements. Why should he be compelled to: > > 1. Lie to his opponents > 2. Provide the opponents with information that his partner > did not have available to him (as AI) during the auction. > > This is clearly an instance of "Mistaken Bid" analogous to the > second example under the same Law 75D2 that Moran cites. Further, it > seems at least a bit odd that after the alert (and explanation?) of the > original 2N, that South was unaware that 3C was a shortness bid. If > South is a BL (in the pejorative sense), a heart lead is perfect. If it > works -- great!; if it doesn't you'll get a second chance. I agree with this last (the part starting with "Further"), except that South's experience must be taken into account. If South has been around quite a while and can be expected to know what Jacoby 2NT is, I might suspect a double shot. However, I also need to mention that there are many flavors of forcing 2NT raises and responses thereto. (One of these days, I hope to talk one of my partners into trying a variation, since I believe that the standard Jacoby structure has problems.) Also, the article didn't say exactly how West explained the 2NT call; are we sure he used the term "Jacoby"? If he didn't, and perhaps even if he did, South can't assume 3C showed a singleton. Furthermore, if indeed their agreement was not Jacoby, South can't ask West what 3C showed; the Laws don't allow you to ask your opponent the meaning of a bid in the system he thought he was playing but really wasn't. So I'd be very cautious about ruling "double shot". > Did Moran (and the original director) err in this ruling? If > not, what am I missing? The Director's first responsibility is to determine the actual agreement. Assuming she can determine that they're definitely not playing Jacoby, then I believe you're right and Moran is wrong---but an adjustment is still in order. East's failure to alert 3C was UI for West, and West isn't allowed to let this wake him up. Well, he *should* let it wake him up long enough to correct the mistaken explanation he provided earlier (of course, he should call the Director as soon as he realizes this); but once the opponents are properly informed, I believe West must "unwake" up and presume that East did alert the 3C response properly, and bid accordingly. And with 5-5 and a partner who showed 4-card spade support, I believe 4S is clearly a logical alternative to pass, and therefore pass is not allowed. In 4S, it appears that on the club ace lead and club continuation, either declarer will lose control eventually, or the opponents will score three or more trump tricks while declarer runs red suits. So I believe I'd adjust to 4S down at least one. (Sorry, I'm going to wimp out and not analyze it further than that. Also, Bob Hamman would probably make 4S, but 12C2's phrase "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable" might preclude a winning line here. The play of the hand at 4S appears to be a very interesting subject in its own right.) The other possibility is that the Director can't determine the actual agreement with certainty. Footnote 22 indicates that the Director must presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Bid in the absence of contrary evidence. Remember, we're talking about the failure to alert 3C. The interesting question is, given that West already corrected a previous explanation of 2NT, is this sufficient evidence of what the actual agreement is? For all we know, West's statement that his previous explanation was a mistake could itself have been a mistake! I don't know how to resolve this, but I think there *might* be a possibility that 3C could be treated as a Mistaken Explanation, leading to an adjusted score of 3NT-1, depending on what evidence the Director has. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 12:50:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:50:12 +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 MAA23192 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:50:06 +1100 Received: from pbas01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.187] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 100yOe-00057N-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 01:50:01 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Gratuitous? Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 01:52:29 -0000 Message-ID: <01be4029$b54b4b80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01BE4029.B54B4B80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BE4029.B54B4B80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was called to a table to rule by South, the presumed declarer in 6NT = which had been doubled by East. East had placed a card face down on the table and West had said "not = your lead partner" I ruled that the face down opening lead by the LHO of = the presumed declarer was correct procedure so an irregularity had = occurred and Law9A1 applied. I wondered however what I would have ruled if East had reached to his = hand and only started to remove a card when West spoke. The irregularity = had, in this instance not yet occurred. So I rule this as gratuitous = information during the auction period. But who gets to lead now, is it = obviously UI to West that the double was not Lightener? Similarly, what happens if this happens during the play, when the wrong = defender attempts to lead and is warned by partner. In my experience these are actions which happen very often at the table, = but which very rarely demand the attendance of the TD. Thanks Anne ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BE4029.B54B4B80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I was called to a table to rule by South, the = presumed=20 declarer in 6NT which had been doubled by East.
East had placed a card face down on the table and = West had=20 said "not your lead partner" I ruled that the face down = opening lead=20 by the LHO of the presumed declarer was correct procedure so an = irregularity had=20 occurred and Law9A1 applied. 
I wondered however what I would have ruled if East = had reached=20 to his hand and only started to remove a card when West spoke. The = irregularity=20 had, in this instance not yet occurred. So I rule this as gratuitous = information=20 during the auction period. But who gets to lead now, is it obviously UI = to West=20 that the double was not Lightener? 
Similarly, what happens if this happens during the = play, when=20 the wrong defender attempts to lead and is warned by = partner. 
In my experience these are actions which happen very = often at=20 the table, but which very rarely demand the attendance of the=20 TD. 
Thanks 
Anne 
 
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BE4029.B54B4B80-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 13:01:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:01:42 +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 NAA23245 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:01:35 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa09040; 14 Jan 99 18:01 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Is this right? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:18:55 PST." <19990115011856.23552.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:01:00 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901141801.aa09040@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebroth wrote: > My problem with this regulation, and I've had it since I first saw it, > is simply mechanical. I have long thumbnails (it's an affectation, I > know. But many women have this problem, and it's societally acceptable > for them :-) and often (once a session or so) when I grab a bid, my nail > gets the next one. So I pull out my 1H call and the 1S card comes with. You don't have to have long thumbnails to have this problem. I have it all the time, possibly due to static electricity or stickiness. I do the same thing you do---shake so that the 1S card falls off. Nobody's ever complained, and IMHO anyone who would complain deserves the title of "King (or Queen) of the Bridge Lawyers." -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 13:01:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:01:55 +1100 Received: from smtp0.mindspring.com (smtp0.mindspring.com [207.69.200.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA23252 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:01:49 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka9d4.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.37.164]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA05910 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 21:01:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990114210127.006e71a4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 21:01:27 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:30 PM 1/14/99 -0500, Bruce wrote: > Did Moran (and the original director) err in this ruling? If >not, what am I missing? > You're not missing anything, as far as I can tell. I had exactly the same reaction. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 13:35:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:35:38 +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 NAA23370 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:35:31 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100z6Z-0006gl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 02:35:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:24:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A and L16C (Is THIS Legal?) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > > >> Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> > >> >The second ill-considered change came about in the 1997 cycle, when the >> >right of players to change their calls under L25A was explicitly extended >> >"until parter makes a call". Little thought was apparently given to the >> >type of problem we are seeing here, and the need for such an extension is >> >unclear indeed. The really discouraging thing is that according to David, >> >BLML played some role in promoting that change. > >L25A does include the phrase "but only if he does so, or attempts to do >so, without pause for thought" in the 1997 laws, just as it did before. >I sympathize with the desire to keep LHO from cutting one off from >correcting a misbid/mispull by calling excessively quickly. It seems >though that it is not too much of a stretch to use L74C7 ("varying the >normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an >opponent" is a violation) to give redress if LHO makes a lightning-fast >call to prevent a correction. Perhaps a better solution than altering L25A >would have been to change the word "disconcerting" in 74C7 to something a >bit broader. > >In practice I don't recall ever seeing someone ever try to prevent a >correction by calling fast; the new L25A, though, if anything, makes this >even more tempting: now you can make two calls for the price of one if you >are fast enough on the trigger after your RHO misbids. I like that even >less! > >There also seems to be a lot of room for interpretation of the "without >pause for thought" part. The current tendency seems to be to allow a >correction any time you look down and suddenly realize "oh -- I pulled >THAT card out of my box 30 seconds ago and have been daydreaming ever >since then? Let me fix it!" My own inclination is that one ought to look >at the bidding card as one pulls it from the box, and there is no excuse >for discovering long after the fact that you didn't pull what you thought >you did. If someone waits 30 seconds (or however long, if it isn't >essentially immediately) and then says they want to change an inadvertent >call "without pause for thought", my solution is to note that there was a >pause more than long enough for any thinking they should have done, read >him L74B1 for not noticing the error when they should have, read him >L74C4 for not keeping their mouth shut when they did notice it, read his >partner L16A, and tell them to continue the auction, original call stands. > >Thus, to me, the change in L25A is essentially meaningless since 99% of >the time (in my judgment) we are in L25B territory long before LHO calls. >The only effect I see from the 1997 change is that players are going to >gratuitously tell their partners about their own noncorrectible mistakes >much more often, in the mistaken belief they would be allowed to correct >them. > >I will come down off my soapbox now and brace myself for the flames from >all those who think I am being too heavy-handed with the mispullers. You have misinterpreted the Law. A pause for thought is not the same as a pause. There can be no pause for thought about whether a player has made an incorrect call until he realises he has made an incorrect call. Therefore, after a player has daydreamed for 30 seconds, looked down and realise he has made the wrong call, no "pause for thought" has occurred. Thus he *is* allowed to change an inadvertent designation if CHO has not called. -- 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 Jan 15 14:28:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:28:39 +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 OAA23413 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:28:31 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100zvr-00016B-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:28:24 +0000 Message-ID: <0Fcsw0AxGrn2Ewuv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:10:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this right? References: <19990115011856.23552.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19990115011856.23552.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >My problem with this regulation, and I've had it since I first saw it, >is simply mechanical. I have long thumbnails (it's an affectation, I >know. But many women have this problem, and it's societally acceptable >for them :-) and often (once a session or so) when I grab a bid, my nail >gets the next one. So I pull out my 1H call and the 1S card comes with. > >I have a habit - I pull the bid, look at it, then put it on the table. >When I have mispulled like this, I shake the cards until the unwanted >card falls away, then put my real bid down. > >How many Laws have I just violated? And should I call the director >every time for a L25A ruling? (I don't believe that this "when a bid is >made" regulation is in force in the ACBL. So assume I'm in the >Netherlands.) ACBL regs: Choosing a Call Using Bidding Boxes A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with apparent intent. So the regulation is much the same. As far as I am concerned you did not take the card out with apparent intent. -- 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 Jan 15 14:28:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:28:39 +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 OAA23412 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:28:31 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 100zvr-00016A-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:28:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:05:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this right? References: <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B3C@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B3C@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> <3.0.5.32.19990114233849.00a49cd0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990114233849.00a49cd0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >> No, not at all. Regulations say that a call has been made using >>bidding boxes once the bidding card has left the box. You cannot extend >>it to say that that means something has happened because something >>totally different has happened. When the stop card is removed from the >>box the call has *not* cleared the box so has not been made. >We still have the problem that when one or more cards are being removed >from the box, normally all/some can see the bidding (even if it is held a >few cm (or inch) from the bottom), you can try this out. The question >should then be probably: Is a bid made if one (or more, and then which) >contestant could have seen the intention of the bidder, cq the bidding card. No, the call is made at the moment that the SO says, which is when it clears the box with most authorities. But any such playing with the bidding cards is UI to partner. So if a player takes a Stop card out, and does not Stop [or if it is not his turn, does not make a call at all]: if a player reaches for a bid, clearly changes his mind and pulls a Pass instead: or anything else similar, then his partner is in receipt of UI, and we deal with it in the normal way. It does not need to be bidding boxes: if a player using oral bidding says Stop, but does not jump: says "Err, one, no, I think I'll, errrr, No bid" then this is UI to partner. All these shenanigans are AI to the opponents, at their own risk. -- 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 Jan 15 15:17:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA23488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:17:20 +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 PAA23483 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:17:13 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 1010gu-0000pP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 04:17:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 02:58:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <369DD7A8.5E61D70F@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <369DD7A8.5E61D70F@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Jan Kamras wrote: >> >> >> Jesper, forgetting the "strange claim" - thread, If a claimer states one >> line, and one line only, and it succeeds, can the opponent's get a TD to >> disallow the claim on the grounds that claimer picked a ridiculous line? >> That, and only that, was the question here. > >I realise that the analogy with the strange claim is just >that, an analogy, not completely the same thing. > >I agree we don't want to reopen the can of worms that is the >strange claim. > >To answer your question, Jan, suppose it goes something like >this : > >Claimer : I make so many tricks, by playing so-and-so >Opponent : But that is irrational, you don't have ... L73F2: if the director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark etc... There is no demonstrable bridge reason for this action as *play has ceased* Original claim stands, PP for opponent. >Claimer : Oh yes that's right, I shall play like this ... >Opponent : Stop, let's first call the director >TD : What was your original statement ? >Claimer : Playing so-and-so, but I now realise this is >irrational, and I want to change it to >TD : Let's face the cards >Claimer : hey, look at that, my irrational line actually >works ! > >Do you expect the man to get his contract ? > >Well, you might, but I don't. > >In 99.5% of these cases, the irrational line does not work, >and in 20% of them, there is no normal line that fails, so >we award the claim. >This is the 0.5% case. Claimer shall also get the worst of >all normal lines. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 15:17:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA23495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:17:39 +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 PAA23490 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:17:27 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 1010gw-0000pR-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 04:17:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 04:15:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Gratuitous? In-Reply-To: <01be4029$b54b4b80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01be4029$b54b4b80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >I was called to a table to rule by South, the presumed declarer in 6NT which >had >been doubled by East. >East had placed a card face down on the table and West had said "not your lead >partner" I ruled that the face down opening lead by the LHO of the presumed >declarer was correct procedure so an irregularity had occurred and Law9A1 >applied. >I wondered however what I would have ruled if East had reached to his hand and >only started to remove a card when West spoke. The irregularity had, in this >instance not yet occurred. So I rule this as gratuitous information during the >auction period. But who gets to lead now, is it obviously UI to West that the >double was not Lightener? >Similarly, what happens if this happens during the play, when the wrong >defender >attempts to lead and is warned by partner. >In my experience these are actions which happen very often at the table, but >which very rarely demand the attendance of the TD. >Thanks >Anne > Law 45 clearly states that a card is played once it is faced. A face down card is therefore not "played". We are therefore still in the auction period, as we haven't satisfied the criteria of L41C. So we can definitely apply L9A1. "It's not your lead" (whether it is or isn't) at this point gets the TD to the table, who applies L41A. L47 doesn't apply as the card is not faced (ie played). If it was West on lead then the only possible thing the TD can do is to tell the player to put the card back in their hand, as to do otherwise *commits* an infraction. The remark itself may create UI, and I think you've found a nice example of it. If we now discover that it always was East on lead then we can apply L16A with respect to West's comment, and now we can adjust under Law 12. So we make East lead his original card and stand by to award an adjusted score if required. Once we're in the play period then we can't use L9A1 so we must dig deeper. When a defender attempts to lead out of turn, there is as yet no infraction and thus the comment "It's not your lead" again kicks in L16A. Again we cannot force someone to *commit* an infraction so once again I think we're just in UI territory. Tortuous, but I think sound in most respects. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 16:34:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA23593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:34:39 +1100 Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA23588 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:34:35 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn13p32.ozemail.com.au [203.108.25.96]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA00995 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:34:30 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:34:30 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199901150534.QAA00995@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:49 PM 14/01/99 -0800, you wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> Over the last three months or so, there have been a spate of >really >> offensive comments form certain people writing to this list. etc. and Marvin: >How about some quotes so we all know what you mean? Maybe I'm >insensitive or have deleted too many "claim" articles without >reading them, but I haven't noticed anything really offensive on >BLML. If I may have my pacific peso's worth, I agree with Marvin here. There has been nothing that I have read, certainly not in the "Claim" thread, which even approaches "vigorous" argument (by Australian parliamentary standards). There have been poor arguments and poor argumentation, but the worst failure to my mind has been that I still don't quite know what I should rule in the given situation. If anything could be cut out of this forum, I would like it to be the endless repeating of the same argument. The only post which offended me was one where I noted a moot point spelled "mute" :)). Tony From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 18:06:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA23737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:06:36 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA23732 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:06:30 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990115070624.PKGA6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:06:24 -0800 Message-ID: <369EE9CB.57A99741@home.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:10:03 -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: Claim References: <000201be3f18$e5ec82c0$e38493c3@pacific> <369df681.13015565@post12.tele.dk> <369D8F92.5EA990BD@home.com> <369DD7A8.5E61D70F@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > To answer your question, Jan, suppose it goes something like > this : > > Claimer : I make so many tricks, by playing so-and-so > Opponent : But that is irrational, you don't have ... > Claimer : Oh yes that's right, I shall play like this ... Apples and pears. You're changing the scenario from the one I gave, and to which you responded, and it now seems you realize the difference. One can always invent a scenario that fits one's opinion. In the scenario you provide, I agree with your ruling. That has *nothing* to do with my scenario. Is it totally impossible for you ever to drop a matter, just accepting that maybe you misread, misunderstood or whatever? Sometimes I also respond too quickly to someone's posting, beleiving the scenario was X, only to later realise it was Y and that the poster was right based on Y, even though I was right (and maybe he'd even agree with me) based on X. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 18:27:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA23776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:27:38 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA23771 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:27:32 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990115072726.POWH6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:27:26 -0800 Message-ID: <369EEEB9.381915C4@home.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:31:05 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Claim References: <01BE3FD1.FE75CB80@har-pa1-16.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > While I am not one of the originators of the list and am certainly one > of the "lesser lights" I do want to add my unqualified support to this plea > for civility. I agree fully with this. I also feel I have been more aggressive than I like to be, and will try harder to avoid such a tone. It's no justification but as an explanation I can only offer that I at times get rubbed seriously the wrong way by certain postings, where my words are twisted to suit the poster's purposes. I will try just to drop the discussion in such cases, hard as it is! :-) I will try to do the following: a) Read the post I'm responding to 3 times to make sure I fully understand what I'm responding to. b) Read my own response 3 times b4 submitting it, making sure I'm making my point without insulting anyone. Take this as my new years resolution. Now - if "you know who" would do the same, it would really please me! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 19:37:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA23878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:37:19 +1100 Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA23873 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:37:12 +1100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA30713 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:37:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01J6KCR7X5G0004HPK@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:37:01 +0100 Received: by AGRO005S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:39:58 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:41:39 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Is this right? To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C121@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This message is a perfect example of the problems we have to deal with in this BLML group. Geof Francis is telling the whole world how the DutchBF is organized. I don't know him (or may be forgot about him) and his knowledge about the NBB lacks accurracy. The WBF has established a regulation on the use of bidding-boxes which is brought out as an appendix of the '97 laws and the regulation the NBB had before '97 appears to be almost exactly the same as this appendix. Furthermore the NBB added this regulation as an appendix to the Dutch translation of the '97 laws. So Geof can find it in his lawbook. I don't know why he didn't try to find out about this. We should not use this medium for that aim. And that is what worries me. I like these discussions but most of the time not the way they develop. My prediction is that when this group is growing further, the lack of discipline will be contra-productive. Not all people are able to read 50 messages daily. And this is just the beginning I am afraid. May I ask the founders to think about this problem and to try to get a regulation on conduct installed? Or do we have such a thing? (I don't mean the freedom of press and thoughts) Make it a regular message then, together with the abbreviations. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) [mailto:FrancisGA@logica.com] Verzonden: donderdag 14 januari 1999 14:17 Aan: Bridge Laws Onderwerp: RE: Is this right? John (MadDog) Probst wrote: ... > > There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say > >that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete > >bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. > >Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled > >this way? > > > > > Not in the UK. The bid has not been made. The stop card is returned to > the box and the partner has the UI implications explained to them. > >-- and David Stevenson wrote: > No. > Perhaps one of these TDs could point me to the law that they are >applying? Of course the laws don't cover the use of the stop card or the procedures for the use of bidding boxes in general. The Nederlandse Bridge Bond has rules for the use of bidding boxes in its Competition Rules but even these don't really go far enough. The laws ought to be modernised to include the procedure for using bidding boxes in the same way that the procedure for playing cards is specified. That said, the general approach in my experience (in the Netherlands) is that once the bidding card has left the box (the bottom of the card approx 1 cm from the top of the box), then the bid has been made, even if is not visible to the other players. The stop card procedure (i.e. treating it as merely part of the bid) is merely an extension of this approach. Similar situations can arise without bidding boxes. e.g. A player says "Stop", pauses and then the other players say "it is not your turn to bid". Or even without the "stop" a player could make an incomplete bid such as "Two...." (e.g. deciding whether to open 2NT or 2S holding 20 points and a good 5 card spade, or notices that he has 7 cards in the suit so deciding whether or not to bid "Three...") and then the OOT its noticed. The laws just don't cover this situation! It could just be treated as UI but it could be argued that it is a BOOT (or was the player going to continue after "Stop" with "wasting time dealer, get on and bid", or after "Two..." with "beers please waiter") and handle the UI which goes with a BOOT according to the laws 28 to 31. When bidding boxes are used, it is obvious when a player is bidding, even if the action is not completed, as in this stop card situation, but also when the cards have been removed from the box and placed face down on the table while the player thinks whether he really wants to make this bid. It feels correct to me to require the player to complete his bid and then rule on OOT, insufficient bid or whatever. Geoff. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 21:19:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 21:19:34 +1100 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA24033 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 21:19:27 +1100 Received: from [195.99.47.60] [195.99.47.60] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 1016LD-0004xy-00; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:19:02 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:20:00 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: [snip] [DB] > Too, as they say in Australia for reasons that I have yet to fathom, = true,=3D > blue. Of course he gets four club tricks. That's what he said = he'd get,=3D > wasn't it - and presumably, he had a reason for so saying. I had not = paid=3D > any attention to the "strange claim" thread while I was being so = voluble=3D > about the more recent one. But if the "majority view" was to = deny=3D > declarer's claim in the former, while allowing it in the latter, then = the=3D > majority is - well, "homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto", = so I had=3D > better say no more. [Adam] Is this a shift in position for you? ...here's a quote by you from the original thread: # (a) Much argument has centered around whether playing # for the drop of C10 is "an alternative line of play not embraced # in the original clarification statement." Labeo and others have # argued that since declarer said that he was taking four club # tricks, he should - nay, must - be permitted to overtake the # CQ because that would become the only line consistent with # the original statement. I have some sympathy with this view, # but I firmly believe it to be wrong. At the time of making his # statement, declarer was clearly unaware of the blockage; # the four club tricks he alluded to were obviously the ace, # king, queen and jack, and equally obviously he cannot take # those tricks. Any line of play that results in the nine of clubs # becoming a trick is in my view well outside the terms of the # original statement. Thus, declarer may not overtake the CQ. . . . #=20 # Well, what did the original statement mean? At the time=20 # declarer made it, it is clear that he intended to cash the CK,=20 # the CQ, the CJ and the CA. In following this statement as # far as possible, declarer becomes stranded in dummy after # the CQ (and must now misguess hearts). If at the time declarer # made his statement, he were compelled to play the hand in # terms of *what was in his mind at the time the statement was # made*, then he would not overtake the CQ, nor should he be # permitted to do so simply because of the form of words that # he used. To rule otherwise is wholly inequitable. I don't know whether this is a shift of position or not. I've asked Jesper = to send me the original thread, because I don't know in what form declarer = made his original claim. If (as was recently stated in this thread) he = asserted that he had "the AKQJ of clubs", then I would not allow his claim, = because he cannot take those tricks. If, on the other hand, he simply = claimed "four club tricks", then I would allow the claim. if a player has, for example, stiff K facing AQJ109 with no side entry to = the long suit, and claims "five tricks" in the suit without mentioning that = he will overtake the king, I would allow the claim. If the suit were K = facing AQJ10x, then I would allow the claim if the suit were 4-3 (I am = speaking, of course, in the context of the laws as they currently are, not = as I would like them to be!) I think that this is consistent with my view that the claimant should be = assumed to have stated a line that is rational as far as he is concerned, = and to follow that line in actual play, even though the line may appear = irrational to outsiders because it is based on a false premise. When a = point is reached at which the consequences of his false premise become = significant, the claimant suffers them.=20 In the Strange Claim thread, it is not clear under which false premise = declarer is labouring. Either he believes that he can always cash CKQ, = return to hand, and cash CAJ (in which case his claim should be disallowed = unless he can in fact always return to hand in hearts); or he believes that = he can cash four club tricks when the time comes without having to play on = another suit in the interim (in which case his claim succeeds if the C10 = falls). Since I don't know under which illusion his statement of claim = indicated that he was operating, I believe either ruling to be possible. I = don't know why I was so dogmatic in the passage you have quoted, unless = declarer's claim did indeed explicitly refer to CAKQJ. Did the Strange Claim thread conclude what should happen if HAQ were = onside, but someone had C10xxx? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 22:31:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:31:41 +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 WAA24204 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:31:33 +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 LAA20049; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:31:23 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 LAA14374; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:31:21 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09590; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:31:17 GMT Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:31:17 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199901151131.LAA09590@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, dburn@btinternet.com Subject: Re: Claim Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DBurn writes: > > I don't know whether this is a shift of position or not. I've asked > Jesper to send me the original thread, because I don't know in what > form declarer made his original claim. If (as was recently stated in > this thread) he asserted that he had "the AKQJ of clubs", then I would > not allow his claim, because he cannot take those tricks. If, on the > other hand, he simply claimed "four club tricks", then I would allow > the claim. It was I who but the words "the AKQJ of clubs" in the words of Strange Claimers mouth. I do not recall the original words -- I was just interested in Grattan's reaction as to how he would rule in that case. I presume that if clubs had been AK opposite QJ109, then Grattan and David Burn would allow the claim depending on whether there was allow the claim if the defenders heart honour(s) were onside. > if a player has, for example, stiff K facing AQJ109 with no side entry > to the long suit, and claims "five tricks" in the suit without > mentioning that he will overtake the king, I would allow the claim. If > the suit were K facing AQJ10x, then I would allow the claim if the suit > were 4-3 (I am speaking, of course, in the context of the laws as they > currently are, not as I would like them to be!) > > I think that this is consistent with my view that the claimant should > be assumed to have stated a line that is rational as far as he is > concerned, and to follow that line in actual play, even though the line > may appear irrational to outsiders because it is based on a false > premise. When a point is reached at which the consequences of his false > premise become significant, the claimant suffers them. > > In the Strange Claim thread, it is not clear under which false premise > declarer is labouring. Either he believes that he can always cash CKQ, > return to hand, and cash CAJ (in which case his claim should be > disallowed unless he can in fact always return to hand in hearts); or > he believes that he can cash four club tricks when the time comes > without having to play on another suit in the interim (in which case > his claim succeeds if the C10 falls). Since I don't know under which > illusion his statement of claim indicated that he was operating, I > believe either ruling to be possible. I don't know why I was so > dogmatic in the passage you have quoted, unless declarer's claim did > indeed explicitly refer to CAKQJ. > > Did the Strange Claim thread conclude what should happen if HAQ were > onside, but someone had C10xxx? The majority conclusion was that we would allow if HAQ were onside and a defender had C10xx; i.e. if any normal line to cash four clubs would work. I was influenced by the words in the heading of L70E ("finesse or drop") and felt we should not allow declarer to drop C10 if there was a losing finesse, and vice versa. However the body of L70E (which, of course, I should be reading) talks of "finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card" which does not exactly fit the situation in Strange Claim. See: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/str_clm.htm Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 23:07:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 23:07:32 +1100 Received: from spartacus (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA24337 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 23:07:26 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by spartacus with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 101824-0006oO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:07:20 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990115130032.00a48d80@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:00:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Is this right? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990114233849.00a49cd0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B3C@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> <39657A05CEE1D111A12000A0C9A9B6FF261B3C@nlxrtd2.europe.logica.com> <3.0.5.32.19990114233849.00a49cd0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:05 15-01-99 +0000, you wrote: >Anton Witzen wrote: > >>> No, not at all. Regulations say that a call has been made using >>>bidding boxes once the bidding card has left the box. I have here art8 of the dutch 'wedstijdreglement'. It says the following about the use of biddingboxes (in dutch, so i try to translate it as good as possible). 1c) A call has been made as soon as the bidding card has been taken out of the box with the knowing intent, to make a bid with it. 1d) hesitating with taking the cards out of the box (fumbling perhaps - my interpretation) is an infraction of the laws 1f) After a change (under law 25A - my interpretation-), the LHO can change his bid if he has made a bid before the change. FOOTNOTE: for applying art. 16 of the laws, the player who changed his bid as first, will be regarded as offending party (that settles the art 25A discussion i hope) One thing that bothers me is that a SO has made these rules, which implies that clubs are (in their matches where THEY are a SO can change these rules at will - i dislike that). Perhaps these rules should be in either the lawbook or governed bij zonal organisations. I hope i have clarified the dutch rules. regards, anton You cannot extend >>>it to say that that means something has happened because something >>>totally different has happened. When the stop card is removed from the >>>box the call has *not* cleared the box so has not been made. we all agreed on that > >>We still have the problem that when one or more cards are being removed >>from the box, normally all/some can see the bidding (even if it is held a >>few cm (or inch) from the bottom), you can try this out. The question >>should then be probably: Is a bid made if one (or more, and then which) >>contestant could have seen the intention of the bidder, cq the bidding card. > > No, the call is made at the moment that the SO says, which is when it >clears the box with most authorities. But any such playing with the >bidding cards is UI to partner. So if a player takes a Stop card out, >and does not Stop [or if it is not his turn, does not make a call at >all]: if a player reaches for a bid, clearly changes his mind and pulls >a Pass instead: or anything else similar, then his partner is in receipt >of UI, and we deal with it in the normal way. Wll, perhaps we need to apply 25b, if the intent of the bidding is changed (substituting the 1S call for a pass for example). We have to check if the intention of the bidding is changed i think It does not need to be >bidding boxes: if a player using oral bidding says Stop, but does not >jump: says "Err, one, no, I think I'll, errrr, No bid" then this is UI >to partner. All these shenanigans are AI to the opponents, at their own >risk. > > regards, anton >-- >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 ~ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 23:29:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 23:29:52 +1100 Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA24391 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 23:29:46 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-182.uunet.be [194.7.14.182]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA07328 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:29:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <369F2BB4.A70866F4@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:51:16 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > Did the Strange Claim thread conclude what should happen if HAQ were onside, but someone had C10xxx? I would say that the claim should be disallowed. This according to the same principles. Declarer did not state that he was going to overtake the club queen, so he did not in fact state any normal line. This means that he should revert to the worst of all normal lines. The overtaking of the club queen may be inferior to the heart finesse, but not irrational. Only when the club ten falls, AND AQ are onside, then the claim should be granted. (or just the Ace if declarer does not have HJ - we have indeed stated that the claim should have been granted if declarer had just that one point less.) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 15 23:42:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 23:42:57 +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 XAA24441 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 23:42:42 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.187]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id OAA03394; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:42:23 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <369F37C2.EEEA4693@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:42:42 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Claim References: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> <000701be3a3f$5a8b93c0$598a93c3@pacific> <3.0.1.32.19990112081151.006dadd8@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Eric Eric Landau wrote: > > At 06:50 PM 1/11/99 +0100, Jean-Pierre wrote: > > > I know one player among French top players (from Nice and ranking within > >30 top French players) who never claims. If you ask him why, he > Someone should point out to this person that he or she is violating L74B4. I don't agree with you and my interpretation is that the law doesn't too : L74B4 : ..."..disconcerting an opponent". If someone plays always the same way , tempo, etc.....I don't think someone can ever INTEND to disconcert someone ! Law 74B4 emphasize -IMHO- the disconcerting.... If a player never claims ...I am not sure anyone is allowed to punish him or to compel him - this can be disconcerting the non-claiming person. Dany > 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 Jan 16 00:45:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:45:26 +1100 Received: from spartacus (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA26791 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:45:18 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by spartacus with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 1019Ym-00060Z-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:45:13 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990115143825.00a362d0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:38:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: RE: Is this right? In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C121@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:41 15-01-99 +0100, you wrote: >This message is a perfect example of the problems we have to deal with in >this BLML group. Geof Francis is telling the whole world how the DutchBF is >organized. I don't know him (or may be forgot about him) and his knowledge >about the NBB lacks accurracy. >The WBF has established a regulation on the use of bidding-boxes which is >brought out as an appendix of the '97 laws and the regulation the NBB had >before '97 appears to be almost exactly the same as this appendix. >Furthermore the NBB added this regulation as an appendix to the Dutch >translation of the '97 laws. So Geof can find it in his lawbook. > Is the appendix part of the laws then, and can SO's change these rules? My second question is why the footnote in the 'wedstrijdreglement'referring to L16 is gone. regards, anton >I don't know why he didn't try to find out about this. We should not use >this medium for that aim. And that is what worries me. I like these >discussions but most of the time not the way they develop. My prediction is >that when this group is growing further, the lack of discipline will be >contra-productive. Not all people are able to read 50 messages daily. And >this is just the beginning I am afraid. May I ask the founders to think >about this problem and to try to get a regulation on conduct installed? Or >do we have such a thing? (I don't mean the freedom of press and thoughts) >Make it a regular message then, together with the abbreviations. > >ton > > > >-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >Van: Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) [mailto:FrancisGA@logica.com] >Verzonden: donderdag 14 januari 1999 14:17 >Aan: Bridge Laws >Onderwerp: RE: Is this right? > > > >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >... >> > There is another question. Some TDs in the Netherlands say >> >that taking a STOP card from the bidding box is an incomplete >> >bid that must be completed and then is treated as a BOOT. >> >Are there other places in the world where a SOOT is handled >> >this way? >> > >> > >> Not in the UK. The bid has not been made. The stop card is returned to >> the box and the partner has the UI implications explained to them. >> >-- >and David Stevenson wrote: >> No. > >> Perhaps one of these TDs could point me to the law that they are >>applying? >Of course the laws don't cover the use of the stop card or the procedures >for the use of bidding boxes in general. The Nederlandse Bridge Bond has >rules for the use of bidding boxes in its Competition Rules but even these >don't really go far enough. The laws ought to be modernised to include the >procedure for using bidding boxes in the same way that the procedure for >playing cards is specified. > >That said, the general approach in my experience (in the Netherlands) is >that once the bidding card has left the box (the bottom of the card approx 1 >cm from the top of the box), then the bid has been made, even if is not >visible to the other players. The stop card procedure (i.e. treating it as >merely part of the bid) is merely an extension of this approach. > >Similar situations can arise without bidding boxes. e.g. A player says >"Stop", pauses and then the other players say "it is not your turn to bid". >Or even without the "stop" a player could make an incomplete bid such as >"Two...." (e.g. deciding whether to open 2NT or 2S holding 20 points and a >good 5 card spade, or notices that he has 7 cards in the suit so deciding >whether or not to bid "Three...") and then the OOT its noticed. The laws >just don't cover this situation! It could just be treated as UI but it >could be argued that it is a BOOT (or was the player going to continue after >"Stop" with "wasting time dealer, get on and bid", or after "Two..." with >"beers please waiter") and handle the UI which goes with a BOOT according to >the laws 28 to 31. > >When bidding boxes are used, it is obvious when a player is bidding, even if >the action is not completed, as in this stop card situation, but also when >the cards have been removed from the box and placed face down on the table >while the player thinks whether he really wants to make this bid. It feels >correct to me to require the player to complete his bid and then rule on >OOT, insufficient bid or whatever. > > >Geoff. > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 00:45:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:45:31 +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 AAA26790 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:45:16 +1100 Received: from isis.cee.hw.ac.uk ([137.195.180.76] ident=root) by llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #4) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 1019YG-0003KK-00; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:44:40 +0000 Received: by isis.cee.hw.ac.uk (Smail3.1.28.1 #96) id m1019YE-0000fFC; Fri, 15 Jan 99 13:44 GMT Message-Id: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 99 13:44 GMT From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: Claim To: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: Dany Haimovici's message of Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:42:42 +0200 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 > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > At 06:50 PM 1/11/99 +0100, Jean-Pierre wrote: > > > > > I know one player among French top players (from Nice and ranking within > > >30 top French players) who never claims. If you ask him why, he > I don't have the original message around but I believe the answer the player gave was that it helps the defenders if they know that the absence of a claim means the contract is not rigid. > > Someone should point out to this person that he or she is violating L74B4. > > I don't agree with you and my interpretation is that the law > doesn't too : > L74B4 : ..."..disconcerting an opponent". > If someone plays always the same way , tempo, etc.....I don't think > someone can ever INTEND to disconcert someone ! > Law 74B4 emphasize -IMHO- the disconcerting.... > If a player never claims ...I am not sure anyone is > allowed to punish him or to compel him - this can be disconcerting > the non-claiming person. > > Dany Don't see how the tempo of play is relevant and neither do I see anything in L74B4 to suggest that one phrase is emphasised over another. Surely it is possible to disconcert someone intentionally. Webster's dictionary defines 'disconcert' as (among other things): 2. To confuse the faculties of; to disturb the composure of; Seems to me that to prolong play so as to leave the opponents unaware that you have the remaining tricks on top is likely to disconcert them. I know it would 'disturb the composure' of this defender. A pedant might reply that he isn't prolonging play unnecessarily (..) for the *purpose* of disconcerting his opponents, it just happens to be a side-effect. Another case where the Laws would be so much better if they didn't talk about players purposes, intents and other states of mind (TDs aren't psychologists!). Notwithstanding that, I wouldn't consider that an acceptable defence and would apply L74B4 in this case. --- Question: If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman to hear him... is he still wrong? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 00:50:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:50:00 +1100 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA26825 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:49:53 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.137] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 1019cz-000124-00; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:49:33 +0000 Message-ID: <199901151349550890.00AE2615@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901151131.LAA09590@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> References: <199901151131.LAA09590@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:49:55 +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 On 15/01/99, at 13:06, Robin Barker wrote: [snip] [DB] >> Did the Strange Claim thread conclude what should happen if HAQ were >> onside, but someone had C10xxx? [RB] >The majority conclusion was that we would allow if HAQ were onside >and a defender had C10xx; i.e. if any normal line to cash four clubs >would work. Does this mean that the claim would be allowed _only_ if HAQ were onside= and C10 dropped? This seems a little odd - on the face of it, we disallow= the claim when C10 drops but a heart is wrong on the grounds that declarer= would leave clubs blocked and have to misguess the hearts, but we also= disallow it when both hearts are right but C10 does not drop on the= grounds that declarer would overtake the second club. Is the conclusion,= then, that if declarer has made an ambiguous or incomplete statement, and= there is more than one "rational" line of play consistent with that= statement, declarer should always be assumed to follow a losing line= should such exist? I don't have any particular problem with that, but it= seems out of keeping with the majority position on the hand which started= the "Claim" thread. I have looked at DWS's account of the "Strange Claim" thread on his Web= page, and his suggestion for a L70B4 has considerable merit, though I have= not thought through all the implications. Note to David: when you have a= minute, you might tidy up the article - there are a couple of references= to getting to dummy - the East hand - with a heart when East was actually= the declarer. Jesper has sent me the original "Strange Claim" thread, but I can't find= anything in his message that I said at the time! So I still don't know= whether what I said then contradicts what I have said in this thread.= However, since Grattan is fond of quotations, I might plead the "Whitman= Defence": Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. (I am large, I contain multitudes). Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself". From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 01:26:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 01:26:17 +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 BAA26936 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 01:26:10 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.78.72]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990115142535.EGNV12977@default> for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:25:35 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:23:22 -0600 Message-ID: <01be4092$9b68eba0$df284b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Bruce J. Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 6:39 PM Subject: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) >W N E S > P P P >1S P 2N(1) P >3C P 3N(2) AP > > West alerts the 2N call (and presumably explains it as Jacoby >2NT -- the article implies, but does not specify this). After 3N, West >states this his previous explanation was in error. Presumably he wakes >up after partner fails to alert his 3C and remembers that the >partnership is *not* playing Jacoby 2N in this sequence. > > East makes 660 on a heart lead and the director is called. >North suggests that they could take the first 5 tricks on a club >lead. The director adjusts the score to 3N-1. > > Moran agrees with the ruling under Law 75D2 (basically, one >is compelled to correct errors in explanation made by one's partner at >the earliest legal opportunity). In Moran's opinion, West was >compelled to state (at the conclusion of the auction) that there was a >failure to alert the 3C bid. > > This cannot be right. At this point, West knows that 3C is not >alertable by their agreements. Why should he be compelled to: > > 1. Lie to his opponents > 2. Provide the opponents with information that his partner > did not have available to him (as AI) during the auction. > > This is clearly an instance of "Mistaken Bid" analogous to the >second example under the same Law 75D2 that Moran cites. Further, it >seems at least a bit odd that after the alert (and explanation?) of the >original 2N, that South was unaware that 3C was a shortness bid. If >South is a BL (in the pejorative sense), a heart lead is perfect. If it >works -- great!; if it doesn't you'll get a second chance. > > Did Moran (and the original director) err in this ruling? If >not, what am I missing? I am agreeing with Brian. Use the isolation example to see his point. Try this test: East is on one side of the screen and North, West, and South on the other. West bids 3C and alerts his two screenmates. West here is not entitled to the information - partner didn't alert his 3C call. The infraction here is really one of unauthorized information. West is awakened to his error by East's failure to alert 3C, he now knows that he has erred in responding to 2N as Jacoby. In the isolation above N/S would have had an opportunity to find the club lead, defeating the contract. I do agree with you that no self-respecting player would not know that West has club shortness and would certainly have preferred to have been at the table when the statement was made at the conclusion of the auction. I have a new question here: Does anyone lean towards a 2-way score here E/W = -100 N/S = -660? Thanks, Rick From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 01:57:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 01:57:28 +1100 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA27051 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 01:57:21 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.50] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 101Ag5-00031k-00; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:56:49 +0000 Message-ID: <199901151457210860.00EBE527@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990114091104.006e3d88@pop.cais.com> References: <199901131654.KAA17814@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <199901131654.KAA17814@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990114091104.006e3d88@pop.cais.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:57:21 +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 On 14/01/99, at 09:11, Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >>Now, that's my kind of Law! And, when it comes down to it, my kind of= game >- where everyone knows the rules and the penalties you pay for breaking >them. Why, in all seriousness, do we not write the Laws that way? > >I think it's because "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment= for >irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." Now where oh where >could I have recalled that language from? I cannot imagine, though the phrase seems strangely familiar. For one wild= moment, I thought that it might appear in the same publication as the= revoke laws, or possibly L25B. But I instantly dismissed this as sheer= fantasy on my part. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 02:17:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:17:04 +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 CAA27242 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:16:58 +1100 Received: from hlyxzurz (dialup-022.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.214]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA12538 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:16:51 GMT Message-ID: <001b01be409a$9bce91a0$d6307dc2@hlyxzurz> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Law 28 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:20:36 -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 South is Dealer but West opens 1D. South does not notice and opens 1NT. West's 1D is cancelled, East has UI and there may be lead penalties... Correct? Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 03:02:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:02:44 +1100 Received: from brahma.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@gateway-brahma.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA27384 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:02:36 +1100 Received: from idc by brahma.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 1.92 #5) id 101BhR-0007c5-00; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:02:17 +0000 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: Law 28 To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , In-Reply-To: Fearghal O'Boyle's message of Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:20:36 -0000 Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:02:17 +0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Fearghal] > South is Dealer but West opens 1D. South does not notice and opens 1NT. > West's 1D is cancelled, East has UI and there may be lead penalties... > Correct? L28B says: ".... making such a call forfeits the right to penalise the call out of rotation, and the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn, but L16C2 applies." L16C2 notes that information arising from the withdrawn call is unauthorised for the side that made it, with the usual stuff about not choosing from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably etc.. Nothing about lead penalties however; I don't think there should be any. --- Question: If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman to hear him... is he still wrong? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 03:38:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:38:32 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA27469 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:38:26 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.41.190]) by mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990115163750.EEKN19944@default> for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:37:50 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: Subject: Re: Law 28 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:36:28 -0600 Message-ID: <01be40a5$32f2b160$be294b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Fearghal O'Boyle To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, January 15, 1999 9:29 AM Subject: Law 28 >South is Dealer but West opens 1D. South does not notice and opens 1NT. >West's 1D is cancelled, East has UI and there may be lead penalties... >Correct? Correct to a point. Law 28B sends you to . . .Law 16C2 does not refer to lead penalties. The UI would, however, sure keep me on my toes if East gets a diamond on the table without some other Diamond indication later in the auction. Rick Rick From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 03:52:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:52:31 +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 DAA27517 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:52:25 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA08641 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:49:50 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199901151649.KAA08641@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:49:50 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Moran agrees with the ruling under Law 75D2 (basically, one > >is compelled to correct errors in explanation made by one's partner at > >the earliest legal opportunity). In Moran's opinion, West was > >compelled to state (at the conclusion of the auction) that there was a > >failure to alert the 3C bid. > > > > This cannot be right. At this point, West knows that 3C is not > >alertable by their agreements. Why should he be compelled to: > > > > 1. Lie to his opponents > > 2. Provide the opponents with information that his partner > > did not have available to him (as AI) during the auction. > > > > This is clearly an instance of "Mistaken Bid" analogous to the > >second example under the same Law 75D2 that Moran cites. Further, it > >seems at least a bit odd that after the alert (and explanation?) of the > >original 2N, that South was unaware that 3C was a shortness bid. If > >South is a BL (in the pejorative sense), a heart lead is perfect. If it > >works -- great!; if it doesn't you'll get a second chance. Two things to notice: 1) It isn't certain that South knew that West was still under the grip of a mistaken understanding at the moment of his 3C bid. 2) It is very easy to make a mistake on an auction where the opponents correct misexplanation. When I am bidding, I often try to construct the opposing hands, and after a corrected explanation I sometimes fail to realize all the ways that the new evidence should change those constructions. I'm not saying S _isn't_ a BL--but it isn't obvious that he is. > I am agreeing with Brian. Use the isolation example to see his point. Try > this test: East is on one side of the screen and North, West, and South on > the other. West bids 3C and alerts his two screenmates. West here is not > entitled to the information - partner didn't alert his 3C call. The > infraction here is really one of unauthorized information. West is awakened > to his error by East's failure to alert 3C, he now knows that he has erred > in responding to 2N as Jacoby. > > In the isolation above N/S would have had an opportunity to find the club > lead, defeating the contract. > > I do agree with you that no self-respecting player would not know that West > has club shortness and would certainly have preferred to have been at the > table when the statement was made at the conclusion of the auction. I have no self-respect, I guess--I can imagine making that mistake. :) But I would like to have been at the table, too. > Thanks, > > Rick > > I realize now that this is actually a much tougher problem than I thought it was when I first read it--thanks to both of you for starting this discussion. I wish Rick would explain further: is it right thaton your [or Brian's] reading of the laws, West, knowing that 2NT wasn't Jacoby and that his own 3C bid wasn't alertable, should nevertheless have told opponents that his partner failed to alert his 3C bid, because at the time he made it he thought it was alertable. Does this obligation to misdescribe one's agreements take precedence over the obligation to correct a mistaken explanation? I.e., does this mean that West should _not_ correct his mistaken explanation of the 2NT bid? Or should the dialogue go like this: West: "There's been a failure to alert on my 3C bid." N/S: "What did it mean?" West: "It was a shortness bid in reply to partner's Jacoby 2NT." {pause} West: "There's been a mistaken explanation of partner's 2NT." N/S: "What was it?" West: "We don't play Jacoby 2NT in this situation, it was really _____" [I assume 13-15 balanced, judging by the actual hands.] N/S: "But you just told us that 3C was a Jacoby response." East: "Yes, partner has just given you a mistaken explanation--the 3C wasn't a Jacoby response, becuase we don't play Jacoby." After this dialogue, is South supposed to know to lead a club? :) -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu Personally, as West I would have told N/S that 2NT wasn't Jacoby, but also told them that I thought it was when I bid 3C, and explained to them [if needed] what a 3C bid would have meant if we had been playing Jacoby. But I'm not sure that's what the law requires me to do. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 04:00:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:00:31 +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 EAA27536 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:00:26 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 101Cbc-0003iT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:00:20 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990115175332.00a44100@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:53:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Law 28 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 15:20 15-01-99 -0000, you wrote: >South is Dealer but West opens 1D. South does not notice and opens 1NT. >West's 1D is cancelled, East has UI and there may be lead penalties... >Correct? > >Regards, > >Fearghal. > > > Well, if S bids before TD is called, the 1D bid is gone without penalty, so no lead penalties too, but 16C2 applies and the iD bid is UI for W see also28B regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 04:01:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:01:28 +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 EAA27550 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:01:20 +1100 Received: from mmsinet1.mms-inc.com ([207.227.69.130] helo=pcmjn) by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 101Cci-0007S9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:01:28 -0500 X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:01:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Is this right? In-Reply-To: <19990115011856.23552.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_12671821==_.ALT" Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_12671821==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:18 AM 1/15/99 , Michael Farebrother wrote: >My problem with this regulation, and I've had it since I first saw it, >is simply mechanical. I have long thumbnails (it's an affectation, I >know. But many women have this problem, and it's societally acceptable >for them :-) and often (once a session or so) when I grab a bid, my nail >gets the next one. So I pull out my 1H call and the 1S card comes with. > >I have a habit - I pull the bid, look at it, then put it on the table. >When I have mispulled like this, I shake the cards until the unwanted >card falls away, then put my real bid down. This is by no means an uncommon situation--it is precisely the kind of thing that L25A deals with. If the correction is made before LHO calls there is no unauthorized information created so there is no problem. Whenever my RHO has an apparent mechanical problem with the bidding cards I ask if the card laying on the table is, in fact, what they intended to bid. John S. Nichols --=====================_12671821==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 01:18 AM 1/15/99 , Michael Farebrother wrote:

>My problem with this regulation, and I've had it since I first saw it,
>is simply mechanical.  I have long thumbnails (it's an affectation, I
>know.  But many women have this problem, and it's societally acceptable
>for them :-) and often (once a session or so) when I grab a bid, my nail
>gets the next one.  So I pull out my 1H call and the 1S card comes with.
>
>I have a habit - I pull the bid, look at it, then put it on the table. 
>When I have mispulled like this, I shake the cards until the unwanted
>card falls away, then put my real bid down.

This is by no means an uncommon situation--it is precisely the kind of thing that L25A deals with.  If the correction is made before LHO calls there is no unauthorized information created so there is no problem.

Whenever my RHO has an apparent mechanical problem with the bidding cards I ask if the card laying on the table is, in fact, what they intended to bid. 
John S. Nichols
--=====================_12671821==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 04:11:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:11:21 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f244.hotmail.com [207.82.251.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA27603 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:11:06 +1100 Received: (qmail 29972 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jan 1999 17:10:26 -0000 Message-ID: <19990115171026.29971.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.130.99 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:10:25 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.130.99] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:10:25 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Dany Haimovici >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> At 06:50 PM 1/11/99 +0100, Jean-Pierre wrote: >> >> > I know one player among French top players (from Nice and ranking within >> >30 top French players) who never claims. If you ask him why, he > > >> Someone should point out to this person that he or she is violating L74B4. > >I don't agree with you and my interpretation is that the law >doesn't too : >L74B4 : ..."..disconcerting an opponent". >If someone plays always the same way , tempo, etc.....I don't think >someone can ever INTEND to disconcert someone ! >Law 74B4 emphasize -IMHO- the disconcerting.... >If a player never claims ...I am not sure anyone is >allowed to punish him or to compel him - this can be disconcerting >the non-claiming person. but he is not claiming for the stated purpose (clipped) of not allowing the opponents to relax when there is nothing to think about and conversely not telling them they have anything to think about when he doesn't claim. This is "disconcerting an opponent" in the clearest way I can think of short of "Claim, please" - "No I'm not going to. Play a card". He is forcing opponents to concentrate when he doesn't have to. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 04:38:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:38:15 +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 EAA27694 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:38:05 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa26799; 15 Jan 99 9:37 PST To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:23:22 PST." <01be4092$9b68eba0$df284b0c@default> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:37:22 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901150937.aa26799@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Beye wrote: > [Bruce Moore:] > >W N E S > > P P P > >1S P 2N(1) P > >3C P 3N(2) AP > > > > West alerts the 2N call (and presumably explains it as Jacoby > >2NT -- the article implies, but does not specify this). After 3N, West > >states this his previous explanation was in error. Presumably he wakes > >up after partner fails to alert his 3C and remembers that the > >partnership is *not* playing Jacoby 2N in this sequence. . . . > > I am agreeing with Brian. Use the isolation example to see his point. Try > this test: East is on one side of the screen and North, West, and South on > the other. West bids 3C and alerts his two screenmates. West here is not > entitled to the information - partner didn't alert his 3C call. The > infraction here is really one of unauthorized information. West is awakened > to his error by East's failure to alert 3C, he now knows that he has erred > in responding to 2N as Jacoby. > > In the isolation above N/S would have had an opportunity to find the club > lead, defeating the contract. That's true, but I don't believe it's relevant. If you're thinking of the "screen test", I don't recall this test ever being used in a situation like this. I've often seen it used to analyze the proper way of handling UI caused by misexplanations. That is, suppose partner misexplains a bid, or partner's explanation wakes you up to your error. In general (but not always), you're supposed to bid as if there were screens, and you are unable to hear partner's explanation or lack of alert or anything. In fact, West's actions fail the screen test because he should not have passed 3NT. But I've never seen the "screen test" used to evaluate MI cases. Anyway, although it might seem right to require West to reveal that he thought he was showing a singleton club, especially if you proffer the argument that West would have revealed this had screens been in use, it would require a Law change to do this. The argument is that East should have explained the 3C bid, or that West should have explained it before the opening lead, but the Laws don't support this. Law 75D2 talks about "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation ...". However, East's explanation (actually, failure to alert) of 3C was not mistaken. It was the correct explanation in their system (assuming 2NT was not a raise). To apply Law 75D2, you'd have to include, in the definition of "mistaken explanation", an explanation that is mistaken in the context of a system that the player momentarily, and mistakenly, thought they were playing. I'd consider that definition to be "creative". But it seems that that's the route Mr. Moran took. Maybe one can make a case for this definition. > I do agree with you that no self-respecting player would not know that West > has club shortness and would certainly have preferred to have been at the > table when the statement was made at the conclusion of the auction. I think South should have suspected it; but as I pointed out earlier, there are various flavors of 2NT forcing raises, so it's not a sure thing. > I have a new question here: Does anyone lean towards a 2-way score here > E/W = -100 N/S = -660? Not me. By the way, if East knew that 2NT was a natural bid, why the ^#&$ didn't he bid 2H instead? I give East 90% of the blame for the entire debacle, for not making the obvious bid that might have gotten them to the best game, 4H. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 04:43:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:43:40 +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 EAA27714 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:43:33 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa27127; 15 Jan 99 9:43 PST To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:23:22 PST." <01be4092$9b68eba0$df284b0c@default> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:42:57 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901150943.aa27127@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Rick Beye wrote: > I am agreeing with Brian. Use the isolation example to see his point. Try > this test: East is on one side of the screen and North, West, and South on > the other. West bids 3C and alerts his two screenmates. West here is not > entitled to the information - partner didn't alert his 3C call. The > infraction here is really one of unauthorized information. That's correct---but it appears you've failed to take this far enough. If West is guilty of using UI, then his final pass must be disallowed, and the final contract should be 4S down at least 1, which makes the whole misinformation question mute^H^H^H^H moot. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 04:46:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:46:38 +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 EAA27738 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:46:30 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.211]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA01112; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:46:03 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <369F7EEE.9D95C847@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:46:23 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Herman and all fellows (who wrote untill 11.1.99 , meanwhile I have no e-mails after that date...) FIRST : By the present published 97FLB Law 25A DOESN'T say anything about L16 or any other law . It is very clear ! The question is if the full action "inadvertent call + its substitution" is an irregularity ? (in order to be allowed to use Law 84E..) There is no penalty for this action by L25A .It is very clear too !! as long as the substitution was done before the next millennium comes (very explicitly written there). SECOND: If there is no infraction/law infringement , there can't be UI (in my opinion published in a thread some 3 months ago). But there is no doubt that an information which wouldn't appear without the "full action" above is now available to all 5 ! players (I include the TD for fun). DECISION : I apply Law 99 and use my brains (too dry these days but still emitting life signals....) : THERE IS NO WAY TO PLAY THIS BOARD IN A NORMAL WAY Then I'll use my discretionary powers (for which there is no brains need ) according to law 12A2 and assign an AAS ; BUT.... the secondary question is which score .....Read the detailed analysis at the end of this answer. Herman De Wael wrote: > > A fellow Belgian TD asks me the following : > > K J T 8 5 > 5 2 > A K 7 > Q T 5 > 4 Q 7 3 2 > J T 9 8 7 Q 6 > 8 5 3 Q J T 9 > 9 8 7 2 A K J > A 9 6 > A K 4 3 > 6 4 2 > 6 4 3 > > N E > 1He X > > North calls the TD and states he has pulled the wrong card. > The TD believes him and allows a L25A correction to 1Sp. > L25A does not say so, but obviously East can also change his > call. > He decides to pass. > > South now bids 3Sp and this is the final contract. Made, > because North is alerted to the fact the the spades are with > east. > > Absolute top. > > My friend TD has then changed the score to Av+, both sides, > since there is an obvious advantage, but he cannot punish > North for something which is after all "without penalty". > > Two questions : > > In order to change the score, we must be able to call the > information about the double UI to North-South. The only > way to do so is to apply L16C2, which talks about the > offending side. Can NS, despite there being no penalty, > still be regarded as "offending side". (IMO they can) > > When awarding the artificial adjusted score (and I don't > blame this TD for doing that here), one has to read L12C1, > which talks of "at fault". Is it possible for a player to be > an offending side and still not be "at fault"? (IMO he can) > > Would it not be possible to adjust the Av+ downwards again, > because player may be considered in breach of L90B7 (errors > in procedure) and L74B1 (insufficient attention), thus > making the player "partially at fault" and giving him Av or > even Av- ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html What AAS to assign : In my opinion North passed his partner 3S in order to avoid the use of his LHO's double , then he has about 72% to make 4S (I don't know why the player made 3S only , after he saw East's double ?? Well maybe they were not high level players.....) Considering my thoughts and dilemmas above I'll assign the score according to N-S level : for experts the average between 4S , 4S-1 and 3S made ,for lower level players 3S will be changed to 3S -1. The above analysis is only judgement so any result you assign depends on judgement - of a TD or an AC - so i don't argue with it and why that one was assigned. Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 04:56:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:56:20 +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 EAA27773 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:56:13 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.211]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA03936; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:56:01 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <369F8147.47164EC2@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:56:23 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dburn@btinternet.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <199901111713.LAA07108@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <199901120235060130.13FCB271@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G O R G I O U S David Burn wrote: > Herman is constitutionally unable to find an inferior line of play even when he can see all the cards. I have played with Herman, so I can state this unequivocally, even though we were all paralytically drunk at the time. However, I can state with equal certainty that his gift for finding the worst bid imaginable (or even unimaginable) in the most routine situations is unrivalled. Moral: if you want to make a rotten claim, call Herman to the table. If you're sure that at opponent's bid is not a logical alternative, but the product of a diseased and over-wrought imagination, don't call Herman to the table, for he will tell you that the bid was obvious. Sir David B May I use this for our National Magazine please ?? Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 04:56:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:56:34 +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 EAA27780 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 04:56:25 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.211]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA04013; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:56:13 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <369F8154.73BED9B@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:56:36 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Baresch CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this agreement legal? References: <4.1.19990112120201.009acc50@m3.sprynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Huhu Sorry but even in my humorist (and sometimes sarcastic) way of answering this subject ....I am afraid I"ll be rude. There is no problem if you made full disclosure. Your opponent's insinuation if for ZT and even worse (the gallows commission..?) Other club problems should be up to the ......dairy farmer. I apologize for the style but couldn't stand it . Dany P.S. I don't remember if you informed us about the most important members of C-BLML and D-BLML (cats & dogs) . If not yet please tell us. Brian Baresch wrote: > > Hi folks. Had a weird encounter at the club last night. This is from ACBLand, but I welcome everyone's opinion. (I've also sent a query directly to Chyah but would appreciate feedback from this group as well.) > > We play a strong-club system; our 1D/H/S openings are effectively limited to 16 points, including distribution (rule of 20 for them, rule of 25 for 1C). > > When opener bids 1H or 1S and responder has a featureless 13-14 HCP with support, he or she simply places the contract at 4H or 4S, since game is indicated and slam is unlikely. (As a side benefit, the opponents will have little information on which to base an opening lead and won't know much about declarer's hand.) > > Responder also bids 4H or 4S with a weaker hand and 5-card support, as most people in these parts do. Opener doesn't know which hand responder has (and doesn't really care since either way the bid is to play). > > We alert the triple raise and explain it (if asked) as showing either one hand or the other, since most players wouldn't expect the stronger option and might be fooled into overbidding. > > Last night an experienced player (after 1H-(x)-4H*) heard my explanation of 4H and demanded protection from the playing director, who was also her partner; essentially she demanded to know whether my partner had the weak hand or the strong one. She essentially insinuated that that agreement was illegal and did succeed in intimidating my partner into telling her which type of hand he had. The director chose not to enter the discussion. Much unpleasantness. > > We've been using that agreement (and alerting the triple raise) for nearly a year now, in club games and touranments, and never had a problem with it before. > > Thoughts? Opinions? > > Thanks and best regards, > > Brian Baresch, baresch@m3.sprynet.com > Lawrence, Kansas, USA > Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 05:00:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA27810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 05:00:23 +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 FAA27805 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 05:00:15 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.211]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA04990; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:59:59 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <369F81EA.E6DEF547@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:59:06 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Your excellency I would like to be sure you agree with my remarks bellow : Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > "There is a perfectly good UI law" (D.W. Stevenson) > ==================================== > Grattan's comments here represent a personal view of the law > unless otherwise stated. > ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > > From: Michael S. Dennis > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: L25A and L16C > > Date: 09 January 1999 02:22 > > > > At 10:24 AM 1/8/99 +0100, Herman wrote: > > > > > > >In order to change the score, we must be able to call the > ++++ If you come to the position that N/S are not an 'offending' side, it > does not follow that there can be no UI in the possession of one or both > of them. The generality of Law 16 still applies. I would wish to determine ======= Well I see that you agree with me now that : THERE CAN'T BE ANY U N A U T H O R I Z E D I N F O R M A T I O N if there was no infraction/law infringement !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you we solved it for ever (just remember the thread I opened 3-4 months ago ....) If your argument is sound then it is to 16A and B that the > Director will look., and my immediate unmeditated impression is that > you could perhaps find that it is with 12B3 that you come to rest. I understand you meant 16B3 or 12A3 (no 12B3 in my copy of 97FLB !!!!) > I have found no recorded WBFLC position on this. Well - my opinions were sent in the direct answer to Herman's first message. Respectfully Dany > ~ Grattan ~ > ++++ > ----------------- \x/ --------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 05:11:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA27835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 05:11:02 +1100 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA27830 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 05:10:55 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.212] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 101DhP-0004I7-00; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:10:24 +0000 Message-ID: <199901151811010020.019D373E@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <369F8147.47164EC2@internet-zahav.net> References: <199901111713.LAA07108@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <199901120235060130.13FCB271@mail.btinternet.com> <369F8147.47164EC2@internet-zahav.net> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:11:01 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >David Burn wrote: > >> Herman is constitutionally unable to find an inferior line of play even= when he can see all the cards. I have played with Herman, so I can state= this unequivocally, even though we were all paralytically drunk at the= time. However, I can state with equal certainty that his gift for finding= the worst bid imaginable (or even unimaginable) in the most routine= situations is unrivalled. Moral: if you want to make a rotten claim, call= Herman to the table. If you're sure that an opponent's bid is not a= logical alternative, but the product of a diseased and over-wrought= imagination, don't call Herman to the table, for he will tell you that the= bid was obvious. > >Sir David B >May I use this for our National Magazine please ?? You'd better ask Herman, not me. It's already going to appear in Belgium,= so why not in Israel? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 05:35:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA27892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 05:35:17 +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 FAA27887 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 05:35:08 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa00500; 15 Jan 99 10:34 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:49:55 PST." <199901151349550890.00AE2615@mail.btinternet.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:34:28 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901151034.aa00500@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Does this mean that the claim would be allowed _only_ if HAQ were onside= > and C10 dropped? This seems a little odd - on the face of it, we disallow= > the claim when C10 drops but a heart is wrong on the grounds that declarer= > would leave clubs blocked and have to misguess the hearts, but we also= > disallow it when both hearts are right but C10 does not drop on the= > grounds that declarer would overtake the second club. Is the conclusion,= > then, that if declarer has made an ambiguous or incomplete statement, and= > there is more than one "rational" line of play consistent with that= > statement, declarer should always be assumed to follow a losing line= > should such exist? That's how I would have ruled; however, on reflection, I'm not convinced it's necessarily right. My opinion was based on the repeated reference to "normal" lines of play in Laws 68-71. For example, in 70C, if declarer isn't aware of a trump trick, and it could by lost by *any* "normal" line of play, it's lost. Here, the principle is, in essence, to give the perpetrator of a bad claim the worst possible result, without requiring him to adopt an irrational line. If we applied the similar principle in the Strange Claim case, then since neither line (leading toward hearts nor trying to run clubs) is irrational, we would rule down 1 or more unless *both* lines worked. The problem is that none of the references to "normal" specifically apply to our situation; they all apply to other specific situations that don't hold here. So using the above logic requires us to extrapolate. Another possible standard is given by 12C2, which deals with assigned adjusted scores. Here, the standard is "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable,", not "the most unfavorable result that is not irrational." Of course, law 12C2 doesn't actually apply here, but the situation is somewhat related---i.e. the director must figure out what might have happened in a case where we can't play it out to see what happens. So I can sympathize with someone who would apply the "at all probable" standard instead of the "any normal line" standard, although this too requires extrapolation. If we reason this way, we might consider it too "improbable" that declarer would actually overtake the club. I don't think the Laws explicitly say what standard should be followed in our Strange Claim case, except for the vague prescription to "resolve doubtful points against the claimer." Just to complicate things further, leading toward hearts and overtaking the clubs aren't the only possibilities: for some declarers, playing for a stepping-stone squeeze is a viable possibility that may need to be considered. > . . . > Jesper has sent me the original "Strange Claim" thread, but I can't find= > anything in his message that I said at the time! So I still don't know= > whether what I said then contradicts what I have said in this thread.= I found it in my copy of the Strange Claim thread. So apparently my version has some articles Jesper left out, and that may also be true in reverse. I can send you my 5800-line file if you like. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 05:38:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA27908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 05:38:00 +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 FAA27903 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 05:37:54 +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 NAA02092 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id NAA23842 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:37:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:37:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901151837.NAA23842@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Claim - bigger example X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" > Making the rules such that (a) everyone > knows what they are and (b) everyone who breaks them is treated in > exactly the same way, from the Bermuda Bowl to the > Much-Festering-in-the Marsh Swiss Teams, is precisely the goal towards > which we (who understand both the rules and the game) ought to be > directing all our efforts. I'm not sure about the last 'all', but I certainly endorse the sentiment. > A prime example of this is the ACBL's decision to continue to allow > defenders to ask "No hearts, partner?" But I fail to see what this has to do with the main point. The rule, both in zones that allow asking and in those that don't, is completely clear. We can argue forever about which version we prefer, but in the end it seems to be nothing more than a matter of personal taste. Even if there are objective reasons for preferring one rule over the other, clarity isn't one of them. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 06:47:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 06:47:10 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA28073 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 06:47:04 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA16608 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:46:19 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-23.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.87) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma016461; Fri Jan 15 13:45:12 1999 Received: by har-pa2-23.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE4095.BEC5EE60@har-pa2-23.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:45:50 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE4095.BEC5EE60@har-pa2-23.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Limited opening alerts Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:34:24 -0500 Encoding: 19 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] I know exactly what to do - change the Laws so that [without screens] following an alert, it is mandatory for the next hand to ask a question. You would not believe the number of problems that this solves, while not creating any apart from slowing down the game. ### But isn't this rather like saying that you can eliminate any number of problems with an agressive, antisocial individual by performing a prefrontal lobotomy? Slowing down the game is itself a cure worse than the disease, and depending upon what question is asked, how it is phrased, and its intonation the possibilities for UI seem boundless. I really don't think we want to go there, with a rule that would be unpopular and widely regarded as intrusive by the average player it might be intended to protect. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 07:02:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:02:23 +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 HAA28099 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:02:14 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.172]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA08031; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:01:16 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <369F9E9C.1E78E396@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:01:33 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: "Kooijman, A." , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: privilige References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good evening Ton , Grattan , all....... I hope tonight I'll be able to reopen the e-mail box since 11.1.99... One of the most important task of WBFLC , in my opinion , should be a deep and thoroughly revision of notions' definitions and a unified and consequent use of the words through all the laws. I believe that there must be a difference (even a great one) between irregularity and infraction/law infringement !!!! The consequences of each kind of this "disasters" should be very different too - not only in life , when we use judgment (not only bridge) - but in the FLB too. When this will be clear enough I hope many "difficult" interpretations of TD's powers or duties for different kinds of troubles will be easier and less - almost none - disputed. Not only interpretation but the words and language used for the laws will be uniform and easier to deal with .I am not afraid that we"ll loose our jobs - always will need TDs/arbiters.. As much as I remember the preface of the Laws' book it already emphasizes of the difference for "shall" ,"should" , "may not", "shall not" , etc ...... Well should we try to start it ?? Dany p.s. Steve Willner - are we on the magnificent way to discover and publish the real unified field theory ???? Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > "Is it, then, irrational for a Scotsman to wear a kilt?" > > [Dictionary definition:- ' rational dress' - a style of > women's dress characterized by the wearing of > knickerbockers rather than a skirt.] > ======================================== > Hi ton! and others................. > > > From: Kooijman, A. > > To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' > > Subject: privilige > > Date: 08 January 1999 12:49 > > > > what a privilige to be chairman of a worldwide committee dealing with the > > laws of bridge, when this world is so inventive. Now even David Burn > > disappointed me trying to proof that claims are difficult to handle. This > > claim discussion tends to the conclusion that we need an automatic > treatment > > in cases of disputed claims, punishing the claimer. As we do with revokes. > > And then the other half starts screaming that we are too harsh. In my > bridge > > experience claims - even difficult ones - are dealt with in a reasonable > > way. No reason to change anything. > > > > Let me be one of the first to react on the 1H (1S) X case brought in by > > Herman dW. Yes 25 lacks accuracy, we don't handle what to do in case of an > > inadvertant call withdrawn. But putting 1H on the table when you want to > bid > > 1S is an infraction, regardless the reason. So North has unauthorized inf. > > and there should be an adjusted score based on 4S - 1 with a disciplinary > > penalty for north, may be doubled may be not. It might be reasonable to > give > > average-plus to EW but then NS should get average-minus or less (4SX-1) > > still receiving the penalty as well. This is my personal, so strong, > > opinion, nothing to do with WBFLC, though I would like to get support from > > that side. SHOOT. > > +++ Someone remarked to me, in a private email, that "ton tends to use the > English language in such strong terms that people can easily take him > wrongly." > Now I wonder where they got that from? :-))) [I thought they must be getting > > us confused! - or did I?] > I think you mean Procedural, by the way, not Disciplinary. > You are right, it is an infraction, or an irregularity at least. You > are right > it can create UI. The TD *does* have the power to award a PP but that is > harsh > and will not help towards dealing with players more easily when they need the > TD. We must always remember that our committee and the directors are > all servants of the players (that was the theme of my first ever remarks to > one of Kojak's master classes - in Perth, and look how humble the Western > Aussie TDs have become). > The 'privilege' was handed to you with the left hand, perhaps. We > have > our problems. The decisions of a largely American WBFLC have not gone > down all that well in a largely American ACBL. We are needing concordant > dialogue and some thoughts are circulating on that. No doubt we shall be > hearing more! Let us pray for mutual sympathy and understanding on all > sides, even if our common language does get in the way.~ Grattan ~ +++ > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 07:50:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:50:15 +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 HAA28215 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:50:06 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA23023 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:49:14 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-23.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.87) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma022810; Fri Jan 15 14:47:06 1999 Received: by har-pa2-23.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE409E.647EE200@har-pa2-23.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:47:44 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE409E.647EE200@har-pa2-23.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Limited opening alerts Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:03:52 -0500 Encoding: 29 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am surprised that you of all people Marv, with your focus on natural bidding, would think this sequence to be alertable. 1H/P/4H, carrying the meaning of "I want to declare this contract at 4H, we have arrived, be quiet" could hardly be any LESS "different from the expected meaning." In standard, it means "I want to play 4 hearts." In precision it means "I want to play 4 hearts." You are not required to alert the contents of partner's hand (even if you knew them) only what his bid means in your system. It carries the totally normal meaning of desire to play in game in that denomination and denies slam interest. There is nothing to alert. As you would be the first to point out, the convention card clearly shows the system and the meaning of the 1 heart bid, so the meaning of the 4H bid is not too hard to deduce. They can always ask, of course if they are baffled by the obvious. To alert this sequence would be very much contrary to the principal in ACBL alerts of using the procedure only when needed to avoid the little boy who cried wolf syndrome. Memphis got this one right! Craig ---------- From: Marvin L. French[SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] 1M-P-4M is currently Alertable if 4M could be based on a good hand. It conveys a meaning "different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning," as the ACBL puts it. That wording makes it Alertable even if it could be based on a weak hand as well as a good hand. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 08:35:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:35:55 +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 IAA28333 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:35:37 +1100 Received: from Panther3581.ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Panther3581.eiu.edu [139.67.29.179]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA10748; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:32:42 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990115152917.0079b280@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:29:17 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199901140137100940.1E14C740@mail.btinternet.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19990113133900.007ae100@eiu.edu> <369B3132.1D428C60@village.uunet.be> <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> <199901111429000220.1163D553@mail.btinternet.com> <369B3132.1D428C60@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990113133900.007ae100@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:37 AM 1/14/1999 +0000, David Burn wrote: >Hi Grant Hello. :) > >Thanks for a fascinating and very well thought out analysis. Thanks for the compliment. >>An incomplete >>line must be filled out by the TD if the claim is contested, and will be so >>filled out based on 'normal lines'. > >These are very deep waters indeed. As you'll have gathered, a crucial difference between Herman's position and mine is that I don't believe that any line stated by declarer at the point of claiming can be regarded as "incomplete". After all, when a man claims, he is doing so in order to complete the play of the hand - in "fast forward" mode, as it were. Herman thinks, as far as I can see, that declarer's incomplete statement of how he will play may be filled in later by declarer (or in some circumstances by the TD). I think that it may be filled in only by the most disadvantageous legal play of the cards left out of declarer's statement. From the above, it appears that you are of Herman's persuasion rather than mine. However, that is not the point I wish to make at the present moment. I am, indeed, of Herman's persuasion on this point, although Herman and I disagree as to when this adjudication kicks in. > >>An unsuccessful line is, IMHO, ipso >>facto incomplete--at some point it can be seen to break down, and therefore >>ceases at that moment. >> >> So there's my view--the moment an unsuccessful line can be seen to break >>down, that line terminates. > >Yes - but seen *by whom*? If a man claims five heart tricks with AKQxx facing xxxx, you and I can see that as soon as he plays the HA and someone shows out, his line has "broken down". But what have you or I to do with it? The evidence is that declarer, who assumed he had five heart tricks when he claimed, would carry on cashing hearts until someone won the fourth round - unless we stopped him, and what right have we to do that? Of course we can count, but equally obviously he can't, or he would never have claimed in the first place (without cashing one round of hearts, at any rate). Okay, here's the nub of our disagreement. Humor me for the moment and imagine that we interpret 'equity' to mean that we are attempting to give claimer the number of tricks he would have received had he chosen to play the hand out rather than claim. [That's pretty much what _I_ think it means, and I can at least take comfort in knowing that I am not alone, since I didn't make up that definition. :)] At that trick, declarer thinks he can draw hearts. We can see that he can't, but he thinks he can. Fine--imagine that instead of claiming he chooses to play out the hand. He plays the first heart, and discovers the split. When this happens, every single player I know starts counting. In fact, I recently played against someone who had 11 trumps, discovered the 2-0 trump split, and paused to recount trumps. So what some of us are saying is that there is a very good possibility that had he played the hand out he would have discovered his mistake after the first trump trick was played. [Even without the outside hint of having had his claim disputed.] Of course, he might not have seen it. But when he has played the third round of trumps, and still hasn't seen the jack of hearts, it ranks as a virtual certainty that he will have figured out that something is wrong. So when you ask "seen *by whom*", my answer is "seen by the claimer's class of player". The claimer's class of player apparently doesn't see it before he cashes the first heart trick, or else he wouldn't have claimed. {Here I agree with you, and not Herman.} By probably by the first trick, and almost certainly by the third, he'll notice. We may give the non-claimers the benefit of the doubt and assume it takes three tricks rather than one to wake him up (it doesn't matter in this particular hand, but it might in other cases)***, but to require a fourth trick to be played is manifestly irrational for this class of player, and the law says that we do not apply irrational lines. ***When I first wrote this, I had forgotten about the case you present at the end, where it _does_ matter. Really, I swear. :) > >To go back to an earlier example of mine. Declarer in 6H has: > >x >xx >AKQJ109 >xxxx > >Ax >AKQxxxx >x >AKQJ > >The lead is SK. Declarer wins, curses his partner about the bidding for a while, cashes HA on which East shows out, and has detached HK from his hand when a kibitzer sitting behind him says: "Nasty trump break - good job you weren't in seven!" He blinks, puts HK back in his hand, ruffs a spade in dummy and makes his contract. West is void in diamonds, and protests. What ruling would you give? > Down 1, unless the kibitzer was there at the behest of the other side, in which case I might extrapolate from L11B1 and give declarer his contract. Shoot the kibitzer in either case. :) >I think I know the answer to that. Now, why is it OK for the TD to fulfil the role of that kibitzer when declarer, instead of playing as I have described, spreads his hand and says: "drawing trumps, making seven"? Well, I could say "it's okay for the TD to do that because that's what L70 tells us to do." :) But in this case I don't have to say that, because I'm probably going to rule down 1 again. It is probable that declarer will notice his mistake after drawing one round of trumps, and almost certain that he will so notice after he has drawn three rounds and the jack hasn't appeared. {This sounds familiar, somehow.} On _this_ hand, three rounds of trumps is too late to prevent down 1. On the other hand, it wasn't. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 09:02:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:02:37 +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 JAA28454 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:02:31 +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 RAA13564 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:02:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id RAA23986 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:02:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:02:41 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901152202.RAA23986@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > change the Laws so that [without screens] > following an alert, it is mandatory for the next hand to ask a > question. How would this differ from discontinuing alerts and requiring automatic explanations for all unusual calls? If you like David's idea, you might want to reconsider my old suggestion of replacing all alerts by "one-word" announcements. They wouldn't have to be literally just a single word, but the idea is that they would be far short of a complete explanation. For example, "shows hearts" would be OK, even if just "hearts" would have sufficed. "Hearts or clubs" would be another example, as would "hearts plus a minor." If there is need to know about about strength or more about distribution, then a question can be asked. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 09:44:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:44:17 +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 JAA28594 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:44:10 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 101HyE-0002lx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:44:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:00:48 +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 David Burn wrote: >Did the Strange Claim thread conclude what should happen if HAQ were onside, but >someone had C10xxx? Yes. It was generally agreed to give him the slam. -- 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 Jan 16 09:44:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:44:18 +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 JAA28593 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:44:10 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 101HyE-0002m0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:44:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:27:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this right? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C121@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C121@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >This message is a perfect example of the problems we have to deal with in >this BLML group. Geof Francis is telling the whole world how the DutchBF is >organized. I don't know him (or may be forgot about him) and his knowledge >about the NBB lacks accurracy. >The WBF has established a regulation on the use of bidding-boxes which is >brought out as an appendix of the '97 laws and the regulation the NBB had >before '97 appears to be almost exactly the same as this appendix. >Furthermore the NBB added this regulation as an appendix to the Dutch >translation of the '97 laws. So Geof can find it in his lawbook. > >I don't know why he didn't try to find out about this. We should not use >this medium for that aim. And that is what worries me. I like these >discussions but most of the time not the way they develop. My prediction is >that when this group is growing further, the lack of discipline will be >contra-productive. Not all people are able to read 50 messages daily. And >this is just the beginning I am afraid. May I ask the founders to think >about this problem and to try to get a regulation on conduct installed? Or >do we have such a thing? (I don't mean the freedom of press and thoughts) >Make it a regular message then, together with the abbreviations. To be honest, I am not sure why this post should be a worry. In fact, I would have thought it was the other way. Basically someone has asked about his interpretation of a Dutch regulation, or perhaps not realised it was a regulation, and been corrected. Is this not BLML working well? Similarly, another poster referred to the same regulation saying the ACBL did not have one, and was corrected. The only danger comes from people who say that there is a regulation when there is not, but surely we have to take some account of the level of poster, and whether they are quoting something verbatim. "I am sure that we have a regulation that says ..." is not and should not be totally convincing: "This comes from our Orange book:" is rather more so. Perhaps the one thing that comes from this is that posters should be very careful to quote their sources or otherwise carefully: if you have gained an understanding of something then that is not the same as having read a regulation, and care should be taken to distinguish. -- 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 Jan 16 11:31:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:31:51 +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 LAA28831 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:31:42 +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 TAA17079 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:31:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id TAA24128 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:31:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:31:53 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901160031.TAA24128@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Richard F Beye" > The infraction here is really one of unauthorized information. Exactly. (Based on the assumption that the actual partnership agreement was that 2NT was natural.) > West is awakened > to his error by East's failure to alert 3C, he now knows that he has erred > in responding to 2N as Jacoby. Also East has UI from West's wrong explanation. 3NT looks illegal to me, since 3S and 4C appear to be LA's, and 3NT appears to have been suggested over either of these. Note that both Richard and I _disagree_ with Brian Moran's analysis, which considers the issue to be MI, not UI. It's possible, of course, that we might come out with an equivalent score in the end. > I have a new question here: Does anyone lean towards a 2-way score here > E/W = -100 N/S = -660? Not likely. NS were defending what was quite likely an illegal contract, so they should be protected unless the lead is deemed an egregious error (in the ACBL). I suppose I could be convinced, depending on the ability of the NS players and exactly what was said at the table, but it doesn't seem likely on the facts reported. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 12:17:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA28921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:17:53 +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 MAA28916 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:17:46 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa23789; 15 Jan 99 17:16 PST To: Steve Willner cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:31:53 PST." <199901160031.TAA24128@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:16:32 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901151716.aa23789@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > From: "Richard F Beye" > > The infraction here is really one of unauthorized information. > > Exactly. (Based on the assumption that the actual partnership > agreement was that 2NT was natural.) > > > West is awakened > > to his error by East's failure to alert 3C, he now knows that he has erred > > in responding to 2N as Jacoby. > > Also East has UI from West's wrong explanation. 3NT looks illegal > to me, since 3S and 4C appear to be LA's, and 3NT appears to have > been suggested over either of these. I don't see it this way. East has the UI that West has a singleton club and not a real club suit. I would think that this information would make 3NT *less* likely to work than certain other bids, including 3S---I sure don't relish playing in 3NT with Qxx opposite stiff. Of course, 4C would be even more horrible, but I find it hard to consider this a LA when East has double stoppers and possible wasted values in the red suits. Of course, it's a bit difficult to figure out what the logical alternatives at East's second turn are, when East picked such an illogical alternative at his first turn. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 13:55:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:55:34 +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 NAA29177 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:55:22 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 101LtH-0002lY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:55:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 01:55:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) References: <01be4092$9b68eba0$df284b0c@default> In-Reply-To: <01be4092$9b68eba0$df284b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bruce J. Moore >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 6:39 PM >Subject: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) >>W N E S >> P P P >>1S P 2N(1) P >>3C P 3N(2) AP >> >> West alerts the 2N call (and presumably explains it as Jacoby >>2NT -- the article implies, but does not specify this). After 3N, West >>states this his previous explanation was in error. Presumably he wakes >>up after partner fails to alert his 3C and remembers that the >>partnership is *not* playing Jacoby 2N in this sequence. >> >> East makes 660 on a heart lead and the director is called. >>North suggests that they could take the first 5 tricks on a club >>lead. The director adjusts the score to 3N-1. >> >> Moran agrees with the ruling under Law 75D2 (basically, one >>is compelled to correct errors in explanation made by one's partner at >>the earliest legal opportunity). In Moran's opinion, West was >>compelled to state (at the conclusion of the auction) that there was a >>failure to alert the 3C bid. >> >> This cannot be right. At this point, West knows that 3C is not >>alertable by their agreements. Why should he be compelled to: >> >> 1. Lie to his opponents >> 2. Provide the opponents with information that his partner >> did not have available to him (as AI) during the auction. >> >> This is clearly an instance of "Mistaken Bid" analogous to the >>second example under the same Law 75D2 that Moran cites. Further, it >>seems at least a bit odd that after the alert (and explanation?) of the >>original 2N, that South was unaware that 3C was a shortness bid. If >>South is a BL (in the pejorative sense), a heart lead is perfect. If it >>works -- great!; if it doesn't you'll get a second chance. >> >> Did Moran (and the original director) err in this ruling? If >>not, what am I missing? > >I am agreeing with Brian. Use the isolation example to see his point. Try >this test: East is on one side of the screen and North, West, and South on >the other. West bids 3C and alerts his two screenmates. West here is not >entitled to the information - partner didn't alert his 3C call. The >infraction here is really one of unauthorized information. West is awakened >to his error by East's failure to alert 3C, he now knows that he has erred >in responding to 2N as Jacoby. That is true, but you do not go on to adjust because of the UI. >In the isolation above N/S would have had an opportunity to find the club >lead, defeating the contract. As there was no misinformation, it is up to them whether they defeat it or not. >I do agree with you that no self-respecting player would not know that West >has club shortness and would certainly have preferred to have been at the >table when the statement was made at the conclusion of the auction. > >I have a new question here: Does anyone lean towards a 2-way score here >E/W = -100 N/S = -660? Well, we have to look at the UI, and I feel as you will see in a separate article that EW should get at least -300. However, I think that NAmerica is unduly harsh on NOs - perhaps we need a new term, secondary offenders - who misdefend. I find it very rare that a pair would be considered to have taken "irrational, wild or gambling action" [the standard laid down by the WBFLC in Lille] when we are talking of an opening lead against a confusing auction. As for the "double shot", I don't believe it. Can you really honestly believe that a pair would not lead a club deliberately in a complicated scenario like this assuming that if a club lead is correct they will get that on a ruling? It is so unlikely! In my view, NS did not take "irrational, wild or gambling action" and have no reason not to get their correct adjustment of +300. -- 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 Jan 16 13:55:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:55:33 +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 NAA29176 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:55:21 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 101LtH-0002lb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:55:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 01:45:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce J. Moore wrote: >Dlr:N >Vul:? KQ9 > 964 > T7 > AT972 >A8432 [_] JT >KQ [_] AJT52 >AJ982 [_] KQ3 >5 [_] Q86 > 765 > 873 > 654 > KJ43 > >W N E S > P P P >1S P 2N(1) P >3C P 3N(2) AP > > West alerts the 2N call (and presumably explains it as Jacoby >2NT -- the article implies, but does not specify this). After 3N, West >states this his previous explanation was in error. Presumably he wakes >up after partner fails to alert his 3C and remembers that the >partnership is *not* playing Jacoby 2N in this sequence. > > East makes 660 on a heart lead and the director is called. >North suggests that they could take the first 5 tricks on a club >lead. The director adjusts the score to 3N-1. > > Moran agrees with the ruling under Law 75D2 (basically, one >is compelled to correct errors in explanation made by one's partner at >the earliest legal opportunity). In Moran's opinion, West was >compelled to state (at the conclusion of the auction) that there was a >failure to alert the 3C bid. Since when has a natural 3C bid been alertable in the ACBL? Let us take this slowly. Oppos have a right to know a pair's agreements [L40B and L75B]. Nothing in the Laws states that they have a right to know what is in a player's hand. Now, it appears that E/W play P - 1S - 2NT - 3C - 3NT as a natural auction. Therefore, none of the calls require alerts. In fact, 2NT was alerted in error, and misdescribed. After the 3NT bid, the misdescription was corrected, and from that moment on, N/S had a correct description of the E/W methods. So N/S can only be damaged by misinformation for any call they made after the misdescription and before its correction, ie South's second pass and North's third pass [and the latter could have been corrected anyway so long as the TD was called at the time of the correction as required by L75D1]. In fact, it is not credible that North or South would alter either of these passes, so we may say that the temporary misinformation resulted in no damage whatever. The lead? But at that moment North/South were not misinformed about the East/West auction. It is tough luck that an East/West mistake got them off to the wrong lead, but that is life. One of the first things that a TD should learn in MI cases is that you always consider UI as well. So, is there UI, and could there be any damage by that? Well, East had UI: West had alerted and misdescribed 2NT, so we look at whether 3NT was chosen over LAs suggested by the UI. Someone else will have to help me here - I cannot conceive of a method that includes passing a 13-count! Seriously though, why did he not bid 3H, which looks routine to me? Knowing partner might take 3H as a cue- bid, while a bid of 3NT is more likely to get you to play in 3NT? I believe that the UI suggests 3H rather than 3NT, so I believe there was an infraction in the bid of 3NT. I shall come back to how or whether we adjust. What about West? Has he got UI? If he believes 2NT to be Jacoby then he knows that 3C is alertable, and the moment it is not alerted, then he knows that *something* has happened, ie he has UI. Of course, it is possible that partner has just failed to alert an obvious conventional call, but a more likely possibility is that partner does not believe it to be alertable, and if not, then ... It is difficult to believe that West remembered they were playing 2NT as natural [apparently, I have an opening bid but I forgot to, partner ] and remembered coincidentally and nothing to do with the failure to alert. Fortunately the UI Laws are written so that we do not have to say that we consider West a lying cheating bastard, nor do we have to decide whether he is: we merely look at LAs. In the absence of UI, does West have LAs to his pass of 3NT? Does he ever! He has a known 5-4 spade fit, and a 5=2=5=1 shape! Aha, I hear you say, but he has shown the singleton - true, but he is still not automatically accepting an offer to play 3NT from partner. Presumably it shows a hand with good clubs, but to retreat to 4S is clearly an LA, even by European standards, leave alone ACBL standards. Thus the pass over 3NT was an infraction. We have two separate infractions so we have to make an assigned adjustment under L12C2. Perhaps this is the moment to actually re-read that Law. When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred, or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance, and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing. Let us consider the non-offending side first. What is the most favourable result had the irregularity not occurred? Let us see: W N E S P P P 1S P 2N P ? The 3C bid was made before West had any UI, so it must stand. 3C P ? As I said earlier, I think 3H is an LA, so we should consider auctions with a 3H bid here: however: 3N P ? Without the UI, West knows that East has spades, so there are clearly alternatives to Pass here. However, taking the 3NT at face-value, it presumably shows a club holding, so, since West has only a 14-count, he would presumably give up on slam and bid 4S, despite his good distribution. East has no reason to move over 4S, so one possible auction is W N E S P P P 1S P 2N P 3C P 3N P 4S P P P How many tricks are going to be made in 4S? I think it is simple enough - on a club lead and continuation, declarer ducks a trump, and if they force him again, knows he has lost control, so cashes the ace of trumps and plays side suits, making nine tricks. On any other defence , he ducks a trump, and can afford to duck another, making ten tricks. So the number of tricks depends on the likelihood of a club lead. I shall get back to this. Suppose that we now look at the possibility of East bidding 3H and where that leads. We are considering what would have happened in the absence of UI, ie we have an auction where East knows he has shown a balanced hand, and bids accordingly, and West assumes a Jacoby 2NT and bids accordingly. Let us see where we go: W N E S P P P 1S P 2N P 3C P 3H P East will bid this as natural, and West will take it as a cue bid, so 4D to show the ace seems obvious: 4D P 5H P Well, what would you do over 4D if you knew your bidding was natural? What is 4D? Surely a cue bid, agreeing hearts? As East, what do you think of your hand [having passed originally]? No ace to cue, but an excellent hand. 6S P P P West would bid 6S now probably. He does not know exactly what East is up to, but he is thinking of A8432 [_] KJT5 KQ [_] AJT2 AJ982 [_] K3 5 [_] 863 Before any of you suggest he is reaching to bid a slam opposite a passed hand, let me remind you that he did bid 3C originally - why? Because he was hoping for a perfect fit and a slam - if he did not think slam was possible then why bid 3C? So if he gets an encouraging 5H bid he will .... Hang on, why did partner not bid 5D? Ok, how about: A8432 [_] KQT5 KQ [_] AJT2 AJ982 [_] Q3 5 [_] 863 The trouble is, we are reaching somewhat here. I know we dislike percentages, but I think we should use them sometimes to clarify our thinking. If the players do not use UI at all, then we expect a 3H bid rather than 3NT [say] 80% of the time. This will lead to 5S some of the time, 6S some of the time, and 6S* some of the time - say for argument's sake that these are equally likely - well 5S slightly more so. Let us tabulate the possible results. Wait a minute, how many tricks? Against 6S, a club lead stands out with a trump trick. Otherwise a club lead is a possibility, no more, probably from defenders who have deduced the singleton club despite the lack of explanation, and is going to be found [say] one time in five. So we reach: 6S*-3 -500 15% 6S*-2 -300 10% 6S-3 -150 15% 6S-2 -100 10% 5S-2 -100 6% 5S-1 -50 24% 4S-1 -50 5% 4S= +420 15% It is 'likely' by European definitions that North-South are going to gain at least 300 [25% > one in six]. However, by NAmerican definitions [which I believe to be flawed] 'likely' is defined as one time in three, so it is 'likely' in NAmerica that North-South are going to gain at least 150 [40% > one in three]. Without the ability to give a weighted score, I would thus rule in either jurisdiction that North-South get +300, though I might consider +500 in Europe. It is 'at all probable' by European definitions that East-West are going to lose at least 500 [15% > one in twelve]. However, by NAmerican definitions [which I believe to be flawed] 'at all probable' is defined as one time in six, so it is 'at all probable' in NAmerica that East- West are going to lose at least 150 [25% > one in six]. Without the ability to give a weighted score, I would thus rule in Europe that East- West lose 500, and in NAmerica that East-West lose 300, though I might consider 500. As far as West is concerned, I think the pass of 3NT warrants consideration of a PP, being a clear use of UI. However, the some of the other replies to this thread suggest the position lacks clarity, so I would not issue a PP, apart from a warning. Since the case was in the ACBL, I rule NS +300, EW -300. Despite the length of time I have given to expounding this answer, I do not think it is a very difficult case. There was clearly no damage from MI, since the opponents appear to have only claimed damage on the opening lead, and they were not misinformed at that time. Competent TDs and ACs always look for UI as well in MI cases, and it is easy to see it. Certainly I can imagine some TDs or ACs disagreeing with me over the details of the final ruling, but it is hardly credible that anyone would give EW a plus score after considering the UI in detail. In Europe, where L12C3 applies, I would expect a split score, something for NS like 30% 500, 30% 300 and 40% 100, but that will not result in much difference from the TD's adjustment, even at pairs. -- 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 Jan 16 13:55:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:55:34 +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 NAA29178 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:55:22 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 101LtJ-0002lc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:55:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:02:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) References: <199901151649.KAA08641@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199901151649.KAA08641@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: > Two things to notice: > 1) It isn't certain that South knew that West was still under the >grip of a mistaken understanding at the moment of his 3C bid. > 2) It is very easy to make a mistake on an auction where the >opponents correct misexplanation. When I am bidding, I often try to >construct the opposing hands, and after a corrected explanation I >sometimes fail to realize all the ways that the new evidence should change >those constructions. > > I'm not saying S _isn't_ a BL--but it isn't obvious that he is. Exactly. It is not good for the game of bridge to assume that players are BLs in the absence of strong evidence - and getting an opening lead wrong on a confusing auction is not strong evidence! >> I do agree with you that no self-respecting player would not know that West >> has club shortness and would certainly have preferred to have been at the >> table when the statement was made at the conclusion of the auction. > I have no self-respect, I guess--I can imagine making that >mistake. :) But I would like to have >been at the table, too. This seems the correct answer: anyone could get this one wrong, so there is no reason to deny this pair their rights. > I realize now that this is actually a much tougher problem than I >thought it was when I first read it--thanks to both of you for starting >this discussion. > I wish Rick would explain further: is it right thaton your [or Brian's] >reading of the laws, West, knowing that 2NT wasn't Jacoby and that his own >3C bid wasn't alertable, should nevertheless have told opponents that his >partner failed to alert his 3C bid, because at the time he made it he >thought it was alertable. Does this obligation to misdescribe one's >agreements take precedence over the obligation to correct a mistaken >explanation? I.e., does this mean that West should _not_ correct his >mistaken explanation of the 2NT bid? Or should the dialogue go like this: The opponents have a right to a correct explanation of the opponents' bidding. There is no obligation to misdescribe, merely an obligation to describe correctly [L40B and L75A] and to correct one's own misdescriptions [L75D1]. > Personally, as West I would have told N/S that 2NT wasn't Jacoby, >but also told them that I thought it was when I bid 3C, and explained to >them [if needed] what a 3C bid would have meant if we had been playing >Jacoby. But I'm not sure that's what the law requires me to do. The Law does not require it, and if you did add such an unnecessary addition, it might cause more trouble [see a few Nationals ago, Garozzo on lead against a wrong but intended as helpful explanation]. -- 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 Jan 16 13:55:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:55:24 +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 NAA29168 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:55:16 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 101LtC-0002lc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:55:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 23:45:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> <000701be3a3f$5a8b93c0$598a93c3@pacific> <3.0.1.32.19990112081151.006dadd8@pop.cais.com> <369F37C2.EEEA4693@internet-zahav.net> In-Reply-To: <369F37C2.EEEA4693@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >Hi Eric > >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> At 06:50 PM 1/11/99 +0100, Jean-Pierre wrote: >> >> > I know one player among French top players (from Nice and ranking within >> >30 top French players) who never claims. If you ask him why, he > > >> Someone should point out to this person that he or she is violating L74B4. > >I don't agree with you and my interpretation is that the law >doesn't too : >L74B4 : ..."..disconcerting an opponent". >If someone plays always the same way , tempo, etc.....I don't think >someone can ever INTEND to disconcert someone ! >Law 74B4 emphasize -IMHO- the disconcerting.... >If a player never claims ...I am not sure anyone is >allowed to punish him or to compel him - this can be disconcerting >the non-claiming person. Well, it is a generally accepted interpretation, and the bit you snipped said in effect that his reason was to disconcert the oppos. I really think that a person who will not claim is a menace. No, I am not talking of dubious claims, but a player who will not claim in the following position: x x x A - x KQ - - - - x xx x x - is hardly doing the game a lot of good. Since the generally accepted interpretation is that he is subject to the quoted law I would suggest we run with it. -- 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 Jan 16 13:55:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:55:32 +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 NAA29179 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:55:23 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 101LtK-0002lZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:55:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:05:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <199901151131.LAA09590@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <199901151349550890.00AE2615@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901151349550890.00AE2615@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >I have looked at DWS's account of the "Strange Claim" thread on his Web page, >and his suggestion for a L70B4 has considerable merit, though I have not thought >through all the implications. Note to David: when you have a minute, you might >tidy up the article - there are a couple of references to getting to dummy - the >East hand - with a heart when East was actually the declarer. Yes, I see the inconsistency. My impression is that West was declarer, and I have changed it to say so. -- 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 Jan 16 14:18:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA29282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:18:29 +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 OAA29277 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:18:23 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 101MFc-0006a9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:18:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:11:47 +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 David Stevenson wrote: >David Burn wrote: > >>Did the Strange Claim thread conclude what should happen if HAQ were onside, >but >>someone had C10xxx? > > Yes. It was generally agreed to give him the slam. > This must be one of my stupidest messages ever. Just ignore it seems best. -- 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 Jan 16 21:31:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:31:46 +1100 Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA00176 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:31:40 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-207.uunet.be [194.7.9.207]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18755 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:31:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36A062F3.9605376E@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 10:59:15 +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 - bigger example References: <199901111713.LAA07108@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <199901120235060130.13FCB271@mail.btinternet.com> <369F8147.47164EC2@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > > G O R G I O U S > > David Burn wrote: > > > Herman is constitutionally unable to find an inferior line of play even when he can see all the cards. I have played with Herman, so I can state this unequivocally, even though we were all paralytically drunk at the time. However, I can state with equal certainty that his gift for finding the worst bid imaginable (or even unimaginable) in the most routine situations is unrivalled. Moral: if you want to make a rotten claim, call Herman to the table. If you're sure that at opponent's bid is not a logical alternative, but the product of a diseased and over-wrought imagination, don't call Herman to the table, for he will tell you that the bid was obvious. > > Sir David B > May I use this for our National Magazine please ?? > > Dany Sorry, I asked him first. It will appear in Squeeze Info, to the great amusement of my fellow club members. Anyway, go right ahead please. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 21:31:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:31:54 +1100 Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA00195 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:31:47 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-207.uunet.be [194.7.9.207]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18769 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:31:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36A06672.35444B9F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:14:10 +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: Law 28 References: <001b01be409a$9bce91a0$d6307dc2@hlyxzurz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > > South is Dealer but West opens 1D. South does not notice and opens 1NT. > West's 1D is cancelled, East has UI and there may be lead penalties... > Correct? > See my reply to Dany regarding L25A and L16C. Yes, L26 stands on itself. There is an offending player (even if he is not punished) and there is a substituted call. L26 should apply (IMHO) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 21:31:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:31:56 +1100 Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA00199 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:31:50 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-207.uunet.be [194.7.9.207]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18759; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:31:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36A065B3.578C51D1@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:10:59 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dany Haimovici , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> <369F7EEE.9D95C847@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Dany, Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Dear Herman and all fellows (who wrote untill 11.1.99 , meanwhile > I have no e-mails after that date...) > > FIRST : > By the present published 97FLB Law 25A DOESN'T say anything about > L16 or any other law . There is a general principle in the Laws saying that all Laws stand on their own. The references are there just to make life easy on the TD, but when they are not there, that does not mean the other law does not apply. (To be fair, this is not a universally accepted principle) > It is very clear ! The question is if the > full action "inadvertent call + its substitution" is an irregularity ? > (in order to be allowed to use Law 84E..) > There is no penalty for this action by L25A .It is very clear too !! > as long as the substitution was done before the next millennium comes > (very explicitly written there). > > SECOND: > If there is no infraction/law infringement , there can't be UI Then read the definition of UI (or rather AI) again. It is clear that this knowledge is UI ! What is less clear is whether L16B or L16C applies, or since L16C seems clear, if "25A changer" can be considered "offender" for the purpose of L16C. I would call the changing of a call an infraction, and the person doing so an offender, even if by L25A the penalty for the infraction itself is ... zero. > (in my opinion published in a thread some 3 months ago). > But there is no doubt that an information which wouldn't appear > without the "full action" above is now available to all 5 ! players > (I include the TD for fun). > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 21:31:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:31:44 +1100 Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA00174 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:31:37 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-207.uunet.be [194.7.9.207]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18751 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:31:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36A061C4.92ABB05B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 10:54:12 +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: <199901151131.LAA09590@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <199901151349550890.00AE2615@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > [RB] > >The majority conclusion was that we would allow if HAQ were onside > >and a defender had C10xx; i.e. if any normal line to cash four clubs > >would work. > > Does this mean that the claim would be allowed _only_ if HAQ were onside and C10 dropped? Indeed ! This seems a little odd - on the face of it, we disallow the claim when C10 drops but a heart is wrong on the grounds that declarer would leave clubs blocked and have to misguess the hearts, but we also disallow it when both hearts are right but C10 does not drop on the grounds that declarer would overtake the second club. Indeed ! Is the conclusion, then, that if declarer has made an ambiguous or incomplete statement, and there is more than one "rational" line of play consistent with that statement, declarer should always be assumed to follow a losing line should such exist? Of course ! I don't have any particular problem with that, but it seems out of keeping with the majority position on the hand which started the "Claim" thread. No it isn't. In the strange claim, declarer stated and irrational (impossible, even) line : "play top clubs". This was changed into all normal lines : "finesse hearts" and "overtake clubs", the least favourable of which should count. In the claim here, declarer also stated an irrational line (well, if we judge it irrational) : "play 4 rounds of hearts", and this was changed into several normal lines (I don't remember the exact hand) like "go to table by ... in order to finess hearts". If all the normal lines work, the claim is valid. Exactly the same reasoning, I'm afraid. Although we can discuss until Kingdom come if certain lines are irrational or normal, of course. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 23:17:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 23:17:41 +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 XAA00370 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 23:17:32 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.175]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id OAA29511; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:17:18 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36A08365.BC3E4E1E@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:17:41 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Farebrother CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: <19990115171026.29971.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Michael I agree with you that when the opponents ask "Claim please" - which is IMO synonimous with their concession - it would be worse than disconcerting not to do it . My opinion discussed if he/she must initate it - again I don't think he/she is compelled to claim and can be punished in anyway without pointing the "disconcerting" intention (I don't judge now if the TD is right or not considering the disconcerting , but he has no right by the present law to penalize without pointing it). Dany Michael Farebrother wrote: > > >From: Dany Haimovici > > >Eric Landau wrote: > >> > >> At 06:50 PM 1/11/99 +0100, Jean-Pierre wrote: > >> > >> > I know one player among French top players (from Nice and ranking > within > >> >30 top French players) who never claims. If you ask him why, he > > > > > >> Someone should point out to this person that he or she is violating > L74B4. > > > >I don't agree with you and my interpretation is that the law > >doesn't too : > >L74B4 : ..."..disconcerting an opponent". > >If someone plays always the same way , tempo, etc.....I don't think > >someone can ever INTEND to disconcert someone ! > >Law 74B4 emphasize -IMHO- the disconcerting.... > >If a player never claims ...I am not sure anyone is > >allowed to punish him or to compel him - this can be disconcerting > >the non-claiming person. > > but he is not claiming for the stated purpose (clipped) of not allowing > the opponents to relax when there is nothing to think about and > conversely not telling them they have anything to think about when he > doesn't claim. This is "disconcerting an opponent" in the clearest way > I can think of short of "Claim, please" - "No I'm not going to. Play a > card". He is forcing opponents to concentrate when he doesn't have to. > > Michael. > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 16 23:49:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 23:49:34 +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 XAA00430 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 23:49:27 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA25661 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:48:35 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 16 Jan 99 12:48 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) 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: <9901141748.aa07998@flash.irvine.com> Adam wrote: > > > > Dlr:N > > Vul:? KQ9 > > 964 > > T7 > > AT972 > >A8432[_] JT > >KQ [_] AJT52 > >AJ982[_] KQ3 > >5 [_] Q86 > > 765 > > 873 > > 654 > > KJ43 > > > > W N E S > > P P P > > 1S P 2N(1) P > > 3C P 3N(2) AP > > > The Director's first responsibility is to determine the actual > agreement. Assuming she can determine that they're definitely not > playing Jacoby, then I believe you're right and Moran is wrong---but I agree up to this point > an adjustment is still in order. East's failure to alert 3C was UI > for West, and West isn't allowed to let this wake him up. Well, he > *should* let it wake him up long enough to correct the mistaken > explanation he provided earlier (of course, he should call the > Director as soon as he realizes this); but once the opponents are > properly informed, I believe West must "unwake" up and presume that > East did alert the 3C response properly, and bid accordingly. And > with 5-5 and a partner who showed 4-card spade support, I believe 4S > is clearly a logical alternative to pass, and therefore pass is not > allowed. Taking as read that pass and 4S are both LAs then I think you need to put yourself in West's shoes. The UI tells him that he has just shown a club suit he doesn't have and as a result partner has bid 3NT. To me this *suggests* bidding 4S so I would have to pass. Give East JTx,AJT9x,KQx,Qx and I would probably be ruling 4S= back to 3N-1. Indeed even on the actual hand 4S seems the better contract (ok a club lead beats both that and 3N but a club seems much less likely against the former). East has, IMO, shown good ethics already by choosing 3NT over 3H and in so doing missing any chance of reaching their rock solid game in either red suit (after all who wants to play 3NT with x opposite Qxx and an obligation to explain that your 2NT wasn't Jacoby after all). Obviously I wrote the above before reading DWS's analysis which reached exactly the opposite conclusion on the "suggested choice" made by the UI in each case. Both David and I were trying to make the ethical bid. Would it be correct for me (as TD) to rule against David (if things worked out well for him) and for him (as TD) to rule against me? This feels like the sort of problem "demonstrably" was intended to avoid but that doesn't seem much help here. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 17 01:02:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 01:02:41 +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 BAA02775 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 01:02:03 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.175]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id OAA11056; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:57:53 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36A08CD1.9EA17789@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:57:53 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> <000701be3a3f$5a8b93c0$598a93c3@pacific> <3.0.1.32.19990112081151.006dadd8@pop.cais.com> <369F37C2.EEEA4693@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For this kind of 101% of claim I agree with you , but it happens sometime - especially now when many of us are at the Alzheimer age - that even seldom , may forget that an outstanding Ace is out ...or any card , so better to play instead of producing troubles . If playing 6 Sp left with AK sp only and not claiming .... must hang him or reminding him what is the game he plays - I mean bridge , not cucuricudosaurus , not the 6Sp contract. Cheers Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > >Hi Eric > > > >Eric Landau wrote: > >> > >> At 06:50 PM 1/11/99 +0100, Jean-Pierre wrote: > >> > >> > I know one player among French top players (from Nice and ranking within > >> >30 top French players) who never claims. If you ask him why, he > > > > > >> Someone should point out to this person that he or she is violating L74B4. > > > >I don't agree with you and my interpretation is that the law > >doesn't too : > >L74B4 : ..."..disconcerting an opponent". > >If someone plays always the same way , tempo, etc.....I don't think > >someone can ever INTEND to disconcert someone ! > >Law 74B4 emphasize -IMHO- the disconcerting.... > >If a player never claims ...I am not sure anyone is > >allowed to punish him or to compel him - this can be disconcerting > >the non-claiming person. > > Well, it is a generally accepted interpretation, and the bit you > snipped said in effect that his reason was to disconcert the oppos. > > I really think that a person who will not claim is a menace. No, I am > not talking of dubious claims, but a player who will not claim in the > following position: > > x > x > x > A - x > KQ - > - - > - x xx > x > x > - > > is hardly doing the game a lot of good. Since the generally accepted > interpretation is that he is subject to the quoted law I would suggest > we run with it. > > -- > 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 Jan 17 02:33:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 02:33:34 +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 CAA03093 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 02:33:26 +1100 Received: from larochel4-29.abo.wanadoo.fr [164.138.145.29] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:30:52 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199901161530.QAA02370@wanadoo.fr> Reply-To: From: "Noblet-Dominique" To: Subject: 2H OBOOT Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:38:25 +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 QAA02370 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bonjour =E0 tous, South dealer: S W 2H (7-11 HCP, 6 cards in heart) 2H is cancelled. 2H withdrawn is an UI for EAST (L16C2). Correct ? The auction begins again: S W 1NT (12-14 HCP) ? L31 A.2.a " ... repeats the denomination of his BOOT, (penalty) offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call". S W 1NT 2H But now, this overcall 2H after 1NT is a tranfer for 2S !! Has East to alert and to explain their agreement (transfer for spades) in this situation ? (too funny !!!!!!) What is ruling ? Amicalement Dominique Noblet =20 8 rue de la fontaine 17290 THAIRE - France T=E9l: 0546564654 Fax: 0546569624 =20 dominique.noblet@wanadoo.fr From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 17 02:42:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 02:42:48 +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 CAA03122 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 02:42:41 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 101Xrt-0004IN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 15:42:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 15:05:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> <000701be3a3f$5a8b93c0$598a93c3@pacific> <3.0.1.32.19990112081151.006dadd8@pop.cais.com> <369F37C2.EEEA4693@internet-zahav.net> <36A08CD1.9EA17789@internet-zahav.net> In-Reply-To: <36A08CD1.9EA17789@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >For this kind of 101% of claim I agree with you , but it >happens sometime - especially now when many of us are at the >Alzheimer age - that even seldom , may forget that an outstanding Ace is >out ...or any card , so better to play instead of producing >troubles . If playing 6 Sp left with AK sp only and not claiming .... >must hang him or reminding him what is the game he plays - I mean bridge >, not cucuricudosaurus , not the 6Sp contract. Look, it is time we got the general bridge position right. If a player is such that they are unable to claim because they are not good enough, or they are unsure of themselves or whatever, then no-one is suggesting that they be forced to claim. But this thread *specifically* referred to a *top* French player who does not claim ever *because* he wants to tire opponents, *not* because he cannot, and *that* is illegal, correctly so. -- 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 Jan 17 02:42:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 02:42:48 +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 CAA03121 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 02:42:41 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 101Xrt-0004IO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 15:42:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 15:09:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >Both David and I were trying to make the ethical bid. Would it be correct >for me (as TD) to rule against David (if things worked out well for >him) and for him (as TD) to rule against me? This feels like the sort of >problem "demonstrably" was intended to avoid but that doesn't seem much >help here. No, it is not correct. This sounds like the "If it hesitates, shoot it" brigade. It just means we disagree over bridge analysis, not Law, so it does not matter too much. As a TD we would each have consulted with a colleague, who might have changed our views on the analysis anyway. Furthermore, mistakes on bridge analysis by TDs are *not* serious - that is the best reason for 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 Sun Jan 17 03:09:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 03:09:24 +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 DAA03278 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 03:09:13 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.198]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA06251; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 18:08:41 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36A0B99F.A52D026@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 18:09:03 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grant Sterling CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim - bigger example References: <369B3132.1D428C60@village.uunet.be> <01BE38C1.E0A7F5E0@har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com> <3692BC3B.72C06D40@freewwweb.com> <369390A4.EE382850@village.uunet.be> <199901070143110250.024B7D03@mail.btinternet.com> <199901070212160890.026620FE@mail.btinternet.com> <3694C595.5080C2A0@village.uunet.be> <3697CF89.78E2DB3F@home.com> <3698B7DB.B3E6E63B@village.uunet.be> <3698DD45.D16CFACF@freewwweb.com> <3699EB68.A5A9BEB4@village.uunet.be> <199901111429000220.1163D553@mail.btinternet.com> <369B3132.1D428C60@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990113133900.007ae100@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant tried to overview almost all possible cases when a line is rational , good , bad , insane etc.... I appreciate his deep analysis and conclusions ; I "even" agree with them. What I think is important to say is that the JUDGMENT of a TD or AC can never be substituted; no surrogate will succeed better than a good TD . I also agree that this will make the difference between good and bad TDs. The classification of their judgment - and more important THEIR REACTION to one's remarks - will be defined by many players , along a long while. I suggest not to try to classify all possible cases , if the main idea of claim is clear , because LIFE is the most astonishing event ; there will be always a new kind of cucuricu , not included in the lawyers' classification. Thank you Grant for this refinement of the laws' maker intentions. Dany Grant Sterling wrote: > > At 08:21 AM 1/13/1999 +0000, David Burn wrote: > >On 12/01/99, at 12:25, Herman De Wael wrote: > >This is the point. Declarer has stated a line of play. Presumably, he had > a reason for so doing - he believed that this line of play would produce > the tricks he was claiming in all possible circumstances. Therefore, for > that declarer at that point, the line of play he stated was a rational line > - a line of play that he might follow for the reason that he believes it > will succeed. The only reason he now has for believing it will not succeed > is that, solely by virtue of his having made a contested claim, some > outside agency has told him that it will not. >>rest, as it really is not interesting any more. > > > >Indeed. This will be my final word on the subject. > > Probably mine as well, but I've said that before and then didn't shut up.... Please don't shut up if you are convinced that what you say is true and important . > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 17 04:23:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:23:12 +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 EAA03449 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:23:02 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.198]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA25850; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 19:22:36 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36A0CAF2.C4DF1A61@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 19:22:58 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: BLML Ethics References: <001201be3fa9$111ba580$448993c3@pacific> <5x43dkAKKfn2EwtH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all I read carefully David's message bellow. I agree with him 101% . I think there will be an Ethics commission for BLML too - i suggest David , Grattan , Marvin & Jesper. If any of them finds a "bad" behavior - not an humorous paper - (like David Burn's message - chef d'ouevre in my opinion) they"ll send a "warning" privately to the "infractor". After 3 W the infractor's name will be published , in order to redress the infractor's behavior . Please agree to this suggestion. Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Over the last three months or so, there have been a spate of really > offensive comments form certain people writing to this list. Notably > this has not been the lesser lights, but has emanated from people whose > knowledge of the Laws of the game is very good, and their words should > be listened to. Mainly it has come from a couple of people who use > offensiveness to strengthen poor positions who belittle people who do > not agree with them. > > I think it is very unfortunate. I have talked to the originators of > BLML privately, and there is a feeling that we are going to have to > control writing here in some way, perhaps publishing guidelines - and > the first guideline would seem to be that to belittle others to shore up > a weak position is not acceptable. > > I am very worried and distressed that people do it. Most lists and > newsgroups have people who leave them because they have been flamed. My > experience on other groups is that it is usually a type of person that > commands no respect and who wishes notoriety who does the flaming. That > is not the case here. The 'lesser lights' who sometimes post are > courteous, helpful, and often produce excellent and cogent arguments. > However, we have a very small group who use offensiveness as a tactic. > > There is no-one here who is right all the time, though I am afraid > there are a few who believe themselves to be. It is time that anyone > who does so believe themselves to be perfect should re-assess their own > feelings. Furthermore, what is such a person doing here if he has > nothing to learn? > > I think this is a growing problem, and I am going to ask everyone to > re-consider each time they post as to whether the post is unnecessarily > offensive. If it contains name-calling of any sort [unless clearly > humorous] then perhaps you could reconsider before sending it to the > list. Why are you calling people names: are you sure that your position > is such that it is necessary? > > For my own part, I have given up answering certain posts because while > I am trying to help everyone on this list I find it too upsetting to be > attacked in this way. A friend of mine, Mike Swanson, has accused me > over the years of being too thin-skinned, and I nearly left the list a > couple of years ago because of the method of posting by certain people. > Perhaps I am, and perhaps the current wave of offensiveness would not > affect others - but when I wrote to the other originators of the list, > they agreed with me. > > Let me ask *everyone* a question. If you believe what you write, why > do you need to belittle people who do not agree with you? > > -- > 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 Jan 17 04:33:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:33:24 +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 EAA03481 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:33:16 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.198]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA28245; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 19:33:03 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36A0CD65.2496467C@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 19:33:25 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Musgrove CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: <199901150534.QAA00995@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ah Tony Please don't remind me parliamentary wording . From my poor experience with some parliaments : Israeli , Turkish , Japanese.... I prefer to deal with some people in jails , who speak and behave nicer than some "P M "........ Dany Tony Musgrove wrote: > > At 01:49 PM 14/01/99 -0800, you wrote: > >DWS wrote: > > > >> Over the last three months or so, there have been a spate of > >really > >> offensive comments form certain people writing to this list. > > etc. > > and Marvin: > > >How about some quotes so we all know what you mean? Maybe I'm > >insensitive or have deleted too many "claim" articles without > >reading them, but I haven't noticed anything really offensive on > >BLML. > > If I may have my pacific peso's worth, I agree with Marvin here. There has > been nothing that I have read, certainly not in the "Claim" thread, which > even approaches "vigorous" argument (by Australian parliamentary standards). > There have been poor arguments and poor argumentation, but the worst failure > to my mind has been that I still don't quite know what I should rule in the > given situation. If anything could be cut out of this forum, I would like > it to be the endless repeating of the same argument. > > The only post which offended me was one where I noted a moot point spelled > "mute" :)). > > Tony > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 17 05:21:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 05:21:34 +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 FAA03634 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 05:21:25 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 101aLW-0000uj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 18:21:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:44:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 2H OBOOT References: <199901161530.QAA02370@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <199901161530.QAA02370@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Noblet-Dominique wrote: >Bonjour =E0 tous, Bonjour =E0 vous. > >South dealer: > S W > 2H (7-11 HCP, 6 cards in heart) > >2H is cancelled. >2H withdrawn is an UI for EAST (L16C2). Correct ? > >The auction begins again: > S W >1NT (12-14 HCP) ? > >L31 A.2.a >" ... repeats the denomination of his BOOT, (penalty) offender's partner >must pass when next it is his turn to call". > > S W > 1NT 2H > >But now, this overcall 2H after 1NT is a tranfer for 2S !! >Has East to alert and to explain their agreement (transfer for spades) in >this situation ? (too funny !!!!!!) > >What is ruling ? LAW 29 - PROCEDURE AFTER A CALL OUT OF ROTATION C. Call out of Rotation Is Conventional=20 If a call out of rotation is conventional, the provisions of Law 30, Law 31, and Law 32 shall apply to the denominations specified, rather than the denominations named.=20 So this is not "repeating a denomination", but a new one. --=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 Sun Jan 17 06:23:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 06:23:46 +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 GAA03838 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 06:23:39 +1100 Received: from michael (user-38lcivo.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.248]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA19984 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:23:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990116142310.006e790c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:23:10 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:45 AM 1/16/99 +0000, David wrote: One of the first things that a TD should learn in MI cases is that you >always consider UI as well. So, is there UI, and could there be any >damage by that? Well, East had UI: West had alerted and misdescribed >2NT, so we look at whether 3NT was chosen over LAs suggested by the UI. >Someone else will have to help me here - I cannot conceive of a method >that includes passing a 13-count! Seriously though, why did he not bid >3H, which looks routine to me? Knowing partner might take 3H as a cue- >bid, while a bid of 3NT is more likely to get you to play in 3NT? I >believe that the UI suggests 3H rather than 3NT, so I believe there was >an infraction in the bid of 3NT. I shall come back to how or whether we >adjust. > I was following your analysis up to this point, but here either I have misunderstood or you have mistyped. If the UI suggests 3H rather than 3NT, then it is 3H which would have been illegal, while 3NT would only be illegal if _it_ was suggested over some other LA. Or am I missing something? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 17 06:42:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 06:42:29 +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 GAA03889 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 06:42:22 +1100 Received: from michael (user-38lcivo.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.248]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA09336 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:42:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990116144155.006e74f4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:41:55 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:45 AM 1/16/99 +0000, David S wrote: > What about West? Has he got UI? If he believes 2NT to be Jacoby then >he knows that 3C is alertable, and the moment it is not alerted, then he >knows that *something* has happened, ie he has UI. Of course, it is >possible that partner has just failed to alert an obvious conventional >call, but a more likely possibility is that partner does not believe it >to be alertable, and if not, then ... It is difficult to believe that >West remembered they were playing 2NT as natural [apparently, I have an >opening bid but I forgot to, partner ] and remembered coincidentally >and nothing to do with the failure to alert. Fortunately the UI Laws >are written so that we do not have to say that we consider West a lying >cheating bastard, nor do we have to decide whether he is: we merely look >at LAs. > > In the absence of UI, does West have LAs to his pass of 3NT? Does he >ever! He has a known 5-4 spade fit, and a 5=2=5=1 shape! Aha, I hear >you say, but he has shown the singleton - true, but he is still not >automatically accepting an offer to play 3NT from partner. Presumably >it shows a hand with good clubs, but to retreat to 4S is clearly an LA, >even by European standards, leave alone ACBL standards. Thus the pass >over 3NT was an infraction. > What is the nature of the UI to West? In part it is that partner expects him to hold clubs, and has bid 3NT under that expectation. What does this UI suggest? That 3NT may not be a very safe place to play (in fact, it is a dangerous place to play, since the opponents can take the first 5 tricks). If West had removed to 4S, which makes if the opponents don't lead clubs (same as 3NT, interestingly), wouldn't NS have the same case to make? Although 4S may be a LA, it is absolutely not suggested over 3NT by the UI. In fact, bidding anything at all over 3NT is rather more attractive, after the UI, than passing what now looks to be, and in fact is, a hopeless contract. (My apologies to all for the accidental double posting). Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 17 07:15:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 07:15:39 +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 HAA03949 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 07:15:31 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.146]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA05831; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 22:15:18 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36A0F357.82743B2E@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 22:15:19 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard F Beye CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) References: <01be4092$9b68eba0$df284b0c@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In my opinion ... I have not the most important data , which is irrelevant in this case , but the procedure must me worked...... What was written on E-W convention card ???? Or was I convinced I know there agreement for 100.01% .............But just see: If their agreement was they don't play Jac.2NT in this position then it is clear-cut West misexplanation . If their agreement is they play 2NT in this position , then East didn't alert 3Cl ; again an infraction. Any case E-W "criminals". If there was any other important information at that table , the TD should adjust the score. According to my analysis I don't see any situation to assign a split score , as you asked for. But the most important - IMO - we should learn from this too : The TD must do his best to establish ALL facts and events at the table , before he makes any decision. And... maybe we should ask the articles' authors to pay attention and describe all the data and facts (including what the TD and players said). Dany Richard F Beye wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce J. Moore > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 6:39 PM > Subject: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) > >W N E S > > P P P > >1S P 2N(1) P > >3C P 3N(2) AP > > > > West alerts the 2N call (and presumably explains it as Jacoby > >2NT -- the article implies, but does not specify this). After 3N, West > >states this his previous explanation was in error. Presumably he wakes > >up after partner fails to alert his 3C and remembers that the > >partnership is *not* playing Jacoby 2N in this sequence. > > > > East makes 660 on a heart lead and the director is called. > >North suggests that they could take the first 5 tricks on a club > >lead. The director adjusts the score to 3N-1. > > > > Moran agrees with the ruling under Law 75D2 (basically, one > >is compelled to correct errors in explanation made by one's partner at > >the earliest legal opportunity). In Moran's opinion, West was > >compelled to state (at the conclusion of the auction) that there was a > >failure to alert the 3C bid. > > > > This cannot be right. At this point, West knows that 3C is not > >alertable by their agreements. Why should he be compelled to: > > > > 1. Lie to his opponents > > 2. Provide the opponents with information that his partner > > did not have available to him (as AI) during the auction. > > > > This is clearly an instance of "Mistaken Bid" analogous to the > >second example under the same Law 75D2 that Moran cites. Further, it > >seems at least a bit odd that after the alert (and explanation?) of the > >original 2N, that South was unaware that 3C was a shortness bid. If > >South is a BL (in the pejorative sense), a heart lead is perfect. If it > >works -- great!; if it doesn't you'll get a second chance. > > > > Did Moran (and the original director) err in this ruling? If > >not, what am I missing? > > I am agreeing with Brian. Use the isolation example to see his point. Try > this test: East is on one side of the screen and North, West, and South on > the other. West bids 3C and alerts his two screenmates. West here is not > entitled to the information - partner didn't alert his 3C call. The > infraction here is really one of unauthorized information. West is awakened > to his error by East's failure to alert 3C, he now knows that he has erred > in responding to 2N as Jacoby. > > In the isolation above N/S would have had an opportunity to find the club > lead, defeating the contract. > > I do agree with you that no self-respecting player would not know that West > has club shortness and would certainly have preferred to have been at the > table when the statement was made at the conclusion of the auction. > > I have a new question here: Does anyone lean towards a 2-way score here > E/W = -100 N/S = -660? > > Thanks, > > Rick From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 17 08:59:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 08:59:24 +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 IAA04156 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 08:59:17 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990116215911.FGNS6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:59:11 -0800 Message-ID: <36A10C89.FA3B81A5@home.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:02:50 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> <369F7EEE.9D95C847@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > The question is if the > full action "inadvertent call + its substitution" is an irregularity ? Maybe the answer lies in turning the question around. Is it regular procedure to first make one bid and then change it to another? I think most of us would respond "No". > There is no penalty for this action by L25A .It is very clear too !! Nowhere does it say that an action must carry a penalty in order to be an "irregularity". > SECOND: > If there is no infraction/law infringement , there can't be UI Again, this conclusion is not supported by TFLB, imo. Read L16 again. I find this matter adequately (and, most important, *equitably*) handled by L16C only requiring the minor logical leap of, *for the purposes of this clause only and since each law supposedly stands on it's own*, considering the party that caused the "irregularity" as "offenders". Thus an AS as per 16A2 can be awarded. If one wants to view it as a L16B situation one can award an ArtAS as per L16B3. > DECISION : > THERE IS NO WAY TO PLAY THIS BOARD IN A NORMAL WAY I find this a "lazy" way out. In this case it seems fairly easy to establish what would have happened absent the UI. > Then I'll use my discretionary powers (for which there is no > brains need ) according to law 12A2 and assign an AAS ; BUT.... > the secondary question is which score .....Read the detailed > analysis at the end of this answer. > What AAS to assign : > > In my opinion North passed his partner 3S in order to avoid > the use of his LHO's double , then he has about 72% to make 4S > (I don't know why the player made 3S only , after he saw East's > double ?? Well maybe they were not high level players.....) > Considering my thoughts and dilemmas above I'll assign the score > according to N-S level : for experts the average between 4S , > 4S-1 and 3S made ,for lower level players 3S will be changed to 3S -1. > > The above analysis is only judgement so any result you assign > depends on judgement - of a TD or an AC - so i don't argue with > it and why that one was assigned. > > Dany Dany, why make your life so complicated. If you decide to award an ArtAS as per L12A2 then just go to L12C1 which tells you how to do it - no need for complex analysis of the L12C2 and/or C3 type! Actually, if you make such complex analyses when awarding an ArtAS I must retract my use of the word "lazy" above, and I'm looking forward to your essays when adjudicating a L12C2/3 case! :-) :-) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 17 09:38:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 09:38:21 +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 JAA04202 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 09:38:15 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n3c.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.60]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA17561 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:42:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990116173649.00812220@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:36:49 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-Reply-To: <01be4092$9b68eba0$df284b0c@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:23 AM 1/15/99 -0600, Richard F Beye wrote: >I do agree with you that no self-respecting player would not know that West >has club shortness and would certainly have preferred to have been at the >table when the statement was made at the conclusion of the auction. Not everyone shows shortness after a forcing raise shown via 2NT. This may not be relevant to the case in question, but making such assumptions is dangerous. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 17 13:12:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:12:32 +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 NAA04528 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:12:23 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.171]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id EAA24409; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:12:09 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36A1470F.EAEBB1FD@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:12:31 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> <369F7EEE.9D95C847@internet-zahav.net> <36A065B3.578C51D1@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Hello Dany, > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > > Dear Herman and all fellows (who wrote untill 11.1.99 , meanwhile > > I have no e-mails after that date...) > > > > FIRST : > > By the present published 97FLB Law 25A DOESN'T say anything about > > L16 or any other law . > > There is a general principle in the Laws saying that all > Laws stand on their own. The references are there just to > make life easy on the TD, but when they are not there, that > does not mean the other law does not apply. (To be fair, > this is not a universally accepted principle) I agree that every law stands as ITSELF and a TD is allowed to apply it every time he/she deems it should. A reasonable TD wouldn't apply that law , if in connection to another law there is a dubious action.....In our case , the LawMaker used the reference to law 16C in paragraph B of Law 25 , not using it in Pgf. A . IMO I believe that his intention was to allow the change , as long it was without long thought , meaning that if his LHO is a "mercury machine" he is still allowed to change the inadvertent call - I heard Ton's explanation personally 1 year ago... > > > It is very clear ! The question is if the > > full action "inadvertent call + its substitution" is an irregularity ? > > (in order to be allowed to use Law 84E..) > > There is no penalty for this action by L25A .It is very clear too !! > > as long as the substitution was done before the next millennium comes > > (very explicitly written there). > > > > SECOND: > > If there is no infraction/law infringement , there can't be UI > > Then read the definition of UI (or rather AI) again. > > It is clear that this knowledge is UI ! &&&&&&&&&&& This is not clear IMO. I wrote somewhere that the Laws would distinguish very clear and sharp between infraction/law infringement and irregularity. it is a very important question what is this information , which appeared ONLY BECAUSE SOMEONE ACTED ACCORDINGLY to L25A . It is not clear at all that someone acting by the existing rules did anything which compell the TD to redress score for his opponents. Don't you agree with me ?? > > What is less clear is whether L16B or L16C applies, or since > L16C seems clear, if "25A changer" can be considered > "offender" for the purpose of L16C. > > I would call the changing of a call an infraction, and the > person doing so an offender, even if by L25A the penalty for > the infraction itself is ... zero. At most I define them irregularity ....bot NEVER infraction according to the existing L25A...... > > > (in my opinion published in a thread some 3 months ago). > > But there is no doubt that an information which wouldn't appear > > without the "full action" above is now available to all 5 ! players > > (I include the TD for fun). > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 17 14:42:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 14:42:49 +1100 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA04652 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 14:42:38 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka8nj.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.34.243]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA17414 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 22:42:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990116224205.006e9110@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 22:42:05 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L25A and L16C In-Reply-To: <36A10C89.FA3B81A5@home.com> References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> <369F7EEE.9D95C847@internet-zahav.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:02 PM 1/16/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >Dany Haimovici wrote: >> The question is if the >> full action "inadvertent call + its substitution" is an irregularity ? > >Maybe the answer lies in turning the question around. Is it regular >procedure to first make one bid and then change it to another? I think >most of us would respond "No". > Not most of who read the definition supplied by the Laws. > >> There is no penalty for this action by L25A .It is very clear too !! > >Nowhere does it say that an action must carry a penalty in order to be >an "irregularity". > True, but we do have a clear definition of irregularity: "A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws." A player exercising his 25A rights is acting in accordance with the Laws, not deviating from them. The "without penalty" clause merely reinforces that such action is not to be regarded in any way as irregular or prejudicial to that player's interest. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 17 19:49:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA05045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:49:43 +1100 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA05040 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:49:37 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n45.san.rr.com [204.210.46.69]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA13644 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:49:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901170849.AAA13644@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Limited opening alerts Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:48:48 -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: -> I am surprised that you of all people Marv, with your focus on natural > bidding, would think this sequence to be alertable. 1H/P/4H, carrying the > meaning of "I want to declare this contract at 4H, we have arrived, be > quiet" could hardly be any LESS "different from the expected meaning." In > standard, it means "I want to play 4 hearts." In precision it means "I want > to play 4 hearts." You are not required to alert the contents of partner's > hand (even if you knew them) only what his bid means in your system. It > carries the totally normal meaning of desire to play in game in that > denomination and denies slam interest. There is nothing to alert. As you > would be the first to point out, the convention card clearly shows the > system and the meaning of the 1 heart bid, so the meaning of the 4H bid is > not too hard to deduce. They can always ask, of course if they are baffled > by the obvious. To alert this sequence would be very much contrary to the > principal in ACBL alerts of using the procedure only when needed to avoid > the little boy who cried wolf syndrome. Memphis got this one right! > > Craig > > ---------- > From: Marvin L. French[SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] > > 1M-P-4M is currently Alertable if 4M could be based on a > good hand. It conveys a meaning "different from, or in addition to, > the expected meaning," as the ACBL puts it. That wording makes it > Alertable even if it could be based on a weak hand as well as a > good hand. I am in complete sympathy with your opinion, but most players I come up against expect 1M-P-4M to be a weak preemptive raise, as almost all beginners' textbooks and teachers say. The ACBL seems to have a desire to protect less experienced players, who aren't savvy enough to know that Precision players can have a good hand with 4M. That good hand is "in addition to" the (for them) expected meaning, which makes it Alertable. That doesn't mean I agree, only that I believe this is the intent of the ACBL Alert Procedure. If Gary Blaiss says I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, as he is responsible for interpreting any ambiguity in ACBL regulations. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 17 22:54:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 22:54:44 +1100 Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA05283 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 22:54:38 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-120.uunet.be [194.7.13.120]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11677 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:54:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36A1B7F9.892CE2E1@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:14:17 +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: 2H OBOOT References: <199901161530.QAA02370@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Noblet-Dominique wrote: > > > >South dealer: > > S W > > 2H (7-11 HCP, 6 cards in heart) > > > >2H is cancelled. > >2H withdrawn is an UI for EAST (L16C2). Correct ? > > > >The auction begins again: > > S W > >1NT (12-14 HCP) ? > > > >L31 A.2.a > >" ... repeats the denomination of his BOOT, (penalty) offender's partner > >must pass when next it is his turn to call". > > > > S W > > 1NT 2H > > > >But now, this overcall 2H after 1NT is a tranfer for 2S !! > >Has East to alert and to explain their agreement (transfer for spades) in > >this situation ? (too funny !!!!!!) > > > >What is ruling ? > > LAW 29 - PROCEDURE AFTER A CALL OUT OF ROTATION > > C. Call out of Rotation Is Conventional > If a call out of rotation is conventional, the provisions of Law > 30, Law 31, and Law 32 shall apply to the denominations > specified, rather than the denominations named. > > So this is not "repeating a denomination", but a new one. > I would have thought that this law applied to the case where first 2He is opened, meaning spades. If then 2Sp is bid, the condition is satisfied, whether or not the bid systematically shows clubs or not. Indeed, since partner is obliged to pass (once), any transfer system must disappear, and the 2Sp bid must be "specifying spades". So indeed the original question is answered correctly. However, L23 may apply ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 18 03:48:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 03:48:44 +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 DAA08153 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 03:48:36 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 101vN8-0007Gi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 16:48:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 02:04:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) References: <3.0.1.32.19990116142310.006e790c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990116142310.006e790c@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 01:45 AM 1/16/99 +0000, David wrote: > > One of the first things that a TD should learn in MI cases is that you >>always consider UI as well. So, is there UI, and could there be any >>damage by that? Well, East had UI: West had alerted and misdescribed >>2NT, so we look at whether 3NT was chosen over LAs suggested by the UI. >>Someone else will have to help me here - I cannot conceive of a method >>that includes passing a 13-count! Seriously though, why did he not bid >>3H, which looks routine to me? Knowing partner might take 3H as a cue- >>bid, while a bid of 3NT is more likely to get you to play in 3NT? I >>believe that the UI suggests 3H rather than 3NT, so I believe there was >>an infraction in the bid of 3NT. I shall come back to how or whether we >>adjust. >> >I was following your analysis up to this point, but here either I have >misunderstood or you have mistyped. If the UI suggests 3H rather than 3NT, >then it is 3H which would have been illegal, while 3NT would only be >illegal if _it_ was suggested over some other LA. Or am I missing something? Stupid mistyping. I appear to have meant >>I believe that the UI suggests 3NT rather than 3H, so I believe there >>was an infraction in the bid of 3NT. -- 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 Jan 18 05:24:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 05:24:24 +1100 Received: from smtp0.mindspring.com (smtp0.mindspring.com [207.69.200.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA08414 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 05:24:18 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka951.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.36.161]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA09624 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:24:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990117132336.006e9ebc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:23:36 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: 2H OBOOT In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990116155036.006e9e74@pop.mindspring.com> <199901161530.QAA02370@wanadoo.fr> <199901161530.QAA02370@wanadoo.fr> <3.0.1.32.19990116155036.006e9e74@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:21 AM 1/17/99 +0000, David S wrote: >Hi Michael > >>At 04:44 PM 1/16/99 +0000, David wrote: >>>LAW 29 - PROCEDURE AFTER A CALL OUT OF ROTATION >>> >>>C. Call out of Rotation Is Conventional >>> If a call out of rotation is conventional, the provisions of Law >>> 30, Law 31, and Law 32 shall apply to the denominations >>> specified, rather than the denominations named. >>> >>> So this is not "repeating a denomination", but a new one. >> >>Except that the "call out of rotation", i.e., the original 2H, was _not_ >>conventional, being instead an ordinary natural weak 2 in hearts. So this >>pragraph is not applicable, and L31A2a provides full remediation. > > No. L31A2A refers to repeating the denomination, and by the >definition of L29C, the same suit with a different meaning is a >different denomination, so it is not repeated and L31A2A does not apply. > L29C only applies if the _call out of rotation_ ,i.e., the original 2H bid, was conventional. It does not purport to apply when the BOOT is natural, as in the present case, regardless of the possible meaning of the substituted call. For that matter, is the substitued call conventional? I think not. Everybody at the table understands that regardless of his substituted action, the BOOTer's partner will be forced to pass for at least one round, so the 2H bid is and should be understood as relating only to hearts. It, too, is a natural call, both in fact and as a matter of simple bridge logic. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 18 05:54:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 05:54:25 +1100 Received: from smtp3.mindspring.com (smtp3.mindspring.com [207.69.200.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA08487 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 05:54:18 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka8nk.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.34.244]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA08659 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:54:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990117135403.006d9e64@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:54:03 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990116142310.006e790c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990116142310.006e790c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:04 AM 1/17/99 +0000,David S wrote: > Stupid mistyping. I appear to have meant >>>I believe that the UI suggests 3NT rather than 3H, so I believe there >>>was an infraction in the bid of 3NT. > OK, then East has heard partner wrongly alert his 2NT bid, and respond 3C? What could be happening? Evidently partner has read 2NT as a Jacoby raise. If East is not generally familiar with this convention, then the 3C rebid is probably a mystery, but the usual treatment (though hardly unique) is that 3C shows shortness. So the most likely interpretation of West's alert and bid is the inference that partner is short in clubs. Does that make bidding 3NT more attractive, holding Qxx opposite partner's presumed shortness? No way! Yes, 3H is certainly a LA, and why East has chosen to suppress his 5-card major remains the singular mystery on this hand. But the UI does not suggest 3NT over anything at all. In fact, just the opposite: it makes any bid more attractive compared to 3NT. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 18 06:18:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 06:18:26 +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 GAA08547 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 06:18:19 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 101xi9-0003iM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:18:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 17:21:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Despite the length of time I have given to expounding this answer, I >do not think it is a very difficult case. There was clearly no damage >from MI, since the opponents appear to have only claimed damage on the >opening lead, and they were not misinformed at that time. Competent TDs >and ACs always look for UI as well in MI cases, and it is easy to see >it. Certainly I can imagine some TDs or ACs disagreeing with me over >the details of the final ruling, but it is hardly credible that anyone >would give EW a plus score after considering the UI in detail. I think I might add something to this comment. I mean that I do not think the approach difficult. Various people may [and have] disagree[d] with me about the bridge judgement, and I do not suggest that I have got that right. It is the *approach* that I consider simple - the details of the ruling, being based on bridge judgement may certainly be incorrect. To summarise: when a player is not misinformed he cannot be damaged, and no adjustment should be given to a player not misinformed. However, in MI cases, UI should also be carefully considered. -- 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 Jan 18 06:18:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 06:18:25 +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 GAA08545 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 06:18:17 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 101xi5-0003iO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:18:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 17:14:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 2H OBOOT References: <199901161530.QAA02370@wanadoo.fr> <36A1B7F9.892CE2E1@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36A1B7F9.892CE2E1@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: >> >> Noblet-Dominique wrote: >> > >> >South dealer: >> > S W >> > 2H (7-11 HCP, 6 cards in heart) >> > >> >2H is cancelled. >> >2H withdrawn is an UI for EAST (L16C2). Correct ? >> > >> >The auction begins again: >> > S W >> >1NT (12-14 HCP) ? >> > >> >L31 A.2.a >> >" ... repeats the denomination of his BOOT, (penalty) offender's partner >> >must pass when next it is his turn to call". >> > >> > S W >> > 1NT 2H >> > >> >But now, this overcall 2H after 1NT is a tranfer for 2S !! >> >Has East to alert and to explain their agreement (transfer for spades) in >> >this situation ? (too funny !!!!!!) >> > >> >What is ruling ? >> >> LAW 29 - PROCEDURE AFTER A CALL OUT OF ROTATION >> >> C. Call out of Rotation Is Conventional >> If a call out of rotation is conventional, the provisions of Law >> 30, Law 31, and Law 32 shall apply to the denominations >> specified, rather than the denominations named. >> >> So this is not "repeating a denomination", but a new one. >> > >I would have thought that this law applied to the case where >first 2He is opened, meaning spades. > >If then 2Sp is bid, the condition is satisfied, whether or >not the bid systematically shows clubs or not. >Indeed, since partner is obliged to pass (once), any >transfer system must disappear, and the 2Sp bid must be >"specifying spades". > >So indeed the original question is answered correctly. I really dislike the idea of a TD telling a player how to play bridge. If the new call is assumed to be natural because partner must pass, then you are correct - the denomination is the same, and L31A2A applies. But it is not up to the TD to tell the player how he should take it. However, I grant that I may have misread the original question. I suppose the question is what the 2H means - and how is the TD to find out? Tricky! >However, L23 may apply ! Very unlikely, I would say. -- 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 Jan 18 06:18:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 06:18:24 +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 GAA08546 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 06:18:17 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 101xi5-0003iN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:18:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 17:07:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> <369F7EEE.9D95C847@internet-zahav.net> <36A10C89.FA3B81A5@home.com> <3.0.1.32.19990116224205.006e9110@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990116224205.006e9110@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >True, but we do have a clear definition of irregularity: "A deviation from >the correct procedures set forth in the Laws." A player exercising his 25A >rights is acting in accordance with the Laws, not deviating from them. The >"without penalty" clause merely reinforces that such action is not to be >regarded in any way as irregular or prejudicial to that player's interest. Laws 17 to 19 [except for L17D] define correct procedure. It is difficult to believe that if you wish to bid 2S, correct procedure is to take the 2H bid out of your box and gaze at the ceiling! No, L25A defines a way that an incorrect procedure may be corrected without penalty, but that does not make it correct procedure. -- 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 Jan 18 07:20:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 07:20:27 +1100 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08712 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 07:20:21 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n45.san.rr.com [204.210.46.69]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA29693; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:20:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901172020.MAA29693@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:19:32 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > NS were defending what was quite likely an illegal > contract, so they should be protected unless the lead is deemed > an egregious error (in the ACBL). Let's drop the "egregious" label for the ACBL annulment criterion. If the word was ever appropriate, it's out of date. The WBFLC has established the criterion for annulment of redress as an action that is "irrational, wild, or gambling," and that applies to all members of the WBF. If TDs/ACs are ruling otherwise, they are committing an error, not following any ACBL-specific rule. The ACBL's *Handbook for Appeals* does not address the matter, which is surprising. The only previous (to Lille) guidelines lay in a rather dubious body of past AC decisions, and the writings (often misinterpreted) of Edgar Kaplan. The ACBL's National Laws Commission was to have met in Orlando to consider the WBFLC Laws interpretations coming out of Lille. What there was to consider, I don't know, unless it was to establish some guidelines for their application. Does anyone know what transpired at that meeting? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 18 10:14:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:14:16 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA08787 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:14:07 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h51.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id AAA05221; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 00:11:50 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36A2ED0F.3DC@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 00:13:03 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Committee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="COMMIT.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="COMMIT.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Sergey Kapustin and me had a discussion concerned such bodies as Appeal Committee and Tournament Committee. There are quoted all the Laws where the very word "Committee" is used: "LAW 91 - PENALISE OR SUSPEND B. Right to Disqualify The Director is specifically empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause, subject to approval by the Tournament Committee or sponsoring organisation." Here the Tournament Committee is firstly mention. And it is described one function of the TC: to approve TD's disqualify decision. Second mention of this TC is in L93A: "LAW 93 - PROCEDURES OF APPEAL A. No Appeals Committee The Chief Director shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there is no Tournament or Appeals Committee, or when a committee cannot meet without disturbing the orderly progress of the tournament." And now one may understand that the TC may adjudicate appeals - as AC may... The functions (duties and power) of AC are described in L93: "LAW 93 - PROCEDURES OF APPEAL A. No Appeals Committee The Chief Director shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there is no Tournament or Appeals Committee, or when a committee cannot meet without disturbing the orderly progress of the tournament. B. Appeals Committee Available If a committee is available, 1. Appeal Concerns Law The Chief Director shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. His ruling may be appealed to the committee. 2. All Other Appeals The Chief Director shall refer all other appeals to the committee for adjudication. 3. Adjudication of Appeals In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend to the Director that he change his ruling." And I'd like to note that headers are not part of the Laws. So - AC is fully mention in the body of L93A only. In the body of L93B (where these functions are described) there is used the word "committee" - one may understand that all these functions belong so to AC as to TC. The only law where AC is mention in full is L12C3: "LAW 12 - DIRECTOR'S DISCRETIONARY POWERS C. Awarding an Adjusted Score 3. Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity." That means that TC has no such power. But from other Laws (L81C3, L83) it follows that TD may "refer a/the matter to an/the appropriate committee": "LAW 81 - DUTIES AND POWERS C. Director's Duties and Powers The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: 9. Disputes to adjust disputes; to refer a matter to the appropriate committee. LAW 83 - NOTIFICATION OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL If the Director believes that a review of his decision on a point of fact or exercise of his discretionary power might be in order (as when he awards an adjusted score under Law 12), he shall advise a contestant of his right to appeal or may refer the matter to an appropriate committee." Does it mean that functions of AC and TC are the same? And moreover: what is it - Tournament Committee at all? Would our authority (DB, DWS, HDW, JD, EL, CS and all the others - sorry, list is too long:) to explain us the WBF position on the matter. We need it as we provide contests and there may be constructed the position the AC is consisted of non-contestants (so L12C3 may be used). Otherwise - TC may include contestants, so L12C3 is not in use. I personally do not like such a position - and I guess that TC is organized by Sponsoring Organisation for resolving rather non-bridge questions and problems but why it has power to adjudicate appeals... Thanks in advance. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 18 10:12:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:12:57 +1100 Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA08780 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:12:53 +1100 Received: from accordion (accordion.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA02505; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:12:45 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990118090810.0099d960@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:12:47 +1100 To: David Burn From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: BLML-Trivia: "Strine" (was Re: Claim) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G'day David >> Too, as they say in Australia for reasons that I have yet to fathom, true,= > blue. Wow - I'm almost qualified to answer a message on BLML ! :-) Australians use 'Blue' for a variety of things - probably due in part to it being the major background colour on the current Australian flag. A common nickname (for a person) from the turn of the century was 'blue' or 'bluey' - usually a name for sometime with red hair... (which was reasonably common, I believe, amongst the Irish immigrants). Later it became quite common to refer to somebody as 'Bluey' simply because they were very 'strine' (australian). To have somebody call you 'True Blue' is an honorific - patriotic, etc. So 'Too true, blue' is a play on that expression. Australians also have a heritage of rhyming slang, mostly from the Sydney area (aka "Steak'n'Kidney" - remember the Americas Cup yacht?) where they talk on the "dog'n'bone" (telephone), etc. That probably enhanced the appeal of "too true, blue". FWIW - A "Blue Heeler" is a type of cattle dog, originally from the state of Queensland, with a grey/black/blue coat, so it may or may not come from the same roots. Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 18 11:23:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:23:33 +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 LAA08919 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:23:29 +1100 Received: from postoffice.utas.edu.au (pauli.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.191]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA18891 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:23:27 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <36A28014.CE0757F@postoffice.utas.edu.au> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:28:05 +1100 From: Mark Abraham X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4m) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: BLML-Trivia: "Strine" (was Re: Claim) References: <3.0.32.19990118090810.0099d960@acsys.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: > G'day David > > >> Too, as they say in Australia for reasons that I have yet to fathom, > true,= > blue. > > Wow - I'm almost qualified to answer a message on BLML ! :-) > > Australians use 'Blue' for a variety of things - probably due in part to it > being the major background colour on the current Australian flag. A common > nickname (for a person) from the turn of the century was 'blue' or 'bluey' > - usually a name for sometime with red hair... (which was reasonably > common, I believe, amongst the Irish immigrants). Later it became quite > common to refer to somebody as 'Bluey' simply because they were very > 'strine' (australian). To have somebody call you 'True Blue' is an > honorific - patriotic, etc. > > So 'Too true, blue' is a play on that expression. Australians also have a > heritage of rhyming slang, mostly from the Sydney area (aka > "Steak'n'Kidney" - remember the Americas Cup yacht?) where they talk on the > "dog'n'bone" (telephone), etc. That probably enhanced the appeal of "too > true, blue". > > FWIW - A "Blue Heeler" is a type of cattle dog, originally from the state > of Queensland, with a grey/black/blue coat, so it may or may not come from > the same roots. I answered Marv privately on this topic - my theory was that a blue heeler cattledog's loyalty and comradeship were attributes that a "good mate" would also share. A loyal dog would be a "true blue" and the usage might have been broadened to refer to people and their actions. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 18 12:23:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:23:21 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA08972 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:23:15 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-32.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.32]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA23494518 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:26:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36A28CAE.27031AC5@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:21:50 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I hesitate to point out that there are two normal lines consistent with 5S, 3D, and 4C. One is the obvious club overtake [about 40%]. The other is a stepping stone in the heart suit where a defender would have to start with the stiff HA or come down to the stiff ace and clubs [about 1%]. On this hand the stepping stone would not succeed and would hence yield 10 tricks. I feel that a stepping stone in the diamond suit would be irrational. Cheers Roger Pewick Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > "It is said the Athenians would not believe their > loss, in great degree because of the person > who first brought them news of it" > ===================================== > > ---------- > > From: Adam Beneschan > > To: Bridge Laws > > Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com > > Subject: Re: Claim > > > ----------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > > So while Jan is talking about declarer stating a really stupid line > > that happens to work, the example you're citing is about whether to > > assume a line THAT DECLARER DIDN'T STATE. Apples and oranges. > > ++++ Declarer nominated how many tricks in each suit. None of > them in Hearts and no Heart play proposed. Within the scope of his > statement he only has one route, one that some might think inferior > but which is not nonsensical. When there is such a route which is > embraced within his statement it should be followed. The directors > persist in a fixation to do with the club tricks; claimer made no > statement which club tricks he was to win - no doubt carelessly - but > what he said would be satisfied by the tricks he actually has in clubs > whereas the directors have taken it upon themselves to demand that > they must be A.K.Q.J., something claimer omitted to say, and they > have gone on to impose on him a play in hearts which his statement > does not include. So it is the directors who are taking him outside of > his statement when there is a 'normal' line which abides wholly within > what he has actually said, presumably because they feel he should > not get lucky with a sloppy claim. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 18 12:46:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:46:43 +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 MAA09017 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:46:33 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-32.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.32]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA23755370 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:49:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36A29225.D267B125@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:45:09 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Claim References: <01BE3FD1.FE75CB80@har-pa1-16.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What say me. Aye. Roger Pewick Craig Senior wrote: > > While I am not one of the originators of the list and am certainly one > of the "lesser lights" I do want to add my unqualified support to this plea > for civility. We are, as a group, above average in both knowledge and > intelligence; there is none among us who lacks the ability to express > himself effectively, not even those burdened by having to use English. > There is little reason for any poster to cheapen himself by a post that > attacks personalities and calls names. > > It is certainly acceptable to disagree with others opinions, or even to > attack their arguments when appropriate. I don't believe for a moment DWS > is seeking to censor ideas. What he does quite correctly point out is that > countering arguments with superior ones or presenting alternative ways of > viewing a situation is a better way to win another over to your > opinion...and considerably more pleasant for everyone else to read. > > Who among you is going to listen with a fully open mind to someone who > has just called you a despicable jackass, with a mentality bordering on the > cretinous? Will you be more likely to accept his viewpoint if he tells you > that you play bridge like one of Al Roth's partners, and do other things as > badly? This is not alt.stupid.flames. > > This being said, I do not believe we need to "control" writing here. > Nor do I believe that the originators of the list are solely responsible > for setting its guidelines. What we all need to do is control our own > comments to what is acceptable in polite society, and cooperate, regardless > of our lineage on list, in making it a more cicilised, productive and > effective forum for the friendly exchange of ideas. David has said > something that has needed to be said again...we should immediately and > unanimously support this initiative. > > Craig > ---------- > From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 8:35 AM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Claim > > Over the last three months or so, there have been a spate of really > offensive comments form certain people writing to this list. Notably > this has not been the lesser lights, but has emanated from people whose > knowledge of the Laws of the game is very good, and their words should > be listened to. Mainly it has come from a couple of people who use > offensiveness to strengthen poor positions who belittle people who do > not agree with them. > > I think it is very unfortunate. I have talked to the originators of > BLML privately, and there is a feeling that we are going to have to > control writing here in some way, perhaps publishing guidelines - and > the first guideline would seem to be that to belittle others to shore up > a weak position is not acceptable. > > I am very worried and distressed that people do it. Most lists and > newsgroups have people who leave them because they have been flamed. My > experience on other groups is that it is usually a type of person that > commands no respect and who wishes notoriety who does the flaming. That > is not the case here. The 'lesser lights' who sometimes post are > courteous, helpful, and often produce excellent and cogent arguments. > However, we have a very small group who use offensiveness as a tactic. > > There is no-one here who is right all the time, though I am afraid > there are a few who believe themselves to be. It is time that anyone > who does so believe themselves to be perfect should re-assess their own > feelings. Furthermore, what is such a person doing here if he has > nothing to learn? > > I think this is a growing problem, and I am going to ask everyone to > re-consider each time they post as to whether the post is unnecessarily > offensive. If it contains name-calling of any sort [unless clearly > humorous] then perhaps you could reconsider before sending it to the > list. Why are you calling people names: are you sure that your position > is such that it is necessary? > > For my own part, I have given up answering certain posts because while > I am trying to help everyone on this list I find it too upsetting to be > attacked in this way. A friend of mine, Mike Swanson, has accused me > over the years of being too thin-skinned, and I nearly left the list a > couple of years ago because of the method of posting by certain people. > Perhaps I am, and perhaps the current wave of offensiveness would not > affect others - but when I wrote to the other originators of the list, > they agreed with me. > > Let me ask *everyone* a question. If you believe what you write, why > do you need to belittle people who do not agree with you? > > -- > 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 Jan 18 13:29:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:29:08 +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 NAA09103 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:29:02 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 1024Qw-0003j5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 02:28:55 +0000 Message-ID: <4qjHrmAYLko2EwEC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:06:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) References: <3.0.1.32.19990116142310.006e790c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990116142310.006e790c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990117135403.006d9e64@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990117135403.006d9e64@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 02:04 AM 1/17/99 +0000,David S wrote: >> Stupid mistyping. I appear to have meant >>>>I believe that the UI suggests 3NT rather than 3H, so I believe there >>>>was an infraction in the bid of 3NT. >> >OK, then East has heard partner wrongly alert his 2NT bid, and respond 3C? >What could be happening? Evidently partner has read 2NT as a Jacoby raise. >If East is not generally familiar with this convention, then the 3C rebid >is probably a mystery, but the usual treatment (though hardly unique) is >that 3C shows shortness. So the most likely interpretation of West's alert >and bid is the inference that partner is short in clubs. Does that make >bidding 3NT more attractive, holding Qxx opposite partner's presumed >shortness? No way! Yes, 3H is certainly a LA, and why East has chosen to >suppress his 5-card major remains the singular mystery on this hand. But >the UI does not suggest 3NT over anything at all. In fact, just the >opposite: it makes any bid more attractive compared to 3NT. My experience [reinforced by my partner's actions last night !] is that when a player realises that he has shown a fit he does not have he *always* bids no-trumps at the first opportunity. Deep analysis may show this to be wrong, but I believe the instinct is there. Now if a player uses UI unintentionally he responds to his instincts rather than deep analysis. -- 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 Jan 18 14:47:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:47:36 +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 OAA09219 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:47:25 +1100 Received: from p5as01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.91] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 101zdU-0006Kf-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 21:21:33 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: Law 28 Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 09:50:54 -0000 Message-ID: <01be41fe$dff61e60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 11:56 AM Subject: Re: Law 28 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 11:02 AM >Subject: Re: Law 28 > > >>Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >>> >>> South is Dealer but West opens 1D. South does not notice and opens 1NT. >>> West's 1D is cancelled, East has UI and there may be lead penalties... >>> Correct? >>> >> >>See my reply to Dany regarding L25A and L16C. >> >>Yes, L26 stands on itself. >> >>There is an offending player (even if he is not punished) >>and there is a substituted call. >> >>L26 should apply (IMHO) > Sorry Hermen, I misaddressed this. You get two copies. Herman, my opinion is even more humble than yours, but I do disagree. Law 28 specifically refers to this senario,declares that the 1NT bid is in rotation, and refers us to the UI Law16C2. The 1D opening bid is UI to East, but the lead penalties of Law 26 do not apply. Law 26 speaks of withdrawn calls.The 1D call was cancelled. North was not given the option to accept it. IMVHO Law 26 does not apply. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 18 15:35:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 15:35:32 +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 PAA09334 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 15:35:25 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-32.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.32]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA23819661 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 23:38:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36A2B9B9.D864C36E@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 22:34:01 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If I were bidding this hand the auction would probably be- P-1S-2H-3D-3N-4D-5D. I do not know if I would be good enough to stop in the better scoring 5H or gutsy enough to bid 6H [off on heart leads]. But, if I am using east's style, where is my 3H rebid? Why did I fail to make it? Slam is not out of the question. Partner may have plenty of extra values and heart support and the club Q is a good filling card for partner's second suit. Would not a reasonable continuation be [from responder's perspective]: P balanced 2+QT plus extras and I don't want to open it???? 1S opening bid with spades 2N balanced and game going opposite a full valued opener 3C second suit, interested in more 3H good hearts partner, not unhappy with the club call 4D diamond control 4N ace asking [5D is probably better] 5H two aces 5S please sign off in 5N P what happened to 5N? Opener's view would be decidedly different, having believed that 2N=Jacoby. It appears that responder's bidding was significantly influenced by the alert of 2N. This is an infraction. As to adjudication of opener's dealing with UI, I have reason to believe that he dealt with it adequately. The UI suggests that responder may not have a hand that would have made a Jacoby 2N response. As to the actual composition of the hand, it is probably reasonable to presume that there were no meaningful clues other than it is more likely to have fewer than the agreed spade holding [some promise only 3]. The 3N suggests a concentration of club values. From opener's point of view, this represents wasted values when putting the hands together. This is an extremely attractive reason to correct to 4S. There is also a bridge reason to believe that a superior score may be had in NT than in spades so pass is a reasonable call, even though the play may be difficult with fewer probable entries to the clubs and for taking finesses. I do not think that disallowing PASS is appropriate in the actual auction. Also, although pass was chosen, 4D or 4S ought to be permitted in the actual auction because the duplication of values makes it less likely that the right cards will be held for slam so any bidding would have been effectively be at opener's risk. However, for different reasons, as I mentioned above, I do not believe that 3N is the appropriate contract for apportioning the tricks. No comments wrt to MI. Roger Pewick Bruce J. Moore wrote: > > Dlr:N > Vul:? KQ9 > 964 > T7 > AT972 > A8432 [_] JT > KQ [_] AJT52 > AJ982 [_] KQ3 > 5 [_] Q86 > 765 > 873 > 654 > KJ43 > > W N E S > P P P > 1S P 2N(1) P > 3C P 3N(2) AP > > West alerts the 2N call (and presumably explains it as Jacoby > 2NT -- the article implies, but does not specify this). After 3N, West > states this his previous explanation was in error. Presumably he wakes > up after partner fails to alert his 3C and remembers that the > partnership is *not* playing Jacoby 2N in this sequence. > > East makes 660 on a heart lead and the director is called. > North suggests that they could take the first 5 tricks on a club > lead. The director adjusts the score to 3N-1. > > Moran agrees with the ruling under Law 75D2 (basically, one > is compelled to correct errors in explanation made by one's partner at > the earliest legal opportunity). In Moran's opinion, West was > compelled to state (at the conclusion of the auction) that there was a > failure to alert the 3C bid. > > This cannot be right. At this point, West knows that 3C is not > alertable by their agreements. Why should he be compelled to: > > 1. Lie to his opponents > 2. Provide the opponents with information that his partner > did not have available to him (as AI) during the auction. > > This is clearly an instance of "Mistaken Bid" analogous to the > second example under the same Law 75D2 that Moran cites. Further, it > seems at least a bit odd that after the alert (and explanation?) of the > original 2N, that South was unaware that 3C was a shortness bid. If > South is a BL (in the pejorative sense), a heart lead is perfect. If it > works -- great!; if it doesn't you'll get a second chance. > > Did Moran (and the original director) err in this ruling? If > not, what am I missing? > > Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 18 16:21:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:21:23 +1100 Received: from oznet14.ozemail.com.au (oznet14.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.120]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA09424 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:21:19 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn13p33.ozemail.com.au [203.108.25.97]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA19791 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:21:16 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:21:16 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199901180521.QAA19791@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Dennis pointed out a strange argument made by DWS and DWS replied: > Stupid mistyping. I appear to have meant >>>I believe that the UI suggests 3NT rather than 3H, so I believe there >>>was an infraction in the bid of 3NT. > even stranger, how could the UI that partner has a shortage in clubs, suggest that 3NT would be likely to be more succesful than any other LA? East is obviously operating on this hand, (trying to get the lead come round to the better player, no doubt), and makes the further bid which is least indicated by the UI. As DWS correctly analsyes, there was no damage owing to the MI, and so I rule result stands. If EW had got to 4S making, I would rule back to 3NT -1. I presume that had West not corrected the MI before the opening lead, East (declarer) would have been quick to correct. Tony From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 18 16:34:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:34:02 +1100 Received: from oznet14.ozemail.com.au (oznet14.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.120]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA09442 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:33:58 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn13p33.ozemail.com.au [203.108.25.97]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA26165 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:33:55 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:33:55 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199901180533.QAA26165@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: BLML-Trivia: "Strine" (was Re: Claim) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We have had the suggestion that the US Senate should decide questions of UI and MI. May I suggest that the Australian parliament be asked for some input into the next Law changes. Here is a quote from a new taxation act which will be introduced next session: "For the purposes of making a declaration under this sub-division, the commissioner may: (a) Treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened, and (b) Treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened, and (c) Treat a particular event that actually happened as: (i) Having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened, or (ii) Having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity). I'd like to see that! Tony > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 18 21:16:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:16:12 +1100 Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA09808 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:16:06 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.66] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 102Biz-00053y-00; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:16:01 +0000 Message-ID: <199901181016070540.023F39F5@mail.btinternet.com> References: <001b01be409a$9bce91a0$d6307dc2@hlyxzurz> <36A06672.35444B9F@village.uunet.be> <199901180031510020.002839D6@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:16:07 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 28 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 16/01/99, at 11:14, Herman De Wael wrote: >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >> >> South is Dealer but West opens 1D. South does not notice and opens 1NT. >> West's 1D is cancelled, East has UI and there may be lead penalties... >> Correct? >> > >See my reply to Dany regarding L25A and L16C. > >Yes, L26 stands on itself. > >There is an offending player (even if he is not punished) >and there is a substituted call. > >L26 should apply (IMHO) Interesting. L26 is referred to by a lot of other Laws - an implication= being that where it is not referred to, it does not apply. But that is an= implication only - whether the Law stands by itself or not is a complex= question. However, even if it did, I don't think it would apply here. West= has made a bid thinking it was his turn to open, which it was not. Even if= he now passes over 1NT, I do not think that he has substituted that pass= for 1D at that turn; I think that after South opens 1NT, it is now a= different turn for West. L26 says: When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different= final call _for that turn_, then...[lead penalties] I do not think that the three words "for that turn" hold good in this case. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 00:25:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 00:25:05 +1100 Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12442 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 00:24:59 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-206.uunet.be [194.7.9.206]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28421 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:24:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36A326B5.52406166@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:19:01 +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: Fw: Law 28 References: <01be41fe$dff61e60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > Herman, my opinion is even more humble than yours, but I do disagree. > Law 28 specifically refers to this senario,declares that the 1NT bid is in > rotation, and refers us to the UI Law16C2. The 1D opening bid is UI to East, > but the lead penalties of Law 26 do not apply. > Law 26 speaks of withdrawn calls.The 1D call was cancelled. North was not > given the option to accept it. > IMVHO Law 26 does not apply. > Anne You may well be correct. The call was cancelled, not withdrawn. However, read L29B : this also speaks of cancelled, yet we would not argue that L26 does not apply in these cases. So the argument "cancelled" does not hold. David's argument "at that turn" is more convincing. "as though the opponent had not called" is perhaps the best argument. If there has been no call, then it cannot be withdrawn (nor cancelled). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 00:25:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 00:25:07 +1100 Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12443 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 00:25:00 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-206.uunet.be [194.7.9.206]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28437 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:24:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36A32747.397F90A0@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:21:27 +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: Law 28 References: <001b01be409a$9bce91a0$d6307dc2@hlyxzurz> <36A06672.35444B9F@village.uunet.be> <199901180031510020.002839D6@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Private message to David Burn : I get your messages, when in reply to mine, twice. No problem - so do others. But of those others, I see the two copies together, as my mail filter reads both the To: and CC: fields to direct them to my blml-folder. When I read your first message, I cannot see if it is private or not. Can you do something about that? (like not sending me a private copy at all ?) David Burn wrote: > > > > >L26 should apply (IMHO) > > Interesting. L26 is referred to by a lot of other Laws - an implication being that where it is not referred to, it does not apply. But that is an implication only - whether the Law stands by itself or not is a complex question. However, even if it did, I don't think it would apply here. West has made a bid thinking it was his turn to open, which it was not. Even if he now passes over 1NT, I do not think that he has substituted that pass for 1D at that turn; I think that after South opens 1NT, it is now a different turn for West. L26 says: > Note the H in IMHO. This is not something I am equally certain about as some others. Your points are valid. > When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different final call _for that turn_, then...[lead penalties] > > I do not think that the three words "for that turn" hold good in this case. Maybe they don't. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 04:33:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:33:57 +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 EAA13260 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:33:50 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA03090; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:32:54 -0600 (CST) Received: from irv-ca60-48.ix.netcom.com(199.35.101.112) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma003049; Mon Jan 18 11:32:24 1999 Message-ID: <36A36F4C.1859C7F4@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:28:44 -0800 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Committee References: <36A2ED0F.3DC@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > Does it mean that functions of AC and TC are the same? > And moreover: what is it - Tournament Committee at all? My understanding is that a Tournament Committee is an organizing body that decides issues such as Conditions of Contest, allowable conventions, seeding, and other kindred matters. The TC has no jurisdiction over disputes arising from a particular deal. The Appeals Committee has jurisdiction over bridge deal disputes. Conduct, deportment and ethics matters are also within the purview of the AC. I see no overlap to the jurisdictions of the TC and AC; each has plenary power within its sphere. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 05:33:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 05:33:47 +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 FAA13388 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 05:33:40 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA07862 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:33:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id NAA25570 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:33:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:33:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901181833.NAA25570@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: BLML Ethics X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson wrote: > > Over the last three months or so, there have been a spate of really > > offensive comments form certain people writing to this list. Yes. I'm not sure how many constitute a "spate," but one offensive comment is already too many, and there were several from more than one person. I've written before about national and personal differences, but perhaps the point bears summarizing for new readers. An American might say "I'm sure this is so!" and expect to be challenged where a European might say "Well, I wonder whether this might not be so" even when he is certain he is right. (Yes, this is a gross generalization, and yes, it was written by a rude and crude American, so read accordingly.) I'm afraid we will just have to accept stylistic differences, even extreme ones, in an international forum, but we should be aware of them. Calling names or denigrating people who disagree with one's analysis is, however, offensive for any nationality. BLML contributors may make mistakes, but that doesn't make them idiots or enemies of bridge. > From: Dany Haimovici > I think there will be an Ethics commission for BLML too The nice thing about the Internet is that anyone can send a message to anyone else. All of us are the BLML ethics commission. I think things have improved since David's message. Let's hope the civility continues. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 06:57:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 06:57:54 +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 GAA13507 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 06:57:47 +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 OAA11994 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:57:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id OAA25648 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:57:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:57:42 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901181957.OAA25648@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Now, it appears that E/W play P - 1S - 2NT - 3C - 3NT as a natural > auction. Agreed. We would want to know more details of the EW methods before ruling, of course. To be fair to Brian Moran, he is trying to answer a reader's question without having been told the relevant facts or the basis on which the original director ruled and trying to do so in very limited space. Given the complications, he probably would have been better advised either to choose a different question to answer or to devote more space to this one than he did. In traditional American bidding, 2NT by an unpassed hand would be forcing and show a balanced hand worth 13-15 points. By a passed hand, it would show either a bad 13 points not quite worth opening or a slightly weaker hand that has been improved by a partial fit in opener's suit. In Acol methods, I suppose 2NT would be non-forcing and show something like 11-12 points whether by a passed hand or not. Quite a few people here play that, especially over minor suit openings, but I'd tend to guess it isn't a majority _among people who play 2NT over a major as natural._ I'm not sure which of the above meanings David was assuming in his analysis. > One of the first things that a TD should learn in MI cases is that you > always consider UI as well. This is the main point. MI quite likely had no effect, but UI needs careful analysis. Brian would have done well to emphasize the UI concern, which seems often overlooked on this side of the Atlantic. The rest of David's analysis is exactly the right process, but I'm sure we could reach different conclusions on specific questions of bridge judgment. I just want to comment on his table of probabilities. (Both were vul, but I've not revised David's table which assumes neither vul. The principle is clear either way.) (Is it correct that the EBU or EBL definition of "at all probable" is 1/12 and "likely" is 1/6?) > 6S*-3 -500 15% <-- 1/12 is in here > 6S*-2 -300 10% <-- 1/6 is in here (cumulative 25%) > 6S-3 -150 15% <-- 1/3 is in here (cumulative 40%) > 6S-2 -100 10% > 5S-2 -100 6% > 5S-1 -50 24% > 4S-1 -50 5% > 4S= +420 15% > > It is 'likely' by European definitions that North-South are going to > gain at least 300 [25% > one in six]. However, by NAmerican definitions > [which I believe to be flawed] 'likely' is defined as one time in three, > so it is 'likely' in NAmerica that North-South are going to gain at > least 150 [40% > one in three]. Without the ability to give a weighted > score, I would thus rule in either jurisdiction that North-South get > +300, though I might consider +500 in Europe. NS are the NOS, so they get the best result "likely." That is +150 in NA and +300 if "likely" is 1/6 (Europe?). > It is 'at all probable' by European definitions that East-West are > going to lose at least 500 [15% > one in twelve]. However, by NAmerican > definitions [which I believe to be flawed] 'at all probable' is defined > as one time in six, so it is 'at all probable' in NAmerica that East- > West are going to lose at least 150 [25% > one in six]. Without the > ability to give a weighted score, I would thus rule in Europe that East- > West lose 500, and in NAmerica that East-West lose 300, though I might > consider 500. EW are the OS, so "at all probable" applies to them. That is -300 in NA, -500 if the definition is 1/12 (Europe?). > Since the case was in the ACBL, I rule NS +300, EW -300. Should be +150/-300. David was posting at almost 2 AM, and I think he got a little sleepy. > Despite the length of time I have given to expounding this answer, I > do not think it is a very difficult case. Certainly the principles seem clear. The bridge analysis of LA's and "suggested over another" may not be easy, of course. I think we agree about that. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 07:14:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:14:40 +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 HAA13572 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:14:33 +1100 Received: from ip54.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.54]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990118201427.TKCW324.fep4@ip54.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:14:27 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Claim Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:14:26 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36a9845f.2965914@post12.tele.dk> References: <001201be3fa9$111ba580$448993c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001201be3fa9$111ba580$448993c3@pacific> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:30:42 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: [About a situation where declarer had mentioned the club AKQJ explicitly instead of just saying "4 club tricks"] >++++ Exactly so. Here it is not the great god "We" that has >fitted cards to "four club tricks" but claimer himself who has >made a carefully screwed up claim. So he is in trouble that >does not attach to the words used in the other claim. I was >particularly careful when the argument was going on to >watch for his words, and claimer did not specify his four=20 >tricks nor had he been asked to specify - it was all the little=20 >gods around who decided what was "obvious", so that they=20 >could then take it away from him. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Declarer's claim (in the "4 club tricks" variant) is a statement that he believes he can win 12 tricks regardless of the opposing cards. From this it follows that he is not aware of the club blockage, and that he was indeed thinking of the AKQJ - if he had been thinking of the 9 as a trick, he would have said that and also have planned what to do if the 10 did not fall. You seem to be saying that you will rule one down for a declarer who makes a careful and full statement of which tricks he intends to take, while you will give 12 tricks to a declarer who neglects to say which club tricks he was intending, though his intentions and plans and overlooked club blockage were obviously the same. Is that equity? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 07:14:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:14:38 +1100 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA13570 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:14:29 +1100 Received: from ip54.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.54]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990118201415.TKBV324.fep4@ip54.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:14:15 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: blml Subject: Re: Claim Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:14:14 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36a7841f.2901422@post12.tele.dk> References: <000201be3f18$e5ec82c0$e38493c3@pacific> <369df681.13015565@post12.tele.dk> <369D8F92.5EA990BD@home.com> In-Reply-To: <369D8F92.5EA990BD@home.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:32:51 -0800, Jan Kamras wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> We are TDs: it is our job to judge what is normal and what is not >> in claims situations. The law book says so. >In a disputed claim where claimer wants to change his line yes, but >surely not if claimer follows L68C, making a detailed claim-statement >including the line (singular) of play he intends to follow, and that >leads to success. Which he did not in the "Strange Claim" thread. >Has everyone (except GE) lost there minds here? (or is it only me:-)) As far as the "Strange Claim" situation is concerned, I have argued it at length 2 years ago, and I don't want to repeat too much of that. >Jesper, forgetting the "strange claim" - thread,=20 Excellent idea! >If a claimer states one >line, and one line only, and it succeeds, can the opponent's get a TD to >disallow the claim on the grounds that claimer picked a ridiculous line? My answer is only almost a clear "no". The exceptions are situations like the following: the player has miscounted a suit (and this is the reason for the ridiculous line), and when he attempts to follow that line he will realize that he has miscounted (e.g., because an opponent ruffs with a trump that declarer did not know was out). In that case, he would never follow the stated line if he played it out, and we should rule the rest of the hand as if there were no statement. This is what we do when it is to claimer's advantage - we should certainly also do it when it is to his disadvantage. When I, as TD, am sure that it is likely that declarer would not have won his claimed tricks if he had played the hand out, then I will not give him those tricks - that would not be "equity". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 07:14:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:14:59 +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 HAA13598 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:14:53 +1100 Received: from ip54.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.54]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990118201441.TKDS324.fep4@ip54.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:14:41 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:14:41 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36ad91ce.6404939@post12.tele.dk> References: <199901151131.LAA09590@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <199901151349550890.00AE2615@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901151349550890.00AE2615@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:49:55 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >Jesper has sent me the original "Strange Claim" thread, but I can't find= anything in his message that I said at the time! No, I had overlooked a small related thread with the name "Strange claim" (notice the different spelling). I've sent it to David now. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 08:00:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:00:51 +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 IAA13734 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:00:45 +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 QAA13546 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:00:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id QAA25744 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:00:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:00:41 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901182100.QAA25744@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L73C vs L16A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why do we need L73C (paraphrased as "don't take advantage of UI.") when we also have L16A (the usual UI rule)? The usual answer is that L73C covers the possibility that the action chosen wasn't a LA. For example, North deals and opens 1NT, supposedly 15-17. But then he comments, "Oh my goodness, I'm too strong!" South jumps to 3NT on his 6-count. Well 3NT isn't a LA under anybody's rules (in spite of a certain amount of thrashing around trying to say it is one), so L16A can't apply. But that's no problem; we just use 73C to adjust the score. (Not to mention apply a PP or two!) A few months ago, Jeff Goldsmith pointed out that 73C could also be used when l16A is prevented by lack of "demonstrably suggested over another." A fine example appears in Jon Brissman's column in the January ACBL Bulletin. The hands are: AT 432 AKQ72 6 T52 J984 AQ76 KJT82 T65 J843 J9763 KQ7532 A 95 9 KQ84 East deals. South puts out a stop card but doesn't bid. East then opens 2D, showing any 4-4-4-1 pattern with 10-12 HCP. South jumps to 3S, and all pass. You may think that North's pass is odd, but of course it makes sense once you see South's hand. Still, if I were North's lawyer, I'd argue along the following lines: at the time it first went out, South's stop card most likely indicated a preempt, but it could have preceded an intended strong 2C. Once South jumped to 3S over the relatively weak 2D bid, North "knew" the skip had to be the strong hand. He didn't want to pass, but finally he decided that under strict ACBL rules, pass is a LA. Clearly the extra strength indicated by the intended 2C bid suggests bidding on, so he passed. Imagine his surprise when he saw what South really held. I don't buy the lawyer's argument for one second, but it certainly refutes "demonstrably suggested over another." Instead, I'd turn to L73C: the bizarre North pass in combination with the undoubted UI from the stop card left NS in an unusually successful contract. What I _believe_ is that North knew what was going on all the time. Perhaps there were some mannerisms that weren't reported, or perhaps there was a CPU about the 3S bid. Either way, it seems more likely than not that NS benefited from the UI, and that's all we need to apply L73C. At least it would be quite reasonable for a TD or AC on the scene to rule this way, even if we at our distance from events cannot be certain that the ruling is correct. Perhaps the use of L73C is too subtle for average players who read the ACBL Bulletin, but I thought it might interest BLML subscribers. Jon's final sentence was already mentioned on BLML. The quote is "Kudos to South for trying to do the right thing by jumping with her hand so the Stop card would remain in use." I agree with the prior poster that some Bulletin readers could interpret this as saying "If you incorrectly use the stop card, you ought to try to jump at your next turn." As Jon replied, that isn't what he meant. Perhaps it would have been better for Jon to have explained what the TD's advice to North and to South should have been. At any rate, this seems a fairly minor slipup in an otherwise quite interesting article. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 08:06:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:06:30 +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 IAA13759 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:06:25 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990118210614.UUKX6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:06:14 -0800 Message-ID: <36A3A320.C015C012@home.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:09:52 -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: Law 28 References: <001b01be409a$9bce91a0$d6307dc2@hlyxzurz> <36A06672.35444B9F@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm starting from the premise that it cannot be right to allow EW to profit from the cancelled 1D call, just because S didn't see it b4 he made his own legal bid at his legal turn. However, since L28B so specifically states that S has forfeited the right to penalize the 1D call, I can't see that we can logically apply L26 here. Furthermore, L16C2 says that info from offender's own withdrawn action is AI to them, after having paid "any" penalty (and no penalty applies to our case). As an aside, I don't understand the reasoning/fairness behind this, but I'm probably missing something. However, I think L12A1 (as so often) comes to our rescue. The 1D bid was a violation of L17B/C thus imho allows TD to adjust under L12A1, which specifically empowers TD to do so when the laws don't provide indemnity to NOS. It is amazing how often one can (imho) invoke L12A1 to restore equity, as an alternative to getting clogged-up in various more or less esoteric hair-splitting under other laws, when one instinctively feels that "something is not quite right". Herman De Wael wrote: > > Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > > > > South is Dealer but West opens 1D. South does not notice and opens 1NT. > > West's 1D is cancelled, East has UI and there may be lead penalties... > > Correct? > > > > See my reply to Dany regarding L25A and L16C. > > Yes, L26 stands on itself. > > There is an offending player (even if he is not punished) > and there is a substituted call. > > L26 should apply (IMHO) > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 08:26:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:26:32 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA13793 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:26:26 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA14501 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:26:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id QAA25853 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:26:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:26:22 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901182126.QAA25853@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 28 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jan Kamras > Furthermore, L16C2 says that info from offender's own withdrawn action > is AI to them, Oh, Jan, _please_ get yourself a copy of the 1997 Laws, or look them up on the web. This is another one that has changed. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 09:46:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:46:08 +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 JAA14000 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:46:01 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa08498; 18 Jan 99 14:45 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:48:00 PST." Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:45:21 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901181445.aa08498@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > In-Reply-To: <9901141748.aa07998@flash.irvine.com> > Adam wrote: > > > > > > Dlr:N > > > Vul:? KQ9 > > > 964 > > > T7 > > > AT972 > > >A8432[_] JT > > >KQ [_] AJT52 > > >AJ982[_] KQ3 > > >5 [_] Q86 > > > 765 > > > 873 > > > 654 > > > KJ43 > > > > > > W N E S > > > P P P > > > 1S P 2N(1) P > > > 3C P 3N(2) AP > > > > > > The Director's first responsibility is to determine the actual > > agreement. Assuming she can determine that they're definitely not > > playing Jacoby, then I believe you're right and Moran is wrong---but > I agree up to this point > > an adjustment is still in order. East's failure to alert 3C was UI > > for West, and West isn't allowed to let this wake him up. Well, he > > *should* let it wake him up long enough to correct the mistaken > > explanation he provided earlier (of course, he should call the > > Director as soon as he realizes this); but once the opponents are > > properly informed, I believe West must "unwake" up and presume that > > East did alert the 3C response properly, and bid accordingly. And > > with 5-5 and a partner who showed 4-card spade support, I believe 4S > > is clearly a logical alternative to pass, and therefore pass is not > > allowed. > > Taking as read that pass and 4S are both LAs then I think you need to put > yourself in West's shoes. The UI tells him that he has just shown a club > suit he doesn't have and as a result partner has bid 3NT. To me this > *suggests* bidding 4S so I would have to pass. Give East JTx,AJT9x,KQx,Qx > and I would probably be ruling 4S= back to 3N-1. Hmmm . . . that's an interesting point. West has the UI that East did not take 2NT as a forcing raise, but there are two pieces of information that may be inferred from that: (a) East does not have spade support. (b) East thinks West has a real club suit. Both of these pieces of information are UI for West. But they seem to fight with each other. The UI given by (a) suggests 3NT over 4S, so therefore passing 3NT should be disallowed. The UI given by (b), according to your argument, suggests 4S over 3NT, since it makes it more likely that 3NT will be lacking a club stopper; so therefore removing from 3NT should be disallowed. (More likely, but certainly not guaranteed, since nothing prevents East from having a club honor for the 3NT bid.) This makes things more difficult. When you're in a situation like that, how do you determine which bid is suggested by the other, if any? A further complication is West's ratty spade suit. Even if West wants to remove from 3NT, this doesn't make 4S a logical alternative if he "knows" his partner doesn't have a fit. So I'm not sure that (b) suggests bidding 4S. I might think differently if West's spades were a lot better. If I were the director, and *you* had passed 3NT on the auction and explained to me the reasoning you gave above, then I might accept it. However, for the average Joe, passing 3NT is a clear indication that West is taking advantage of the UI. He knows his partner doesn't have spade support, but the *only* reason he knows this is because of UI, so I'd consider his pass to be a breach of the Laws. So even if the director decided that, because of the above argument, the final contract may not be adjusted, I think a PP might be in order for West. > Indeed even on the actual hand 4S seems the better contract (ok a club > lead beats both that and 3N but a club seems much less likely against the > former). East has, IMO, shown good ethics already by choosing 3NT over 3H > and in so doing missing any chance of reaching their rock solid game in > either red suit (after all who wants to play 3NT with x opposite Qxx and > an obligation to explain that your 2NT wasn't Jacoby after all). > > Obviously I wrote the above before reading DWS's analysis which reached > exactly the opposite conclusion on the "suggested choice" made by the UI > in each case. I think DWS would agree that, *in isolation*, 3H is a much better bid than 3NT given the UI East had; and that if that were the only consideration, 3NT would be less suggested by the UI than 3H. However, I think David was arguing that East should have figured out that 3H would in practice work out much less well, because East would expect West to know the auction had been busted, and the resulting auction would have been disastrous. So when all of that is considered, 3NT would be more suggested than 3H, since in theory 3NT won't lead to as big a disaster. I do agree that it's hard to charge East with taking advantage of UI when he made a bid that would be absolutely dreadful if the singleton club were AI; and East definitely gave the appearance of trying to take the ethical route. (*) (* Assuming he wasn't simply being as clueless as he was during the first two rounds of the bidding. I never would have passed this hand in second seat, and I still don't understand why he decided to hide his heart suit at his second turn. Perhaps we should rule that we can't expect East to evaluate logical alternatives after the UI, when the evidence suggests that East can't determine what's a logical alternative even when there's no UI.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 09:58:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:58:44 +1100 Received: from uno.minfod.com (www.x-roads.org [207.227.70.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA14070 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:58:38 +1100 Received: from mmsinet1.mms-inc.com ([207.227.69.130] helo=pcmjn) by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 102Nd9-0001gJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:58:47 -0500 X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:58:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199901182100.QAA25744@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_32487544==_.ALT" Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_32487544==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:00 PM 1/18/99 , Steve Willner wrote: >Why do we need L73C (paraphrased as "don't take advantage of UI.") when >we also have L16A (the usual UI rule)? > >The usual answer is that L73C covers the possibility that the action >chosen wasn't a LA. For example, North deals and opens 1NT, supposedly >15-17. But then he comments, "Oh my goodness, I'm too strong!" South >jumps to 3NT on his 6-count. Well 3NT isn't a LA under anybody's rules >(in spite of a certain amount of thrashing around trying to say it is >one), so L16A can't apply. But that's no problem; we just use 73C to >adjust the score. (Not to mention apply a PP or two!) > Law 16 applies when the suggested action is chosen instead of a LA. Nowhere does it indicate that the chosen action is (or must be) a LA. It is only the non-chosen action(s) that must meet the test for a LA> [snip] John S. Nichols --=====================_32487544==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 09:00 PM 1/18/99 , Steve Willner wrote:
>Why do we need L73C (paraphrased as "don't take advantage of UI.") when
>we also have L16A (the usual UI rule)?
>
>The usual answer is that L73C covers the possibility that the action
>chosen wasn't a LA.  For example, North deals and opens 1NT, supposedly
>15-17.  But then he comments, "Oh my goodness, I'm too strong!"  South
>jumps to 3NT on his 6-count.  Well 3NT isn't a LA under anybody's rules
>(in spite of a certain amount of thrashing around trying to say it is
>one), so L16A can't apply.  But that's no problem; we just use 73C to
>adjust the score.  (Not to mention apply a PP or two!)
>

Law 16 applies when the suggested action is chosen instead of a LA.  Nowhere does it indicate that the chosen action is (or must be) a LA.  It is only the non-chosen action(s) that must meet the test for a LA>

[snip]
John S. Nichols
--=====================_32487544==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 12:12:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:12:52 +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 MAA14275 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:12:47 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990119011241.WYMA6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:12:41 -0800 Message-ID: <36A3DCE4.F2E3303@home.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:16:20 -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: Law 28 References: <001b01be409a$9bce91a0$d6307dc2@hlyxzurz> <36A06672.35444B9F@village.uunet.be> <36A3A320.C015C012@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry all! Pls forget the part below re L16C - I really will try to look in the 1997 laws in the future! :-(( Jan Kamras wrote: > > I'm starting from the premise that it cannot be right to allow EW to > profit from the cancelled 1D call, just because S didn't see it b4 he > made his own legal bid at his legal turn. > However, since L28B so specifically states that S has forfeited the > right to penalize the 1D call, I can't see that we can logically apply > L26 here. > Furthermore, L16C2 says that info from offender's own withdrawn action > is AI to them, after having paid "any" penalty (and no penalty applies > to our case). As an aside, I don't understand the reasoning/fairness > behind this, but I'm probably missing something. > > However, I think L12A1 (as so often) comes to our rescue. The 1D bid was > a violation of L17B/C thus imho allows TD to adjust under L12A1, which > specifically empowers TD to do so when the laws don't provide indemnity > to NOS. > It is amazing how often one can (imho) invoke L12A1 to restore equity, > as an alternative to getting clogged-up in various more or less esoteric > hair-splitting under other laws, when one instinctively feels that > "something is not quite right". > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > > > > > > South is Dealer but West opens 1D. South does not notice and opens 1NT. > > > West's 1D is cancelled, East has UI and there may be lead penalties... > > > Correct? > > > > > > > See my reply to Dany regarding L25A and L16C. > > > > Yes, L26 stands on itself. > > > > There is an offending player (even if he is not punished) > > and there is a substituted call. > > > > L26 should apply (IMHO) > > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 13:33:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:33:47 +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 NAA14440 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:33:40 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka9ce.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.37.142]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA28543 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:33:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990118213323.006e81ac@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:33:23 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-Reply-To: <4qjHrmAYLko2EwEC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990117135403.006d9e64@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990116142310.006e790c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990116142310.006e790c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990117135403.006d9e64@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:06 PM 1/17/99 +0000, David S wrote: > My experience [reinforced by my partner's actions last night !] is >that when a player realises that he has shown a fit he does not have he >*always* bids no-trumps at the first opportunity. Deep analysis may >show this to be wrong, but I believe the instinct is there. > > Now if a player uses UI unintentionally he responds to his instincts >rather than deep analysis. > Perhaps so, but we aren't properly interested in whether a player even _has_ used UI, much less whether this might have been done unconsciously. This is a bridge problem, and a comparatively straightforward one at that. Does the (unauthorized) information that partner is short in clubs make bidding 3nt more attractive compared to other LA's? The answer is an emphatic "No". In fact, a failure to bid 3nt in this position would be more actionable, IMO, because 3nt looks pretty risky holding just Qxx opposite an "announced" singleton, whereas it's at least a reasonable choice if we treat partner's 3C as natural. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 13:51:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:51:02 +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 NAA14499 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:50:55 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka9ce.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.37.142]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA18036 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:50:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990118215039.006e81ac@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:50:39 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-Reply-To: <9901181445.aa08498@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:45 PM 1/18/99 PST, Adam wrote: >This makes things more difficult. When you're in a situation like >that, how do you determine which bid is suggested by the other, if >any? Logically, we cannot find ourselves in the situation you describe. The premise that the UI makes a more attractive than b and b more attractive to a is untenable. The conclusion? This UI provides no useful guidance and so both alternatives are legitimate. To rule otherwise, if your analysis is sound (and I think it is), is to place the recipient in a no-win situation. Considering the severity of the restricted freedom of action imposed by L16, that is an unacceptable penalty. > >A further complication is West's ratty spade suit. Even if West wants >to remove from 3NT, this doesn't make 4S a logical alternative if he >"knows" his partner doesn't have a fit. So I'm not sure that (b) >suggests bidding 4S. I might think differently if West's spades were >a lot better. > >If I were the director, and *you* had passed 3NT on the auction and >explained to me the reasoning you gave above, then I might accept it. >However, for the average Joe, passing 3NT is a clear indication that >West is taking advantage of the UI. He knows his partner doesn't have >spade support, but the *only* reason he knows this is because of UI, >so I'd consider his pass to be a breach of the Laws. So even if the >director decided that, because of the above argument, the final >contract may not be adjusted, I think a PP might be in order for West. > Well, now, a PP for what, exactly? As the TD, you seem unclear about what, if anything, is suggested by the UI. Average Joe is hardly better-positioned than you to make this analysis, so whether he passes or bids, he may be using UI, he may be bending over backwards to act ethically, or he may be just muddling through. It is an abuse of directorial discretion to assume that this player's actions are less than honorable, or to assign a PP for his failure to solve a UI problem that you are ambivalent about. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 14:13:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:13:47 +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 OAA14550 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:13:41 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa25133; 18 Jan 99 19:13 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:50:39 PST." <3.0.1.32.19990118215039.006e81ac@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 19:13:01 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901181913.aa25133@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: > >If I were the director, and *you* had passed 3NT on the auction and > >explained to me the reasoning you gave above, then I might accept it. > >However, for the average Joe, passing 3NT is a clear indication that > >West is taking advantage of the UI. He knows his partner doesn't have > >spade support, but the *only* reason he knows this is because of UI, > >so I'd consider his pass to be a breach of the Laws. So even if the > >director decided that, because of the above argument, the final > >contract may not be adjusted, I think a PP might be in order for West. > > > Well, now, a PP for what, exactly? As the TD, you seem unclear about what, > if anything, is suggested by the UI. Average Joe is hardly > better-positioned than you to make this analysis, so whether he passes or > bids, he may be using UI, he may be bending over backwards to act > ethically, or he may be just muddling through. It is an abuse of > directorial discretion to assume that this player's actions are less than > honorable, or to assign a PP for his failure to solve a UI problem that you > are ambivalent about. I wouldn't assume (sorry if I made it sound like I would). I'd ask him to explain why he passed 3NT. I believe that the practice of letting UI "wake you up" to the fact that you've misunderstood the system, and modifying your bidding accordingly, is a serious enough breach that we should do what we can to deter it. So if the player's response to my question was something along the lines of what Tim said, that would satisfy me that at least the player understood the ethical requirements and tried to follow them. But I suspect that the answer most players would give would sound like they were not meeting the ethical standards that the Laws require, in which case I think something must be done, ranging from a warning to a PP as appropriate. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 14:18:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:18:54 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA14565 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:18:48 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-185.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.185]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA25087641 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 22:21:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36A3F944.C0D367B6@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:17:24 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am not sure I follow what you are saying. When a player having UI takes an anti percentage action not suggested from the cards he holds given the information that is authorized, is this not strong evidence that UI was used to make the call? The second sentence of L16 reads: To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of the law. Roger Pewick John S. Nichols wrote: > > At 09:00 PM 1/18/99 , Steve Willner wrote: > >Why do we need L73C (paraphrased as "don't take advantage of UI.") > when > >we also have L16A (the usual UI rule)? > > > >The usual answer is that L73C covers the possibility that the action > >chosen wasn't a LA. For example, North deals and opens 1NT, > supposedly > >15-17. But then he comments, "Oh my goodness, I'm too strong!" > South > >jumps to 3NT on his 6-count. Well 3NT isn't a LA under anybody's > rules > >(in spite of a certain amount of thrashing around trying to say it is > >one), so L16A can't apply. But that's no problem; we just use 73C to > >adjust the score. (Not to mention apply a PP or two!) > > > > Law 16 applies when the suggested action is chosen instead of a LA. > Nowhere does it indicate that the chosen action is (or must be) a LA. > It is only the non-chosen action(s) that must meet the test for a LA> > > [snip] > John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 14:56:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:56:32 +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 OAA14594 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:56:25 +1100 Received: from default (ptp257.ac.net [205.138.55.166]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA24616 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 22:56:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:59:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990116144155.006e74f4@pop.mindspring.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:41 PM 1/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >At 01:45 AM 1/16/99 +0000, David S wrote: > >> What about West? Has he got UI? If he believes 2NT to be Jacoby then >>he knows that 3C is alertable, and the moment it is not alerted, then he >>knows that *something* has happened, ie he has UI. Of course, it is >>possible that partner has just failed to alert an obvious conventional >>call, but a more likely possibility is that partner does not believe it >>to be alertable, and if not, then ... It is difficult to believe that >>West remembered they were playing 2NT as natural [apparently, I have an >>opening bid but I forgot to, partner ] and remembered coincidentally >>and nothing to do with the failure to alert. Fortunately the UI Laws >>are written so that we do not have to say that we consider West a lying >>cheating bastard, nor do we have to decide whether he is: we merely look >>at LAs. >> >> In the absence of UI, does West have LAs to his pass of 3NT? Does he >>ever! He has a known 5-4 spade fit, and a 5=2=5=1 shape! Aha, I hear >>you say, but he has shown the singleton - true, but he is still not >>automatically accepting an offer to play 3NT from partner. Presumably >>it shows a hand with good clubs, but to retreat to 4S is clearly an LA, >>even by European standards, leave alone ACBL standards. Thus the pass >>over 3NT was an infraction. >> >What is the nature of the UI to West? In part it is that partner expects >him to hold clubs, and has bid 3NT under that expectation. What does this >UI suggest? That 3NT may not be a very safe place to play (in fact, it is a >dangerous place to play, since the opponents can take the first 5 tricks). >If West had removed to 4S, which makes if the opponents don't lead clubs >(same as 3NT, interestingly), wouldn't NS have the same case to make? > >Although 4S may be a LA, it is absolutely not suggested over 3NT by the UI. >In fact, bidding anything at all over 3NT is rather more attractive, after >the UI, than passing what now looks to be, and in fact is, a hopeless >contract. I agree with this view. I don't think I know anyone who plays 2NT as a forcing raise by a passed hand. I would almost go as far to say that I have never seen that treatment. I think most who play 2NT as a forcing raise also use Drury (at least that is my experience). I am guessing that East wanted to show his values (opposite a 4th seat opener who usually has something) rather than his suit and when West bid over a non forcing call, he bid 3NT. Linda > >(My apologies to all for the accidental double posting). > >Mike Dennis > ----------- Used to be Linda Weinstein. Brian and I tied the knot on 12/25/98 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 15:02:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA14624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:02:14 +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 PAA14613 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:02:03 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 102SMU-0001PL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:01:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 03:24:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) References: <199901181957.OAA25648@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199901181957.OAA25648@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> Now, it appears that E/W play P - 1S - 2NT - 3C - 3NT as a natural >> auction. > >Agreed. We would want to know more details of the EW methods before >ruling, of course. To be fair to Brian Moran, he is trying to answer a >reader's question without having been told the relevant facts or the >basis on which the original director ruled and trying to do so in very >limited space. Given the complications, he probably would have been >better advised either to choose a different question to answer or to >devote more space to this one than he did. > >In traditional American bidding, 2NT by an unpassed hand would be >forcing and show a balanced hand worth 13-15 points. By a passed hand, >it would show either a bad 13 points not quite worth opening or a >slightly weaker hand that has been improved by a partial fit in >opener's suit. In Acol methods, I suppose 2NT would be non-forcing and >show something like 11-12 points whether by a passed hand or not. >Quite a few people here play that, especially over minor suit openings, >but I'd tend to guess it isn't a majority _among people who play 2NT >over a major as natural._ I'm not sure which of the above meanings >David was assuming in his analysis. The NAmerican method. While I find the idea of passing on 13 HCP completely incredible, I appreciate that there are NAmericans who disagree. [s] >(Is it correct that the EBU or EBL definition of "at all probable" is >1/12 and "likely" is 1/6?) I believe it to be the EBU standard, and I also believe it to be correct. [s] >NS are the NOS, so they get the best result "likely." That is +150 in >NA and +300 if "likely" is 1/6 (Europe?). [s] >EW are the OS, so "at all probable" applies to them. That is -300 >in NA, -500 if the definition is 1/12 (Europe?). > >> Since the case was in the ACBL, I rule NS +300, EW -300. > >Should be +150/-300. David was posting at almost 2 AM, and I think >he got a little sleepy. Yes, as this and other posts show, I was so worried about the principles, I got the details rather wrong. > >> Despite the length of time I have given to expounding this answer, I >> do not think it is a very difficult case. > >Certainly the principles seem clear. The bridge analysis of LA's and >"suggested over another" may not be easy, of course. I think we agree >about that. Certainly, as I have said in an additional post. -- 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 Jan 19 15:02:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA14629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:02:15 +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 PAA14614 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:02:07 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 102SMY-0001PK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:02:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 03:49:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 28 References: <001b01be409a$9bce91a0$d6307dc2@hlyxzurz> <36A06672.35444B9F@village.uunet.be> <36A3A320.C015C012@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36A3A320.C015C012@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >I'm starting from the premise that it cannot be right to allow EW to >profit from the cancelled 1D call, just because S didn't see it b4 he >made his own legal bid at his legal turn. >However, since L28B so specifically states that S has forfeited the >right to penalize the 1D call, I can't see that we can logically apply >L26 here. >Furthermore, L16C2 says that info from offender's own withdrawn action >is AI to them, after having paid "any" penalty (and no penalty applies >to our case). As an aside, I don't understand the reasoning/fairness >behind this, but I'm probably missing something. > >However, I think L12A1 (as so often) comes to our rescue. The 1D bid was >a violation of L17B/C thus imho allows TD to adjust under L12A1, which >specifically empowers TD to do so when the laws don't provide indemnity >to NOS. >It is amazing how often one can (imho) invoke L12A1 to restore equity, >as an alternative to getting clogged-up in various more or less esoteric >hair-splitting under other laws, when one instinctively feels that >"something is not quite right". I think that you must revise your approach to the application to the Laws of Bridge. Ignoring for the moment the fact that you have not got a current Law book [I have sent my 10c to the ACBL: if everyone on BLML does they will send Jan a bright shiny new Law book] you have this strange idea that if there is a point of Law that is tricky, you just apply L12A1 and do what you like. This is an awful approach. There is no suggestion that it is correct. The Laws attempt to cover all the possibilities that they can, and put in a final catchall Law for the situations that you cannot really allow for otherwise [declarer was blind, and dummy read out the wrong card to him: find that in the Laws!]. However, your idea seems to be that whenever a Law is a little complex, or a situation not immediately apparent on a first reading, you leap into L12A1, and give an adjustment, which will, of course, be based on *your* view of what we should do. It is a most undesirable way to go. We do not want TDs to invent Laws: that is not their function. Of course, if it really is a situation that is beyond the Lawmakers' abilities to foresee, we need a catchall Law, but it should be used by each TD for preference twice in a lifetime - more than that and it is not the right approach. In this particular case, it just needs care in reading the Law book - see separate post - and the answer is clear and in the Laws. Please assume in future that simple standard cases are all covered by the Laws, and leave L12A1 for "A cow flew by" type occurrences. -- 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 Jan 19 15:02:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA14630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:02:17 +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 PAA14615 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:02:07 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 102SMY-0001PI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:02:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 03:39:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 28 References: <001b01be409a$9bce91a0$d6307dc2@hlyxzurz> <36A06672.35444B9F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36A06672.35444B9F@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >> >> South is Dealer but West opens 1D. South does not notice and opens 1NT. >> West's 1D is cancelled, East has UI and there may be lead penalties... >> Correct? >> > >See my reply to Dany regarding L25A and L16C. > >Yes, L26 stands on itself. > >There is an offending player (even if he is not punished) >and there is a substituted call. > >L26 should apply (IMHO) Not in this case. You should read L28B. LAW 28 - CALLS CONSIDERED TO BE IN ROTATION B. Call by Correct Player Cancelling Call out of Rotation A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it was to call, before a penalty has been assessed for a call out of rotation by an opponent; making such a call forfeits the right to penalise the call out of rotation, and the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16C2 applies. It does not just say that there is no penalty, but uses the words "and the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn", which clearly means that you cannot use L26. While i agree that L26 can stand alone, even though it usually does not, it does not apply once "the opponent had not called at that turn", so there is no Lead penalty. However, despite this, it says that L16C2 applies, so we apply that. The BOOT is UI to partner, even though it does not exist for other purposes. -- 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 Jan 19 15:10:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA14662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:10:00 +1100 Received: from smtp1.mindspring.com (smtp1.mindspring.com [207.69.200.31]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA14657 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:09:53 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka9ce.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.37.142]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA23923 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:09:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990118230937.006d9c38@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:09:37 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) In-Reply-To: <9901181913.aa25133@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:13 PM 1/18/99 PST, Adam wrote: >I wouldn't assume (sorry if I made it sound like I would). I'd ask >him to explain why he passed 3NT. I believe that the practice of >letting UI "wake you up" to the fact that you've misunderstood the >system, and modifying your bidding accordingly, is a serious enough >breach that we should do what we can to deter it. So if the player's >response to my question was something along the lines of what Tim >said, that would satisfy me that at least the player understood the >ethical requirements and tried to follow them. But I suspect that the >answer most players would give would sound like they were not meeting >the ethical standards that the Laws require, in which case I think >something must be done, ranging from a warning to a PP as appropriate. > What ethical standards? Does West have UI? Yes, he does. Partner's failure to alert 3C suggests both that he lacks the spade support West had expected _and_ that partner expects a club suit he (West) emphatically does not have. Does he have multiple LA's? Yes, both passing and bidding 3nt are possible here. Does the UI suggest one over the other? I think not, for exactly the reasons you cited earlier. You seemed uncertain in that context. But if you now think that passing is "demonstrably suggested" over 4S (which means that 4S can't be suggested over passing), then by all means, adjust the score under the authority of L16. If you can't see your way clear down that path, then your PP is just a shot across West's bow, on the off chance that he was acting illegally. That is simply not appropriate. I have in previous posts expressed my disdain for the inquisitorial style of investigation. To question a player concerning his thought processes is, IMO, virtually always unnecessary. No matter how politely you try, it will inevitably come off as accusatory and condescending, especially to Average Joe. A TD who finds himself asking such questions is already in a suspicious state of mind (e.g., "However, for the average Joe, passing 3NT is a clear indication that West is taking advantage of the UI."), and AJ's fumbling and uncertain responses will frequently be misread as evasiveness when they are nothing more than discomfort and lack of insight. And if you do rule against a player because his answer is insufficiently convincing, you have as much as called him a liar. Fortunately, the writers of the Laws generally have been quite clever in defining adjudication procedures which avoid this trap. We would be better off sticking to those procedures. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 19 16:37:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA14800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:37:06 +1100 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (root@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA14795 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:36:58 +1100 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (uaf-du-03-08.alaska.edu [137.229.8.68]) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA01679 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 20:36:47 -0900 (AKST) Message-ID: <36A419F8.27E2854A@aurora.alaska.edu> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 20:36:56 -0900 From: Michael Schmahl X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John S. Nichols wrote: > Law 16 applies when the suggested action is chosen instead of a LA. > Nowhere does it indicate that the chosen action is (or must be) a LA. > It is only the non-chosen action(s) that must meet the test for a LA> >From 16A: "... the player may not choose *from among logical alternative actions* one that could have demonstrably ..." Reading this Law literally, this means it does not prevent a player from choosing an illogical alternative. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 00:20:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:20:17 +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 AAA19312 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:20:08 +1100 Received: from p9as14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.155] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 102b4D-0002wC-00; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:19:38 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01be43ad$eb50d920$9b8e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Committee Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:09:53 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 17 January 1999 23:40 Subject: Committee >Hi all:) > >Sergey Kapustin and me had a discussion --------------------------------------- >Second mention of this TC is in L93A: > >"LAW 93 - PROCEDURES OF APPEAL >A. No Appeals Committee >The Chief Director shall hear and rule upon all >appeals if there is no Tournament or Appeals >Committee, or when a committee cannot meet >without disturbing the orderly progress of the >tournament." > >And now one may understand that the TC may >adjudicate appeals - as AC may... >----------------------------------------- > >Does it mean that functions of AC and TC are the same? >And moreover: what is it - Tournament Committee at all? > ++++ The drafting has probably fallen into a trap in giving a title to any committee. Titles can change from village to village. We should be defining a committee not by its title but by its scope and authority. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 00:19:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:19:56 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA19292 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:19:49 +1100 Received: from p9as14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.155] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 102b4A-0002wC-00; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:19:34 +0000 Message-ID: <000801be43ad$e917b200$9b8e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Law 6 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:40:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 14 January 1999 22:23 Subject: Re: Law 6 >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >>DWS are you nit-picking with Law 6 when you write 'it is incorrect to deal >>and play a board, then deal and play another.' in your excellent Simplified >>Rules? > > Yes. :) > > ... but it does speed the game up! > === Well, it just needs a more malleable word in place of 'incorrect'. ~ Grattan ~ === From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 00:19:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:19:51 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA19286 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:19:42 +1100 Received: from p9as14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.155] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 102b4B-0002wC-00; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:19:35 +0000 Message-ID: <000901be43ad$e9d7f4c0$9b8e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Tony Musgrove" Subject: Re: Claim Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:48:01 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 15 January 1999 05:57 Subject: Re: Claim . \x/ >The only post which offended me was one where I noted a moot point spelled >"mute" :)). > +++ Wishful thinking? # Grattan # +++ p.s. I would like to have quoted DWS on why he writes aggressively at times, but it came to me in a confidential email. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 00:19:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:19:53 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA19287 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:19:43 +1100 Received: from p9as14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.155] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 102b4C-0002wC-00; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:19:36 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01be43ad$ea7fcd80$9b8e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Claim Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:54:27 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 15 January 1999 14:29 Subject: Re: Claim On 15/01/99, at 13:06, Robin Barker wrote: [snip] Jesper has sent me the original "Strange Claim" thread, but I can't find anything in his message that I said at the time! So I still don't know whether what I said then contradicts what I have said in this thread. However, since Grattan is fond of quotations, I might plead the "Whitman Defence": +++ You might even allow yourself the privilege of changing your mind occasionally? - Grattan -+++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 00:57:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:57:12 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA19969 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:57:05 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-97.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.97]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA25221294 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:59:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36A48EDC.91CD6C90@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:55:41 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <36A419F8.27E2854A@aurora.alaska.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After reading the second sentence of L16 I do not come to your conclusion: To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of the law. What bridge reason is there for making an illogical call when in possession of UI other than it is more likely to work? For instance, let's say that the auction goes P-1S-2N*-3C-3N-4H-6H with the defense leading a club instead of a heart: making 6. 4H was 'illogical' and would not have been bid [4D was available] without UI. It is an infraction warranting an adjustment and disciplinary action. Roger Pewick Michael Schmahl wrote: > > John S. Nichols wrote: > > Law 16 applies when the suggested action is chosen instead of a LA. > > Nowhere does it indicate that the chosen action is (or must be) a LA. > > It is only the non-chosen action(s) that must meet the test for a LA> > > >From 16A: > "... the player may not choose *from among logical alternative actions* > one that could have demonstrably ..." > > Reading this Law literally, this means it does not prevent a player > from choosing an illogical alternative. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 03:46:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 03:46:08 +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 DAA20533 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 03:46:00 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 102eHH-0000jX-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:45:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:43:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <36A48EDC.91CD6C90@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <36A48EDC.91CD6C90@freewwweb.com>, axeman writes >After reading the second sentence of L16 I do not come to your >conclusion: > >To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an >infraction of the law. > Some years ago, probably in a US mag (BW or TB) I read a story which goes thus: Your competent opponents (who are known to be gifted with periscopic vision and the hearing of the fennec fox) bid 1S, 3S, 4S, 6S and the contract wanders two off. They are strangely quiet after the hand. On the next hand you open 1S and pard responds 3S. Opponents look surprised. Is it a contravention to bid 6S (making on three finesses and a 3-3 break)? You are, after all, entitled to profit from your opponent's mistakes :)) -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 03:53:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 03:53:55 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f250.hotmail.com [207.82.251.141]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA20588 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 03:53:50 +1100 Received: (qmail 3659 invoked by uid 0); 19 Jan 1999 16:53:45 -0000 Message-ID: <19990119165345.3658.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:53:45 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:53:45 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote (of David Burn)> >+++ You might even allow yourself the privilege of changing your mind >occasionally? +++ > > > >From my limited experience of David Burn in this forum (if you can call two dozen messages of 2000 words each 'limited') might I suggest, Grattan, that you don't hold your breath? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 08:33:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 08:33:14 +1100 Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA21233 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 08:33:06 +1100 Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA25590 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:32:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA10543 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:32:30 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:32:30 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Screens, break in tempo Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, I was just reading the write-up of the cases dealt with by the Dutch national appeals committee. This case is probably of interest for a wider audience: Teams, W/-, Screens. \ KJ9752 South West || North East \ J3 -- Pass || 1 S Pass \ AK8 2 S Dbl * || \ 87 || 3 S Pass ** -- \ AQ64 *** || KQ82 \ A764 Pass Dbl || Pass Pass QT54 \ 632 Pass A9653 \ 102 1083 \ 1095 \ J97 \ KQJ4 \ * South pushes the tray to the NE side of the screen. ** Break in tempo, not disputed by east. *** The tray reappears at the SW side of the screen after approximately 60 seconds. 3S, down 2, -300 to NS. After the hand is over, NS call the TD and claim that the break in tempo (the 60 seconds that the tray was on the NE side of the screen), may have suggested west's double of 3S. The TD did not allow the second double. EW appealed. The AC agreed with the TD, kept the 50 guilders (25 US $) deposit. The relevant parts from their decision are: The question was whether the second double was allowed after the (clearly visible through the screen) slow pass by (presumably) east (who else?). [...] The screen was on the NE side of the screen for about 1 minute. Given the auction so-far, it is likely that a hesitation by east, and not by north, has caused this. [...] West second double may have been suggested by the UI and is therefor not allowed. There are two things that bother me about this decision: First of all, looking at the hand record, then it's clear that North has an almost automatic 3S bid. East, on the other hand, has a bridge problem over 3S which may take some time to solve. But, change the North hand to KJxxxx/Ax/AKx/xx or AKxxxx/Jx/AKx/xx and suddenly North has a problem: 3S is still an option, but so are various game-tries as well as a direct 4S bid. East, holding AQxx/Jxxx/xxx/xx or Qxxx/Axxx/xxx/xx, suddenly has an automatic pass. But, none of the players is allowed to look at the hand records during play, so how can South or West ever know who broke tempo (or what else caused the delay on the NE side)? And if that isn't clear, how can NS claim that the break in tempo suggested west's double. It looks to me that if North had (slowly) tried for game and south had successfully accepted, EW could have claimed that that had been suggested by the UI. Then, without screens, I would have agreed with the TD decision. However, isn't one of the reasons for using the screens to avoid UI because of tempo breaks in competitive auctions? If a simple break in tempo with screens, is ruled the same as with screens, then we might as well immediately abolish the screens and make the game attractive for spectators again. Comments anyone? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 09:52:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 09:52:18 +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 JAA21447 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 09:52:05 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka83l.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.117]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA23104 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:51:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990119175145.006eaec4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:51:45 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <000901be43ad$e9d7f4c0$9b8e93c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:48 PM 1/19/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: >p.s. I would like to have quoted DWS on why he writes aggressively at times, >but it came to me in a confidential email. > What a tease! Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 10:13:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:13:30 +1100 Received: from smtp1.ncal.verio.com (smtp1.ncal.verio.com [204.247.247.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA21499 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:13:23 +1100 Received: from ccnet.com (h204-247-101-186.ncal.verio.com [204.247.101.186]) by smtp1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA24888 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:13:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <36A51350.4522990D@ccnet.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:20:49 -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: [Fwd: Returned mail: User unknown] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------F93A48AFF154F453517FF768" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------F93A48AFF154F453517FF768 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------F93A48AFF154F453517FF768 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from smtp1.ncal.verio.com (smtp1.ncal.verio.com [204.247.247.82]) by mailhub1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26024 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:22:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost) by smtp1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with internal id LAA17671; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:22:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:22:24 -0800 (PST) From: Mail Delivery Subsystem Message-Id: <199901181922.LAA17671@smtp1.ncal.verio.com> To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="LAA17671.916687344/smtp1.ncal.verio.com" Subject: Returned mail: User unknown Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 This is a MIME-encapsulated message --LAA17671.916687344/smtp1.ncal.verio.com The original message was received at Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:22:16 -0800 (PST) from h204-247-101-213.ncal.verio.com [204.247.101.213] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to octavia.anu.edu.au.: >>> RCPT To: <<< 550 ... User unknown 550 ... User unknown --LAA17671.916687344/smtp1.ncal.verio.com Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp1.ncal.verio.com Received-From-MTA: DNS; h204-247-101-213.ncal.verio.com Arrival-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:22:16 -0800 (PST) Final-Recipient: RFC822; bridge-law@octavia.anu.edu.au Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Remote-MTA: DNS; octavia.anu.edu.au Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 ... User unknown Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:22:24 -0800 (PST) --LAA17671.916687344/smtp1.ncal.verio.com Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from ccnet.com (h204-247-101-213.ncal.verio.com [204.247.101.213]) by smtp1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17669 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:22:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <36A38BA6.D3204816@ccnet.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:29:42 -0800 From: Bruce Jarvis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-law@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: review mandatory w/o standing committee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was told by a long standing CD that it is mandatory to grant a review by committee at club games if one is requested. I thought that a club director is the only authority at club games, and if they disagree with the director after the game discussion, then a request would be sent to the rules committee in Memphis for final adjudication. Please comment. Tnx Bruce Jarvis Pleasanton, Ca 94566 brucej@ccnet.com --LAA17671.916687344/smtp1.ncal.verio.com-- --------------F93A48AFF154F453517FF768-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 11:11:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:11:24 +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 LAA21630 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:11:18 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 102lEl-0007CE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:11:12 +0000 Message-ID: <32zsh4AYpLp2Ew8A@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:01:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 6 In-Reply-To: <000801be43ad$e917b200$9b8e93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000801be43ad$e917b200$9b8e93c3@pacific>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott >"Or have we eaten of the insane root > That takes the reason prisoner?" > - 'Macbeth' >============================= >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 14 January 1999 22:23 >Subject: Re: Law 6 > > >>Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >>>DWS are you nit-picking with Law 6 when you write 'it is incorrect to deal >>>and play a board, then deal and play another.' in your excellent Simplified >>>Rules? >> >> Yes. :) >> >> ... but it does speed the game up! >> >=== Well, it just needs a more malleable word in place of 'incorrect'. ~ >Grattan ~ === > Tsk, tsk. for 'incorrect' you could have 'stupid and inefficient but legal' You must shuffle before play starts, and probably cut if so required. L6A. You don't yet have to deal The TD may direct that the shuffle and deal takes place before play starts L6E1. He may make other instruction for the deal, E2 etc He may make no instruction, in which case I can definitely deal from a pre-shuffled (and possibly cut) pack directly before the hand is played. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 11:31:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:31:32 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-punt-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA21666 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:31:26 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 102lYG-0001jH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:31:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:30:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Screens, break in tempo In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes >Hi all, > >I was just reading the write-up of the cases dealt with by the Dutch national >appeals committee. This case is probably of interest for a wider audience: > >Teams, W/-, Screens. > > \ KJ9752 South West || North East > \ J3 -- Pass || 1 S Pass > \ AK8 2 S Dbl * || > \ 87 || 3 S Pass ** >-- \ AQ64 *** || >KQ82 \ A764 Pass Dbl || Pass Pass >QT54 \ 632 Pass >A9653 \ 102 > 1083 \ > 1095 \ > J97 \ > KQJ4 \ > >* South pushes the tray to the NE side of the screen. >** Break in tempo, not disputed by east. >*** The tray reappears at the SW side of the screen after approximately > 60 seconds. > >3S, down 2, -300 to NS. > >After the hand is over, NS call the TD and claim that the break in tempo >(the 60 seconds that the tray was on the NE side of the screen), may have >suggested west's double of 3S. The TD did not allow the second double. >EW appealed. The AC agreed with the TD, kept the 50 guilders (25 US $) >deposit. I think an English AC would have returned the deposit. But I think they'd rule the same way. As a TD I certainly would. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 12:28:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:28:24 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA21756 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:28:19 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 102mRG-0005kS-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 01:28:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:59:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim References: <000901be43ad$e9d7f4c0$9b8e93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000901be43ad$e9d7f4c0$9b8e93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott >"Or have we eaten of the insane root > That takes the reason prisoner?" > - 'Macbeth' >============================= >-----Original Message----- >From: Tony Musgrove >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 15 January 1999 05:57 >Subject: Re: Claim > > >. \x/ >>The only post which offended me was one where I noted a moot point spelled >>"mute" :)). >> >+++ Wishful thinking? # Grattan # +++ >p.s. I would like to have quoted DWS on why he writes aggressively at times, >but it came to me in a confidential email. Feel free to quote me on that subject, so long as you delete any references to actual people. It was discussed here at length some years back. -- 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 Jan 20 12:29:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:29:25 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA21771 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:29:18 +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 UAA28185 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:28:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990119203007.006859b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:30:07 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <369F37C2.EEEA4693@internet-zahav.net> References: <3.0.1.32.19990108092623.006859b0@pop.cais.com> <000701be3a3f$5a8b93c0$598a93c3@pacific> <3.0.1.32.19990112081151.006dadd8@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:42 PM 1/15/99 +0200, Dany wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> At 06:50 PM 1/11/99 +0100, Jean-Pierre wrote: >> >> > I know one player among French top players (from Nice and ranking within >> >30 top French players) who never claims. If you ask him why, he > > >> Someone should point out to this person that he or she is violating L74B4. > >I don't agree with you and my interpretation is that the law >doesn't too : >L74B4 : ..."..disconcerting an opponent". >If someone plays always the same way , tempo, etc.....I don't think >someone can ever INTEND to disconcert someone ! >Law 74B4 emphasize -IMHO- the disconcerting.... >If a player never claims ...I am not sure anyone is >allowed to punish him or to compel him - this can be disconcerting >the non-claiming person. I didn't mean to suggest that, as a matter of interpretation of the law, a player who never claims should be assumed to be doing so in an attempt to disconcert his opponents. I menat to suggest that this particular player's reason for never claiming, to be found under Dany's '', constituted an attempt to disconcert his opponents, and that he might be in violation of L74B4 by his own admission. 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 Jan 20 16:29:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:29:54 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA22090 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:29:46 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n5b.san.rr.com [204.210.46.91]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA21018 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 21:29:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901200529.VAA21018@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: St Louis Appeals Case 13 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:27:57 -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 fall National American Bridge Championship (NABC) was held in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1997. The *St Louis, Misery* casebook of appeals for that NABC was published last summer, Rich Colker editor. Besides the AC writeups for all 44 cases, it includes (as usual) a critique of the TD and AC actions by a panel of experts, with supplementary comments by the editor. These NABC casebooks, available from the ACBL (www.acbl.org), are the second best (behind BLML) current source of education in regard to the Laws, at least in ACBL-land. At a little over $10, they are a great buy. Those working in TD or AC positions at NABCs get a free copy, I believe. The casebook numbering of the cases disagrees (for several good reasons) with the 19 cases shown on the Federation Suisse de Bridge website (http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/97slapp.html). The casebook's #13, presented here, is not included in those 19. Blue Ribbon Pairs, 25 Nov 97, second session Board: 14 Dealer: East S AQ93 Vul: none H AQJ103 D J C Q52 S 10854 S K7 H 6 H K42 D K87 D A10962 C 109763 C AK4 S J62 H 9875 D Q543 C J8 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT Pass Pass (1) Dbl (2) Pass 2C (3) Pass 2H 3D Pass Pass 3H All Pass (1) Break in tempo (2) Alerted; clubs, diamonds, or the majors (3) Alerted The facts: 3H went down one, plus 50 for E/W. West broke tempo before her first pass. [snip of unimportant details] The Director ruled that pass was a logical alternative for East. Because a result could not be determined, the Director changed the score (Law 12C1) to Average Plus for N/S and Average Minus for E/W The appeal: (snipped, unimportant details) The Committee: Chairman, Karen Allison; Members: Phil Brady, Phil Becker, Mary Hardy (scribe), Ed Lazarus The Committee decision: The Committee discussed why 2D was not bid immediately. East had an entirely free bid available and had created a riskier situation for himself. The belief that they had diamonds on his right was naive. E/W may not have been experienced players, but they still had qualified for and played in the Blue Ribbon Pairs. [I don't understand why this has any bearing on the case. It would be pertinent only if the hesitation had come over 2C instead of on the first round -- mlf] The Committee decided not to allow the 3D bid. The next issue was to determine a bridge result for the hand. West had already stated that one reason for the break in tempo was that she was thinking of transferring to clubs. She well may have taken action in the balancing position. [i.e., if East had not bid 3D -- mlf] In a difficult deliberation which took more than an hour the Committee could not determine a result. They finally decided to follow the Director's lead and assign a score of Average Plus for N/S and Average Minus for E/W Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): While the Committee believed that the lengthy hesitation by West demonstrated that she had some values, some members would have allowed the 3D bid. The majority, however, disallowed it, reasoning that pass was a logical alternative. The Committee then reasoned that it was uncertain what West would do (pass or bid 3C), thus the adjustment to Average Plus/Average Minus. I believe that when East bid 3D all further questionable bids were taken away from E/W. Hence the decision to disallow the 3D bid should have been followed by changing the contract to 2H made two, plus 110 for N/S. ######################## This case clearly shows that some NABC ACs and TDs have not had sufficient training. Note the belief by both the TD and AC that an assigned result could not be determined. They seem to think that if a clear-cut "bridge result" cannot be ascertained, an assigned score is not possible. The language of L12C2 (most favorable result that was likely for the NOS had the infraction not occurred, most unfavorable result that was at all probable for the OS) seems not to have been part of their Laws education. Some casebook analysts reason strangely too. One opined that the AC's lack of consensus made the artificial adjustment very sensible! That principle is new to me. Obviously Ed L's opinion of the correct score adjustment is superior to the majority decision, although his reasoning may be a little off. Just cite L12C2, Ed. A few of the casebook analysts felt that there was no LA to bidding 3D, and there was some support for letting the -50 table result stand for N/S while assigning -110 to E/W. Most, however, would have assigned +110/-110. I have snipped the E/W comments supporting the appeal, which could be pertinent, because I'm too lazy to type them and I have no interest in this aspect of the case. Those interested can buy the casebook. The case highlights the unfairness of artificial scores, which are rarely appropriate. In this case 2H making could possibly be a much better score than the 60% given N/S with the Average Plus, and a much worse score for E/W than the 40% they get with Average Minus. And, of course, since an artificial score is treated as a "missing result," the other pairs' scores will be affected in undesirable ways. -- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 17:23:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA22147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:23:20 +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 RAA22142 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:23:14 +1100 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial51.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.51]) by abest.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA06702; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 01:23:07 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@mail.datatone.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199901200529.VAA21018@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 01:06:49 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: St Louis Appeals Case 13 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 6:27 PM -0500 1/19/99, Marvin L. French wrote: [snip] >This case clearly shows that some NABC ACs and TDs have not had >sufficient training. Note the belief by both the TD and AC that an >assigned result could not be determined. They seem to think that if >a clear-cut "bridge result" cannot be ascertained, an assigned score >is not possible. The language of L12C2 (most favorable result that >was likely for the NOS had the infraction not occurred, most >unfavorable result that was at all probable for the OS) seems not >to have been part of their Laws education. My thoughts exactly. I don't often chime in with a "me too", but my main concern with committees for many years has been that many (or most) of them seem not to bother to apply the Laws, whether through ignorance or otherwise. Granted, most committees try to be fair. Since the Laws also try to be fair, committees often end up ruling as the Laws require them to. Unless the committee knows the relevant Laws and applies them correctly, though, this is a fortuitous coincidence. We've all heard the complaint that "committees always rule against me, even when I've been on either side of the same issue." Surely if committees were to explain in their ruling the specific Laws they had applied this would help appellants understand the ruling, though even more surely they won't always agree with it. I suggested here last month that writeups should cite the relevant Law or Laws as a matter of course. I've just instituted the practice of writing up AC decisions for our Regional tournaments, and no one's complained as to the citations of Law yet! AW From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 17:46:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA22200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:46:16 +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 RAA22195 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:46:08 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990120064601.KHOI6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:46:01 -0800 Message-ID: <36A57C84.A47A583E@home.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:49:40 -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: Moran's column in January Bulletin (mistaken bid?) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: In response to (snipped): > >What is the nature of the UI to West? In part it is that partner > > expects him to hold clubs, and has bid 3NT under that expectation. > I agree with this view. I don't think I know anyone who plays 2NT as > a forcing raise by a passed hand. I would almost go as far to say > that I have never seen that treatment. I think most who play 2NT as a > forcing raise also use Drury (at least that is my experience). a) I will not dwell too much on Linda's experience with the passed 2NT response - it is probably a reflection of her usual playing-environment. Particularly outside of the ACBL, it is not universally felt by experts that Drury is good, and many play 2NT as a fit-showing maximum pass. Anyway, since this thread started with an ACBL Bulletin matter, an ACBL-ish view of methods can be excused :-) b) It is completely irrelevant how many play 2NT here as a forcing raise. What *is* relevant is that West at first indeed assumed this is what 2NT meant! This is proven also by his 3C bid. c) The above notwithstanding, it seems strange to me to say that the UI to West is that East assumes him to have clubs. If 2NT would (correctly in this case) *not* have been alerted, *then* East would assume West having clubs. After the alert - i.e. the UI - East may well assume West to be short in clubs. This is why indeed East didn't make use of the UI available to him in bidding what was now a very risky 3NT. West however didn't know this. Using the screen-test, or assuming East had alerted 3C, West must assume East having 4 card S-support and good, butfor slam-purposes wasted, values in clubs. With the UI that East may *not* have spade-support after all, clearly passing 3NT becomes more attractive than it is holding a 5-4 major fit. Finally is the question of West's LAs over 3NT. One can expect many to feel that pass is a good bid, particularly at MPs, but I'll stick my neck out and claim that chosing to play in a 5-4 spade-fit over NT is *always* an LA, whether in ACBL, Europe, Asia or on Mars! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 17:51:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA22221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:51:44 +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 RAA22216 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:51:38 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 102rU9-0006N5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 06:51:32 +0000 Message-ID: <1ayE36BYRUp2EwOB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 02:50:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Appeals in clubs References: <36A51350.4522990D@ccnet.com> In-Reply-To: <36A51350.4522990D@ccnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce Jarvis wrote: >I was told by a long standing CD that it is mandatory to grant a review >by committee at club games if one is requested. I thought that a club >director is the only authority >at club games, and if they disagree with the director after the game >discussion, then a >request would be sent to the rules committee in Memphis for final >adjudication. The Laws of Bridge make an Appeals method a *right*. I would not know whether ACBL regulations are in conflict with the Laws in this area. -- 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 Jan 20 18:47:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA22333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:47:35 +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 SAA22328 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:47:28 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990120074722.KQZQ6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:47:22 -0800 Message-ID: <36A58AE5.5D90E06B@home.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:51:01 -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: Screens, break in tempo References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk a) Nice presentation! b) I largely agree that it is presumptuous to conclude that it must be East who broke tempo. It partly depends on methods, but clearly North might have considered various gametries (2NT, RD, 3new), as well as 4S or even pass. c) I don't agree that hesitation-questions is the main advantage with screens. There are loads of others, imo, not the least of which is not having to see partner's twisted grimaces at the bids and plays I make! :-)) (PS thus also avoiding those grimaces becoming UI). Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > Hi all, > > I was just reading the write-up of the cases dealt with by the Dutch national > appeals committee. This case is probably of interest for a wider audience: > > Teams, W/-, Screens. > > \ KJ9752 South West || North East > \ J3 -- Pass || 1 S Pass > \ AK8 2 S Dbl * || > \ 87 || 3 S Pass ** > -- \ AQ64 *** || > KQ82 \ A764 Pass Dbl || Pass Pass > QT54 \ 632 Pass > A9653 \ 102 > 1083 \ > 1095 \ > J97 \ > KQJ4 \ > > * South pushes the tray to the NE side of the screen. > ** Break in tempo, not disputed by east. > *** The tray reappears at the SW side of the screen after approximately > 60 seconds. > > 3S, down 2, -300 to NS. > > After the hand is over, NS call the TD and claim that the break in tempo > (the 60 seconds that the tray was on the NE side of the screen), may have > suggested west's double of 3S. The TD did not allow the second double. > EW appealed. The AC agreed with the TD, kept the 50 guilders (25 US $) > deposit. The relevant parts from their decision are: > > The question was whether the second double was allowed after > the (clearly visible through the screen) slow pass by (presumably) > east (who else?). > [...] > The screen was on the NE side of the screen for about 1 minute. > Given the auction so-far, it is likely that a hesitation by east, and > not by north, has caused this. > [...] > West second double may have been suggested by the UI and is > therefor not allowed. > > There are two things that bother me about this decision: > > First of all, looking at the hand record, then it's clear that North has > an almost automatic 3S bid. East, on the other hand, has a bridge problem > over 3S which may take some time to solve. But, change the North hand to > KJxxxx/Ax/AKx/xx or AKxxxx/Jx/AKx/xx and suddenly North has a problem: 3S > is still an option, but so are various game-tries as well as a direct 4S > bid. East, holding AQxx/Jxxx/xxx/xx or Qxxx/Axxx/xxx/xx, suddenly has an > automatic pass. > > But, none of the players is allowed to look at the hand records during > play, so how can South or West ever know who broke tempo (or what else > caused the delay on the NE side)? And if that isn't clear, how can NS > claim that the break in tempo suggested west's double. It looks to me > that if North had (slowly) tried for game and south had successfully > accepted, EW could have claimed that that had been suggested by the UI. > > Then, without screens, I would have agreed with the TD decision. However, > isn't one of the reasons for using the screens to avoid UI because of > tempo breaks in competitive auctions? If a simple break in tempo with > screens, is ruled the same as with screens, then we might as well > immediately abolish the screens and make the game attractive for > spectators again. > > Comments anyone? > > Henk > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 > 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 > The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was > lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 20 19:02:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA22370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 19:02:18 +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 TAA22365 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 19:02:13 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990120080208.KSQO6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:02:08 -0800 Message-ID: <36A58E5A.6D187367@home.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:05:46 -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: L73C vs L16A References: <36A419F8.27E2854A@aurora.alaska.edu> <36A48EDC.91CD6C90@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: > > After reading the second sentence of L16 I do not come to your > conclusion: > > To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an > infraction of the law. Note the word "may". > What bridge reason is there for making an illogical call when in > possession of UI other than it is more likely to work? One might be that you "know" that the best bid will no longer be allowed since it is "suggested over.." etc, thus instead of making a bad LA bid that you "know" will lead to a bad result you take a gamble at 6NT or whatever which is not an LA but that at least on occasion will yield a good score that you'd get to keep. I beleive we've had many cases discussed both here and on RGB where there has been a concensus that a certain succesful bid was allowed, specifically because it was not considered an LA, even though it was suggested over some unsuccesful LAs. In other words that we have interpreted L16 literally. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 21 00:44:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:44:05 +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 AAA25251 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:43:59 +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 IAA07782 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 08:43:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990120084454.006a0c04@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 08:44:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Committee In-Reply-To: <36A2ED0F.3DC@elnet.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:13 AM 1/18/99 -0800, vitold wrote: >Does it mean that functions of AC and TC are the same? >And moreover: what is it - Tournament Committee at all? The Tournament Committee would be a committee responsible for running the tournament in general. One of their responsibilities is to provide for the hearing of appeals. The laws seem to be giving them the choice of either hearing appeals themselves or, as is normally done, appointing an AC to do so. 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 Jan 21 00:55:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:55:31 +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 AAA25292 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:55:25 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-71.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.71]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA26672794 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 08:58:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36A5DFFA.4DED05EE@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 07:54:02 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <36A419F8.27E2854A@aurora.alaska.edu> <36A48EDC.91CD6C90@freewwweb.com> <36A58E5A.6D187367@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > axeman wrote: > > > > After reading the second sentence of L16 I do not come to your > > conclusion: > > > > To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an > > infraction of the law. > > Note the word "may". > > > What bridge reason is there for making an illogical call when in > > possession of UI other than it is more likely to work? > > One might be that you "know" that the best bid will no longer be allowed > since it is "suggested over.." etc, thus instead of making a bad LA bid > that you "know" will lead to a bad result you take a gamble at 6NT or > whatever which is not an LA but that at least on occasion will yield a > good score that you'd get to keep. > > I beleive we've had many cases discussed both here and on RGB where > there has been a concensus that a certain succesful bid was allowed, > specifically because it was not considered an LA, even though it was > suggested over some unsuccesful LAs. In other words that we have > interpreted L16 literally. Making such a call is in violation of L16 as noted in the sentence I quoted above. It matters not if there is a consensus of people that says otherwise. I believe that any player who is in possession of UI is under the onus to make their calls in accordance with their agreements. To do otherwise is evidence that UI was used for the purpose of gaining a potential benefit. In as much that L16 says to play bridge while L16A says to play something other than bridge*, that kind of conflict is undesirable. * I have seen the same TD rule on the same hand on the same auction with the same infraction [same session] and make 100% opposite rulings. I strongly disagree with the dictum which says flatly that Bridge is what the laws say it is. [Rather, bridge includes the Law as well as other things which are more important.] The laws are what the TD say they are, and the TD can twist his ruling any way he sees fit. Such situations are the way the world is. Cheers Roger Pewick From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 21 03:04:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 03:04:03 +1100 Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA25650 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 03:03:56 +1100 Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id LAA17376 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:03:48 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199901201603.LAA17376@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: St Louis Appeals Case 13 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:03:48 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Adam Wildavsky" at Jan 20, 99 01:06:49 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky writes: > [snip. I agree] > > We've all heard the complaint that "committees always rule against me, even > when I've been on either side of the same issue." Surely if committees were > to explain in their ruling the specific Laws they had applied this would > help appellants understand the ruling, though even more surely they won't > always agree with it. I suggested here last month that writeups should cite > the relevant Law or Laws as a matter of course. I've just instituted the > practice of writing up AC decisions for our Regional tournaments, and no > one's complained as to the citations of Law yet! Congrats. Hopefully this can serve as a template for AC writeups. Your next mission is to get the specifics of the judgement included. IE, was there UI (yes/no), what were the LAs (list), was the action taken demonstably suggested by the UI (yes/no). ... -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 21 03:50:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 03:50:40 +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 DAA25883 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 03:50:33 +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 QAA18669; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:50:14 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 QAA23872; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:50:12 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA21018; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:50:11 GMT Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:50:11 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199901201650.QAA21018@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St Louis Appeals Case 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Congrats. Hopefully this can serve as a template for AC writeups. > > Your next mission is to get the specifics of the judgement included. > > IE, was there UI (yes/no), what were the LAs (list), was the action > taken demonstably suggested by the UI (yes/no). ... > > -- > RNJ > The EBU appeals form contains a number of questions for the TD (mainly concerned with UI rulings), along the lines of: Are the facts in dispute? If so, on what facts was your decision based? What sort of ruling is this: UI, MI, (various others) ? If the ruling could involve UI, answer the following: a) what was the UI? b) what action by player in receipt of UI is questioned? c) were there logical alternatives, if so list them? d) was action questioned demonstrably suggest by the UI? e) were the opponents damaged? If the appeals committee disagree with a TD's UI ruling they are supposed to indicate which of (a)-(e) they disagree with TD. 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 Jan 21 04:42:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA26070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 04:42:11 +1100 Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA26065 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 04:42:05 +1100 Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id MAA20988 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:41:16 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199901201741.MAA20988@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: St Louis Appeals Case 13 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:41:15 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199901201650.QAA21018@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> from "Robin Barker" at Jan 20, 99 04:50:11 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker writes: > > The EBU appeals form contains a number of questions for the TD (mainly > concerned with UI rulings), along the lines of: > > Are the facts in dispute? If so, on what facts was your decision based? > > What sort of ruling is this: UI, MI, (various others) ? > > If the ruling could involve UI, answer the following: > > a) what was the UI? > b) what action by player in receipt of UI is questioned? > c) were there logical alternatives, if so list them? > d) was action questioned demonstrably suggest by the UI? > e) were the opponents damaged? > > If the appeals committee disagree with a TD's UI ruling they are supposed > to indicate which of (a)-(e) they disagree with TD. > Excellent. Is there a publicly available copy. I don't want/need one, but I'd like to be able to point people involved with AC writeups at this. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 21 06:58:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 06:58:09 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA26282 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 06:58:03 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n5b.san.rr.com [204.210.46.91]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA20484 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:57:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901201957.LAA20484@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Appeals in clubs Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:57:15 -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 > > Bruce Jarvis wrote: > > >I was told by a long standing CD that it is mandatory to grant a review > >by committee at club games if one is requested. I thought that a club > >director is the only authority > >at club games, and if they disagree with the director after the game > >discussion, then a > >request would be sent to the rules committee in Memphis for final > >adjudication. > The Laws of Bridge require that an Appeals process be available (L92A). L93 governs the "Procedures of Appeal," which make clear that a committee to hear appeals is not mandatory: L93A: No Appeals Committee. The Chief Director shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there is no Tournament or Appeals Committee, or when a committee cannot meet without disturbing the orderly progress of the tournament. L93B: If a committee is available... The ACBL, in conformance with L93, states in *Duplicate Decisions* that clubs are not obliged to establish an appeals committee. The decision whether or not to have one is based on the availability of suitable committee members: "Playing experience, bridge judgment, and the ability to analyze all aspects of a question are what is needed. The committee members chosen should have the respect of all concerned." As stated elsewhere by the ACBL, possible bias is a ground for exclusion. Higher level games will usually have suitable people available, but, as L93A says, there are times when convening a committee is not practicable. One-person "committees" are sometimes used, even at NABCs. A club TD would be very unwise not to form a committee when there is at least one suitable person available. One, three, or five, not an even number who might deadlock. An appellant has the right to appeal any TD ruling, although that might mean appealing to the TD who made the ruling when no committee is available. An appeals committee "may exercise all powers assigned by the Laws to the Director, but cannot overrule the Director on a point of law or regulation, or on his exercise of disciplinary powers" [(L91, not L90)], but may attempt to convince a TD that he is in error. L93C: After the preceding remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may be taken to the national authority (on a point of law, in ACBL the National Laws Commission...)." This seems to be a little garbled. I take it to mean that you can appeal anything to the ACBL (but matters of fact will probably not be heard), including a matter of ACBL regulation. However, if the appeal concerns a point of law then it goes to the National Laws Commission. Another interpretation of L93C is that you can only appeal a matter of law, but surely a matter of regulation can be appealed. I filed such an appeal once on a matter of law, and it was handled expeditiously, including a letter of apology from the TD involved. The process works. It is not always clear to me whether an issue is a matter of law, of regulation, or of fact. That could make an interesting thread. I get the impression that many NABC ACs are overturning TD rulings on matters of law or regulation without getting acquiescence from the TD. It is interesting that few, if any, NABC AC decisions, no matter how poor, seem to be appealed further. Perhaps players are not aware of L93C. TDs routinely tell players that their rulings can be appealed, and maybe ACs should do the same. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 21 07:42:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 07:42:22 +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 HAA26422 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 07:42:16 +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 AA121514928; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:42:09 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA135174922; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:42:02 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:41:37 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Bid not seen (law 16A2) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA 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 At a local club this week, this case happended (S is dealer): North hand: S: x x x x x x H: J x x x x D: Q x C: --- South hand: S: D x x H: A x D: A 10 x x x C: K x x Bidding: S E N W 1D P P X (1) P 2C 2S(2) 3C P P 3H P 3S When W doubled, N says "you can not X, there was no bid". Then N realised his partner had bid 1D (using bid box). When N bid 2S, W called TD allowing N may not bid because he told he did not see partner's 1D opening. I was not the director and can not be sure what happened afterward, but will like to have comments on the ruling I should have made. North has no UI exept that his partner now knows that he could have P with more than 5 points (he may have up to 11 or 12). South knows that is partner can have more than 5 points and can not use this UI. According to Law 16A2, when a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponnent who had a logical alternative has choosen action that could has been suggested by UI, he should summon TD. TD shall require auction to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage. So bidding must continue after N's 2S and the final contract is 3S. IMHO N's 2S is a logical alternative just using 1D opening and is not demonstrably suggested by anything else. N will make the same bid if nothing happens. I have the same feeling about N's 3H. It is not suggested by UI (the fact that S knows he can have more than 5 points). It is just normal agressive bridge with such a hand. The first two P by S are just normal with a minimum hand. The fact that S choosed 3S instead of 3H seems also logic an not suggested by UI. So I would have let score stand. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 21 09:23:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 09:23:03 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA26804 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 09:22:53 +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 RAA01394 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:22:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990120172327.0068b20c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:23:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Bid not seen (law 16A2) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:41 PM 1/20/99 -0500, Laval_Dubreuil wrote: >At a local club this week, this case happended (S is dealer): > >North hand: S: x x x x x x > H: J x x x x > D: Q x > C: --- > >South hand: S: D x x > H: A x > D: A 10 x x x > C: K x x > >Bidding: S E N W > 1D P P X (1) > P 2C 2S(2) 3C > P P 3H P > 3S > >When W doubled, N says "you can not X, there was no bid". S now has UI; he knows his partner may have more than expected for his pass. >Then N realised his partner had bid 1D (using bid box). N had no UI at this point, and so is entitled to "notice" S's 1D bid, and act accordingly from this point on. >When N bid 2S, W called TD allowing N may not bid because >he told he did not see partner's 1D opening. But N only gave UI to S; he received none, so he may make any call he wants to. >I was not the director and can not be sure what happened >afterward, but will like to have comments on the ruling I should >have made. > >North has no UI exept that his partner now knows that he could >have P with more than 5 points (he may have up to 11 or 12). Which can't matter, unless N expects his partner to take advantage of the UI which he (N) provided. So I wouldn't consider N to have UI or be subject to L16. >South knows that is partner can have more than 5 points and >can not use this UI. Correct. >According to Law 16A2, when a player has substantial reason to >believe that an opponnent who had a logical alternative has >choosen action that could has been suggested by UI, he should >summon TD. TD shall require auction to continue, standing ready >to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of >law has resulted in damage. > >So bidding must continue after N's 2S and the final contract is 3S. > >IMHO N's 2S is a logical alternative just using 1D opening and is >not demonstrably suggested by anything else. N will make the >same bid if nothing happens. > >I have the same feeling about N's 3H. It is not suggested by UI >(the fact that S knows he can have more than 5 points). It is >just normal agressive bridge with such a hand. It doesn't matter. He has no UI. He can do whatever he likes. >The first two P by S are just normal with a minimum hand. >The fact that S choosed 3S instead of 3H seems also logic an >not suggested by UI. Correct. S's passes and 3S bid are perfectly consistent with N's original pass, which, absent the UI, would show a hand too weak to respond at the one-level. Had S taken a stronger action at any of those turns, he would have been in violation of L16A. >So I would have let score stand. As would I. N was not subject to L16A, and S, who was, properly followed it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 21 10:19:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:19:50 +1100 Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA26911 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:19:46 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn30p18.ozemail.com.au [203.108.124.146]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA05958 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:19:42 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:19:42 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199901202319.KAA05958@oznet11.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:05 AM 20/01/99 -0800, you wrote: >axeman wrote: >> >> After reading the second sentence of L16 I do not come to your >> conclusion: >> >> To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an >> infraction of the law. > >Note the word "may". > >> What bridge reason is there for making an illogical call when in >> possession of UI other than it is more likely to work? > >One might be that you "know" that the best bid will no longer be allowed >since it is "suggested over.." etc, thus instead of making a bad LA bid >that you "know" will lead to a bad result you take a gamble at 6NT or >whatever which is not an LA but that at least on occasion will yield a >good score that you'd get to keep. > >I beleive we've had many cases discussed both here and on RGB where >there has been a concensus that a certain succesful bid was allowed, >specifically because it was not considered an LA, even though it was >suggested over some unsuccesful LAs. In other words that we have >interpreted L16 literally. > Well my recollection of two cases discussed here is exactly the opposite. My archiving of these discussions is hopeless so perhaps someone else may back me up, but I recall the case where the range of 1NT was misdescribed, and an illogical leap to a making 6S was generally agreed to have used UI. Tony > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 21 11:20:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:20:42 +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 LAA27033 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:20:36 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 1037rG-0007CY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:20:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 19:37:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <36A419F8.27E2854A@aurora.alaska.edu> <36A48EDC.91CD6C90@freewwweb.com> <36A58E5A.6D187367@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36A58E5A.6D187367@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >I beleive we've had many cases discussed both here and on RGB where >there has been a concensus that a certain succesful bid was allowed, >specifically because it was not considered an LA, even though it was >suggested over some unsuccesful LAs. In other words that we have >interpreted L16 literally. Certainly not a consensus! The suggestion has been made that making a call that is not an LA is not improper under L16A ["... choose from among logical alternative actions ..."]. However, it is a contravention of L73C, and we shall adjust some way or other. That is one way of looking at it. At least one correspondent has suggested that any action taken has become an LA thereby - and I am happy to use that as a basis for ruling. -- 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 Jan 21 11:53:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:53:05 +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 LAA27112 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:52:58 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990121005253.RNOR6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:52:53 -0800 Message-ID: <36A67B3F.F63E328D@home.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:56:31 -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: Bid not seen (law 16A2) References: <3.0.1.32.19990120172327.0068b20c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I normally don't like "me too" postings but if this is a collection of votes let me state anyway that, fwiw, I fully agree with EL. Eric Landau wrote: > > At 03:41 PM 1/20/99 -0500, Laval_Dubreuil wrote: > > >At a local club this week, this case happended (S is dealer): > > > >North hand: S: x x x x x x > > H: J x x x x > > D: Q x > > C: --- > > > >South hand: S: D x x > > H: A x > > D: A 10 x x x > > C: K x x > > > >Bidding: S E N W > > 1D P P X (1) > > P 2C 2S(2) 3C > > P P 3H P > > 3S > > > >When W doubled, N says "you can not X, there was no bid". > > S now has UI; he knows his partner may have more than expected for his pass. > > >Then N realised his partner had bid 1D (using bid box). > > N had no UI at this point, and so is entitled to "notice" S's 1D bid, and > act accordingly from this point on. > > >When N bid 2S, W called TD allowing N may not bid because > >he told he did not see partner's 1D opening. > > But N only gave UI to S; he received none, so he may make any call he wants > to. > > >I was not the director and can not be sure what happened > >afterward, but will like to have comments on the ruling I should > >have made. > > > >North has no UI exept that his partner now knows that he could > >have P with more than 5 points (he may have up to 11 or 12). > > Which can't matter, unless N expects his partner to take advantage of the > UI which he (N) provided. So I wouldn't consider N to have UI or be > subject to L16. > > >South knows that is partner can have more than 5 points and > >can not use this UI. > > Correct. > > >According to Law 16A2, when a player has substantial reason to > >believe that an opponnent who had a logical alternative has > >choosen action that could has been suggested by UI, he should > >summon TD. TD shall require auction to continue, standing ready > >to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of > >law has resulted in damage. > > > >So bidding must continue after N's 2S and the final contract is 3S. > > > >IMHO N's 2S is a logical alternative just using 1D opening and is > >not demonstrably suggested by anything else. N will make the > >same bid if nothing happens. > > > >I have the same feeling about N's 3H. It is not suggested by UI > >(the fact that S knows he can have more than 5 points). It is > >just normal agressive bridge with such a hand. > > It doesn't matter. He has no UI. He can do whatever he likes. > > >The first two P by S are just normal with a minimum hand. > >The fact that S choosed 3S instead of 3H seems also logic an > >not suggested by UI. > > Correct. S's passes and 3S bid are perfectly consistent with N's original > pass, which, absent the UI, would show a hand too weak to respond at the > one-level. Had S taken a stronger action at any of those turns, he would > have been in violation of L16A. > > >So I would have let score stand. > > As would I. N was not subject to L16A, and S, who was, properly followed it. > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 21 12:20:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:20:10 +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 MAA27148 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:20:00 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990121011946.RVDD6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:19:46 -0800 Message-ID: <36A6818C.52FB2526@home.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:23:24 -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: L73C vs L16A References: <36A419F8.27E2854A@aurora.alaska.edu> <36A48EDC.91CD6C90@freewwweb.com> <36A58E5A.6D187367@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > The suggestion has been made that making a > call that is not an LA is not improper under L16A ["... choose from > among logical alternative actions ..."]. However, it is a > contravention > of L73C, and we shall adjust some way or other. The question is of course if taking a wild stab at, say, 6NT over pard's slow double of lho's 3D bid amounts to "taking any advantage.." I don't have a strong opinion on this though, and feel arguments can be made either way. Maybe OS should be allowed to take a risky "single-shot" at a good result, since NOS so often in practice are allowed a risk-free "double-shot"? :-)) Or maybe it is more "fair" if OS are forced to "continue to play bridge"? > That is one way of looking at it. At least one correspondent has > suggested that any action taken has become an LA thereby - and I am > happy to use that as a basis for ruling. I agree that it is not illogical to take such a general view. Since resulting rulings will depend completely on which side of this the TD/AC happens to be, would it make sense to get an "official" WBFLC guideline on this, for the purpose of consistency and the fundamental right of players to know the rules? > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 21 12:57:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:57:19 +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 MAA27451 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:57:13 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.9] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 1039Mt-0004Xm-00; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 01:57:11 +0000 Message-ID: <199901210157090630.052CC62C@mail.btinternet.com> References: <36A419F8.27E2854A@aurora.alaska.edu> <36A48EDC.91CD6C90@freewwweb.com> <36A58E5A.6D187367@home.com> <199901210155540720.052BA161@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 01:57:09 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 20/01/99, at 19:37, David Stevenson wrote: >Jan Kamras wrote: > >>I beleive we've had many cases discussed both here and on RGB where >>there has been a concensus that a certain succesful bid was allowed, >>specifically because it was not considered an LA, even though it was >>suggested over some unsuccesful LAs. In other words that we have >>interpreted L16 literally. I am always unsure about this. In my own view, a player is permitted to= select from among illogical alternatives pretty much at will. The position= that Jan states is not possible - if a call is "suggested", then it is= ipso facto logical, in the sense that there exists a reason for making it. > Certainly not a consensus! The suggestion has been made that making a >call that is not an LA is not improper under L16A ["... choose from >among logical alternative actions ..."]. I believe this to be the correct interpretation of L16. >However, it is a contravention >of L73C, and we shall adjust some way or other. However, this is also dangerous, since it appears to imply that if a= player, faced with a series of logical alternatives and not knowing which= of them will be deemed "suggested over another", does something illogical= and gets a good result thereby, we will take it away from him. I think= that if a player deliberately does something illogical, he is acting= within the spirit of L73 - trying his best not to derive any advantage -= and if he yet succeeds in obtaining a good result, he should keep it. DWS= has in the past suggested that "if it hesitates, shoot it" is not a good= basis on which to give rulings - yet his view above sounds very much in= line with that philosophy. > That is one way of looking at it. At least one correspondent has >suggested that any action taken has become an LA thereby - and I am >happy to use that as a basis for ruling. And this sounds exactly like "if it hesitates...". I think that L73 means= what it appears to say: a player must not derive any advantage from UI.= However, I don't think it can be the case that anything a player does in= the presence of UI can be considered logical, or that anything a player in= possession of UI does can be considered an attempt to derive an advantage.= I would be extremely unhappy to use this as a basis for a ruling. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 21 13:36:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA27491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 13:36:41 +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 NAA27486 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 13:36:35 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka9m5.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.38.197]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA24053 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:36:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990120213615.006ebfb4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:36:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: References: <36A58E5A.6D187367@home.com> <36A419F8.27E2854A@aurora.alaska.edu> <36A48EDC.91CD6C90@freewwweb.com> <36A58E5A.6D187367@home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:37 PM 1/20/99 +0000, David S wrote: > That is one way of looking at it. At least one correspondent has >suggested that any action taken has become an LA thereby - and I am >happy to use that as a basis for ruling. Certainly makes it an LA by ACBL standards ;). Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 21 14:42:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 14:42:21 +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 OAA28247 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 14:42:12 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 103AzX-0006Fc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 03:41:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 03:33:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeals in clubs References: <199901201957.LAA20484@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199901201957.LAA20484@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: >The ACBL, in conformance with L93, states in *Duplicate Decisions* >that clubs are not obliged to establish an appeals committee. The >decision whether or not to have one is based on the availability of >suitable committee members: "Playing experience, bridge judgment, >and the ability to analyze all aspects of a question are what is >needed. The committee members chosen should have the respect of all >concerned." As stated elsewhere by the ACBL, possible bias is a >ground for exclusion. > >Higher level games will usually have suitable people available, >but, as L93A says, there are times when convening a committee is >not practicable. One-person "committees" are sometimes used, even >at NABCs. A club TD would be very unwise not to form a committee >when there is at least one suitable person available. One, three, >or five, not an even number who might deadlock. Our view is that the main reason for appeals is to test the bridge judgement of the TD. Thus, good players in any club are suitable for ACs, even if their knowledge of the Law is non-existent. The TD should be able to explain the relevant Law. I can see this method does not work very well if the TD is incompetent, but if a Club TD is incompetent, there does not seem an effective Appeals process anyway, unless there is another person in the Club who is competent on the Laws. >An appellant has the right to appeal any TD ruling, although that >might mean appealing to the TD who made the ruling when no >committee is available. An appeals committee "may exercise all >powers assigned by the Laws to the Director, but cannot overrule >the Director on a point of law or regulation, or on his exercise of >disciplinary powers" [(L91, not L90)], but may attempt to convince >a TD that he is in error. What surprises me also is that there do not seem any other method of arranging Appeals. Can the Unit or District not do it? Here, you could ask your local county for help, and I am sure that all of them would provide an Appeals process. If you buy an EBU diary, you get a list of EBU Referees - and those are very suitable people to arrange an Appeal for you, albeit by phone. If you ring EBU headquarters they will give you someone to ring, often myself. Last week I decided an Appeal in Bedford, which is about 140 miles away. [Actually, if you ever want, I am willing to decide Appeals anywhere. It is not a one-man process, I have others I will consult for advice, Grattan for example. Feel free to send me appeals from anywhere.] Overall, I think that the ACBL and its local organisations should do a better job at providing or helping with local appeals mechanisms. >L93C: After the preceding remedies have been exhausted, further >appeal may be taken to the national authority (on a point of law, >in ACBL the National Laws Commission...)." > >This seems to be a little garbled. I take it to mean that you can >appeal anything to the ACBL (but matters of fact will probably not >be heard), including a matter of ACBL regulation. However, if the >appeal concerns a point of law then it goes to the National Laws >Commission. Another interpretation of L93C is that you can only >appeal a matter of law, but surely a matter of regulation can be >appealed. Again, we set out what things the EBU will look at. The regulations covering Appeals to the National Authority are in the Orange book, so everyone in England can find out easily that there is such an appeals process, and how it works [http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec]. Of course, there are other countries where local appeals and ATTNAs are handled well and explained fully. But I do get the impression that there is work to be done on this in NAmerica. -- 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 Jan 21 15:31:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA28302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:31:24 +1100 Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA28297 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:31:16 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id HSQGa01221; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 23:26:24 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: <6be158a.36a6ac70@aol.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 23:26:24 EST To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Appeals in clubs Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: << Our view is that the main reason for appeals is to test the bridge judgement of the TD. >> So it should be interesting when TD's are the AC's for the Regional events at the next NABC, don't you think? Karen From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 22 00:55:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 00:55:59 +1100 Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA01529 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 00:55:53 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n3c.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.60]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA28554 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:00:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990121085411.00813e70@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:54:11 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Appeals in clubs In-Reply-To: References: <199901201957.LAA20484@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <199901201957.LAA20484@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:33 AM 1/21/99 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > What surprises me also is that there do not seem any other method of >arranging Appeals. Can the Unit or District not do it? Here, you could >ask your local county for help, and I am sure that all of them would >provide an Appeals process. I live in Maine where this does not really sound practical. Half the games in the state are the only game available within a 30 minute drive and only run once a week, sometimes only in the summer. Often the director took the directing test many years ago, memorizing the needed answers just long enough to pass the test. I took the director's test probably 10 years ago. The only thing I remember was that in order to pass you had to score three boards 100% correctly. One of the boards was fouled and one had an artificial score, the 3rd had no "tricks". I made a silly mistake on one of the boards. The Unit secretary whose job it was to administer the test, gave the test back to me and suggested I check the matchpointing. I fixed my error and passed the test. I don't imagine the process is much different in other parts of the country. Anyway, many of the games in the state attract the same players week after week. If there is a dispute, the director settles it. Most of the players don't know there is such a thing as an appeal. Even if they were aware of the process, they would be unlikely to attempt to use the process. That would mean questioning the director's authority and risking disturbing a well established pecking order. If there was an appeal, I suspect either the director would take offense and not come back, meaning someone else would have to take the director's test, and no one really wants to do that. Or, some players involved in the appeal would take offense and never come back. If they take a couple of friends with them, the game might be cut in half. I'm fortunate to live near Portland, our state's largest city. There are duplicate games 4 or 5 times a week. An experienced director runs all of the games. She once told me that she enjoys directing because she gets to be the police, the judge and the jury! Anyway, there needs to be better education. If someone around here wanted to appeal a ruling, they would be viewed as a trouble maker. And, practically speaking, it's not worth the distubance to establish an appeals procedure and educate the players about it. Besides, who would do the educating? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 22 02:59:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 02:59:46 +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 CAA01877 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 02:59:38 +1100 Received: from p39s04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.58] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 103MW0-00035g-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:59:29 +0000 Message-ID: <000801be4556$933e7300$3a8493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Catz and animals and the world at large Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 13:16:01 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 02:59:37 +1100 Received: from p39s04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.58] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 103MW1-00035g-00; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:59:30 +0000 Message-ID: <000901be4556$93e4c520$3a8493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Tony Musgrove" Subject: Re: BLML-Trivia: "Strine" (was Re: Claim) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:54:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 18 January 1999 06:46 Subject: Re: BLML-Trivia: "Strine" (was Re: Claim) >We have had the suggestion that the US Senate should decide questions of UI >and MI. May I suggest that the Australian parliament be asked for some >input into the next Law changes. > > ++++ The WBF Laws Committee will be grateful for your suggestion. However, the thought may be superseded by a proposal that the laws should simply say " The ***** rules. OK. " (Complete as desired.) .. (~ ;-)) ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 22 04:45:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 04:45:47 +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 EAA02142 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 04:45:39 +1100 Received: from p7bs04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.124] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 103OAe-0005dy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 17:45:32 +0000 Message-ID: <004c01be4565$644046a0$3a8493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: " Offender" Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 17:40:41 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 05:26:16 +1100 Received: from p3fs11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.64] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 103Om8-0005iL-00; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:24:16 +0000 Message-ID: <001e01be456a$ccf1c840$408b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Karen R Allison" , "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Appeals in clubs Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:19:54 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Subject: Re: Appeals in clubs >David Stevenson writes: > ><< Our view is that the main reason for appeals is to test the bridge >judgement of the TD. >> Karen: >So it should be interesting when TD's are the AC's for the Regional events at >the next NABC, don't you think? ++++ I cannot pretend I think this aught but error. Tournament Directors know too much, and not enough. In my eyes their judgments are those of an esoteric guild too much involved in the matters judged to stand back easily and look. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 22 08:02:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:02:13 +1100 Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA02579 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:02:06 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 6WHAa03482 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:55:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <7ab78fc4.36a7945e@aol.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:55:58 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Appeals in clubs Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan, I cannot agree with you more! I hope the madness ends quickly and AC's can go back in business for those events. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 22 13:57:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:57:43 +1100 Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA03540 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:57:37 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (tc-111.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.212]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA27611 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:05:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36A7E92A.DA53643E@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:57:46 -0500 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws Subject: Cats.... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When this arrived, I had to send it on, I think it says it all!!!! Nancy 1. Cats do what they want, when they want. 2. They rarely listen to you. 3. They're totally unpredictable. 4. They whine when they are not happy. 5. When you want to play they want to be alone. 6. When you want to be alone, they want to play. 7. They expect you to cater to their every whim. 8. They're moody. 9. They leave hair everywhere. 10. They drive you nuts. Conclusion: They're like little, tiny women in cheap fur coats. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 22 16:36:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA03694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:36:17 +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 QAA03689 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:36:07 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h19.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id IAA12429; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:35:47 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36A8A92D.2625@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:37:02 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: " Offender" References: <004c01be4565$644046a0$3a8493c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Grattan Endicott wrote: > If there were advantage in > having a different word to identify a player who commits an > irregularity or an infraction, without disciplinary overtones, then > a possible word is "infractor" (= one who infringes a law).++ > ~ Grattan ~ Hmm - and how would you like "irregulator", "violator"? :)) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 22 18:42:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA03921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:42:32 +1100 Received: from smtp1.ncal.verio.com (smtp1.ncal.verio.com [204.247.247.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA03916 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:42:24 +1100 Received: from default (h204-247-101-87.ncal.verio.com [204.247.101.87]) by smtp1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA10652 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 23:42:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <36A391F9.55B9@ccnet.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:56:41 -0800 From: Bruce Jarvis Reply-To: brucej@ccnet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: discontinuance of blml msgs until further notice Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To whom: I don't have to msg avail for discontinuance of msgs for a 3 week period. Please send the request format, or cut me off. Thank you. Brucej@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 23 03:39:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 03:39:01 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07805 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 03:38:52 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA03499; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:38:06 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-17.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.49) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma003453; Fri Jan 22 10:37:37 1999 Received: by har-pa1-17.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE45FB.A17BB720@har-pa1-17.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:37:46 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE45FB.A17BB720@har-pa1-17.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: bridge-laws , "'Nancy T Dressing'" Subject: RE: Cats.... Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:33:42 -0500 Encoding: 29 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk All perfectly true Nancy...but you left out #11...you become so attached to them you would never want to be without them. (And I don't know about the "cheapness" of the fur coats...have you priced cat food recently? And I suspect you know the cost of ladies' apparel!) ---------- From: Nancy T Dressing[SMTP:nancy@pinehurst.net] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 9:57 PM To: bridge-laws Subject: Cats.... When this arrived, I had to send it on, I think it says it all!!!! Nancy 1. Cats do what they want, when they want. 2. They rarely listen to you. 3. They're totally unpredictable. 4. They whine when they are not happy. 5. When you want to play they want to be alone. 6. When you want to be alone, they want to play. 7. They expect you to cater to their every whim. 8. They're moody. 9. They leave hair everywhere. 10. They drive you nuts. Conclusion: They're like little, tiny women in cheap fur coats. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 23 04:54:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 04:54:50 +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 EAA08231 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 04:54:42 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 103kmt-0003v5-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:54:31 +0000 Message-ID: <32wsRwAYrLq2EwkB@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:52:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Ruling question In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , RJD Probst writes > >On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> In article , >> RJD Probst writes >> > >> > >> >On 21 Jan 1999, David desJardins wrote: >> > >> >> Henk Uijterwaal writes: >> >> >> S W N E East's hand was >> >> >> 1C 1S 2H 3S K x K K >> >> >> 4H P P 4S x x Q >> >> >> X x x x >> >> >> x x >> >> >> x >> >> > >> >> > West's explanation is UI to east, but even if east unintentionally >misbid, >> >> > I don't think that passing 4S is a LA here. I think the guy was lurking, he's got a six loser hand and there is no LA to 4S. Total tricks is 18-ish with good trump purity and source of tricks. Sliding pre-empts work more often than they should. >> > >> >If I were given the hand orginally, I would have bid four spades, but >> >now that I have been stuck with three. I can't see myself going further. >> >If it truly were a weak raise and the system was known to be played I >> >may have been trying to get doubled, in this contract, which will make, >> >often enough to be an imp gain to us. The very fact that the four spade >> >bidder justified, their bid, by saying they were pushing, is enough to >> >convine me of UI. If they themselves need convincing then what is more >> >convincing than them finding they have a king more than partner >> >expects. I would adjust to 4H for NS and ave- or 4H BTW your sister identified this piece of text as yours commenting "That has to be Richard. I've just identified the unique grammar." the ave- is illegal. There is a table result, so you have to find an assigned score. You can only award ave +/- if you can't get a table result (fouled board, wire on the hand etc) >making for the EW >> >pairs. If appealed I'd keep the beer money as well. Nope. I'd expect the AC to rule 4S. (supporting my ruling). They may not but I'd expect the deposit to be returned at least. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom /\ /\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.due @ @ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) =(.+.)= |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ hehe ~ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 23 05:53:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 05:53:51 +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 FAA08894 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 05:53:32 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.129]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA09869; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:53:14 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36A8C931.88D061B7@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:53:37 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25A and L16C References: <3695CED3.E8742782@village.uunet.be> <369F7EEE.9D95C847@internet-zahav.net> <36A10C89.FA3B81A5@home.com> <3.0.1.32.19990116224205.006e9110@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk IMO David's statement (see =====below) is "very" right This is why I asked or suggested for a revision of the definitions of irregularity , infraction/law infringement , offender , UI .... and maybe more . During the last decades the rules' EVOLUTION slowly was a right approach for that period . I don't think there is a need for a REVOLUTION but a basic revision during the next 5-7 years will be very useful. Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > >True, but we do have a clear definition of irregularity: "A deviation from > >the correct procedures set forth in the Laws." A player exercising his 25A > >rights is acting in accordance with the Laws, not deviating from them. The > >"without penalty" clause merely reinforces that such action is not to be > >regarded in any way as irregular or prejudicial to that player's interest. > > Laws 17 to 19 [except for L17D] define correct procedure. It is > difficult to believe that if you wish to bid 2S, correct procedure is to > take the 2H bid out of your box and gaze at the ceiling! ================> > No, L25A defines a way that an incorrect procedure may be corrected > without penalty, but that does not make it correct procedure. ==================> > -- > 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 Jan 23 05:54:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 05:54:03 +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 FAA08896 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 05:53:40 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.129]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA09907; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:53:22 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36A8C939.8C4EB0E4@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:53:45 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199901182100.QAA25744@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Steve I read this new subject but I am not sure I understood the problem. I had never troubles when to use L73C or L16A ........ Please formulate the question again as sharp as possible (Canonical form , Hamiltonian or any invariant form....). Steve Willner wrote: > > Why do we need L73C (paraphrased as "don't take advantage of UI.") when > we also have L16A (the usual UI rule)? > > The usual answer is that L73C covers the possibility that the action > chosen wasn't a LA. For example, North deals and opens 1NT, supposedly <,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,> > A few months ago, Jeff Goldsmith pointed out that 73C could also be > used when l16A is prevented by lack of "demonstrably suggested over > another." A fine example appears in Jon Brissman's column in the > January ACBL Bulletin. The hands are: > > AT > 432 > AKQ72 > 6 T52 J984 > AQ76 KJT82 > T65 J843 > J9763 KQ7532 A > 95 > 9 > KQ84 > > East deals. South puts out a stop card but doesn't bid. East then > opens 2D, showing any 4-4-4-1 pattern with 10-12 HCP. South jumps > to 3S, and all pass. > > You may think that North's pass is odd, but of course it makes sense > once you see South's hand. Still, if I were North's lawyer, I'd &&&&&&&&&&& In this case , using my bridgistic no-brains I keep the bidding as low as possible because East's opening of 2D , which shows me for 101% that spades are at least 4-1 and south not more than 13HCP ..this is AI for 102%.....I think that any other interpretation by a TD is a very bad judgment . &&&&&&&&&&&&&&& <,,,,,> I don't buy the lawyer's argument for one second, but it certainly > refutes "demonstrably suggested over another." Instead, I'd turn to > L73C: the bizarre North pass in combination with the undoubted UI > Jon's final sentence was already mentioned on BLML. The quote is > "Kudos to South for trying to do the right thing by jumping with her > hand so the Stop card would remain in use." I agree with the prior > poster that some Bulletin readers could interpret this as saying "If > you incorrectly use the stop card, you ought to try to jump at your > next turn." As Jon replied, that isn't what he meant. Perhaps it > would have been better for Jon to have explained what the TD's advice > to North and to South should have been. At any rate, this seems a > fairly minor slipup in an otherwise quite interesting article. Waiting for the new formulation Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 23 06:00:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 06:00:31 +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 GAA08940 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 06:00:20 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.129]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA09833; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:53:04 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36A8C924.E82B46A8@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:53:24 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kamras CC: blml Subject: Re: Bid not seen (law 16A2) References: <3.0.1.32.19990120172327.0068b20c@pop.cais.com> <36A67B3F.F63E328D@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We all agree this time ... Is it a disaster when we agree with a right decision ?? Or someone will find a very philosaweyr (lawyer's philosophical .........)remark .?? It sounds like Dinosaur's'.... Dany Jan Kamras wrote: > > I normally don't like "me too" postings but if this is a collection of > votes let me state anyway that, fwiw, I fully agree with EL. > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > At 03:41 PM 1/20/99 -0500, Laval_Dubreuil wrote: > > > > >At a local club this week, this case happended (S is dealer): <,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,> > > > > Correct. S's passes and 3S bid are perfectly consistent with N's original > > pass, which, absent the UI, would show a hand too weak to respond at the > > one-level. Had S taken a stronger action at any of those turns, he would > > have been in violation of L16A. > > > > >So I would have let score stand. > > > > As would I. N was not subject to L16A, and S, who was, properly followed it. > > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 23 09:23:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 09:23:23 +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 JAA09903 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 09:23:16 +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 RAA14552 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:23:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id RAA28429 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:23:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:23:26 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901222223.RAA28429@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Dany Haimovici > In this case , using my bridgistic no-brains I keep the bidding as low > as possible because East's opening of 2D , which shows me for 101% that > spades are at least 4-1 and south not more than 13HCP ..this is AI for > 102%.....I think that any other interpretation by a TD is a very bad > judgment . Without the hesitation, why shouldn't the hands be: > > AT > > 432 > > AKQ72 > > 6 T52 9874 > > 9765 KJT8 > > T65 J843 > > 98763 KQJ532 A > > AQ > > 9 > > KQJ4 Not everyone opens the South hand 2C, but some do. It has four losers, after all. And all I've done is switch three cards between South and West and one between South and East. I could have made much bigger rearrangements, including giving East a singleton spade instead of a singleton club and South ending up with seven or eight spades. Of course the above is if we know about the UI from the stop card. Without it, maybe it's East who doesn't have his bid, and anyway the 3S bid doesn't have to be as strong as an opening 2C. Without UI, I cannot imagine any North passing South's strong jump to 3S. I'd sooner bid 6S than pass 3S, although I think a middle course is clearly best. There should be ten easy tricks if South has seven good spades and out, and the 3S bid shows _much_ more than that. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 23 10:28:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 10:28:55 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA10023 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 10:28:49 +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 SAA17001 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:28:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id SAA28492 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:28:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:28:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901222328.SAA28492@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > The suggestion has been made that making a > call that is not an LA is not improper under L16A ["... choose from > among logical alternative actions ..."]. However, it is a contravention > of L73C, and we shall adjust some way or other. Yes. There is no doubt that a successful action based on UI will and should be adjusted. The only problem is that in some situations L16A does not, or at least may not, allow an adjustment. In such cases, L73C comes to the rescue. All this is an amusing technical discussion, but I hope we all agree on the need for score adjustment, even if we don't agree on exactly which law to use. (I don't understand why there is any disagreement; perhaps it's because L73C is so seldom needed.) One thing I don't understand, though, is the purpose of L73F1. > At least one correspondent has > suggested that any action taken has become an LA thereby - and I am > happy to use that as a basis for ruling. > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Certainly makes it an LA by ACBL standards ;). I'm sure all of us appreciate the humor, but the statement isn't so. The ACBL definition of LA specifies "in a vacuum," i.e. without considering the UI. Thus actions that make sense _only_ because of the UI are explicitly not LA's within the ACBL. (Recall my example of a jump to 3NT based on partner's comment, not the hand.) I thought other SO's had equivalent qualifications in their definitions, but maybe I'm wrong. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 23 12:00:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA10242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:00:43 +1100 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA10237 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:00:33 +1100 Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.alaska.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA04210 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:00:28 -0900 (AKST) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:00:26 -0900 (AKST) From: Michael Schmahl To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, David Stevenson wrote: DWS: Certainly not a consensus! The suggestion has been made that : making a call that is not an LA is not improper under L16A : ["... choose from among logical alternative actions ..."]. : However, it is a contravention of L73C, and we shall adjust : some way or other. This is the point I was (albeit muddledly) trying to make, reinforcing a point made in a previous message. A literal reading of L16A would support this view, but such an interpretation would likely be pedantic. The spirit of the Laws must also be followed, when not inconsistent with the letter. DWS: That is one way of looking at it. At least one correspondent : has suggested that any action taken has become an LA thereby - : and I am happy to use that as a basis for ruling. Certainly a reasonable approach. If I took some illogical action that happened to work, while in possession of unauthorized information that made my action more likely to be successful, I would certainly expect to be punished. Truthfully, it matters little whether L16A or L73C is applied against me. A Bridge Lawyer may make the argument that L16A does not apply; but then L73C comes to the rescue. signoff Michael Schmahl -- Math/CS/Phil/Thr -- University of Alaska Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ "In a tug of war, the rope loses." - Kosh ] From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 23 12:08:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA10264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:08:49 +1100 Received: from mail-gw.pacbell.net (mail-gw.pacbell.net [206.13.28.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA10259 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:08:44 +1100 Received: from law2 (ppp-206-170-225-122.nhwd02.pacbell.net [206.170.225.122]) by mail-gw.pacbell.net (8.8.8/8.7.1+antispam) with SMTP id RAA23723; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:07:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002501be466d$102396e0$7ae1aace@law2> From: "Rand" To: , Subject: Re: discontinuance of blml msgs until further notice Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:08:33 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please add : rand144@pacbell.net to the list. I will be gone for a fourteen day period. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Jarvis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 12:16 AM Subject: discontinuance of blml msgs until further notice >To whom: I don't have to msg avail for discontinuance of msgs for a 3 >week period. Please send the request format, or cut me off. >Thank you. Brucej@ccnet.com > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 23 15:29:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:29:47 +1100 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA10477 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:29:41 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.143] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 103uh1-0003tz-00; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 04:29:07 +0000 Message-ID: <199901230429250560.10055096@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901222328.SAA28492@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <199901222328.SAA28492@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 04:29:25 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 22/01/99, at 18:28, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> The suggestion has been made that making a >> call that is not an LA is not improper under L16A ["... choose from >> among logical alternative actions ..."]. However, it is a contravention >> of L73C, and we shall adjust some way or other. > >Yes. There is no doubt that a successful action based on UI will and >should be adjusted. The only problem is that in some situations L16A >does not, or at least may not, allow an adjustment. In such cases, >L73C comes to the rescue. What "rescue"? And why should we need rescuing? If a player who knows both= L16 and L73 selects an illogical alternative action because he believes he= is doing his duty thereby, and that illogical action happens to work, I= see no reason why his result should be taken away. Otherwise, the position= is this: a player in possession of UI cannot do anything at all that= works, for if what he does is logical we will take it away under L16,= while if it is not we will invoke L73, muttering incantations the while. >All this is an amusing technical discussion, >but I hope we all agree on the need for score adjustment, even if we >don't agree on exactly which law to use. You hope in vain. I will not do anything that is not justifed by the Laws;= if neither L16 nor L73 allows me to adjust the score, I will let it stand.= And I do not believe that either of those Laws allows me to cancel the= result of a selection from among illogical alternatives. It is possible, I= suppose, for a player to think along these lines: "partner has furnished= me with UI; so anything sensible I might do is likely to be taken away= from me by an AC if it happens to work; therefore I will do something= insensible and hope for the best." As, for example (love all, teams): J9xx Axxx x Axxx Partner opens 1H (five card majors), RHO bids 1S, you bid 3H (limit - don't= tell me about your superior methods, because I have seen them all and they= are not relevant) and LHO bids 4S. This, after a pause by partner, comes= back to you (partner's pass was not forcing). Now, it is obviously ludicrous to pass. If partner had passed in tempo you= might double, or you might bid 5H - but because of partner's slow pass,= either of these actions will be taken away by the TD and the AC if it= happens to be the one that works. Knowing this, you bid 6H, which makes= because partner has: None Kxxxx Kxxx KQxx and hearts are 2-2, clubs 3-2 with DA onside. Should a TD or AC take your= result away? What should they put in its place? (I don't understand why there >is any disagreement; perhaps it's because L73C is so seldom needed.) Not at all. L73 is a refuge for people who find L16 inadequate for the= purpose of shooting someone who hesitates (to be exact, shooting the= partner of someone who hesitates). >One thing I don't understand, though, is the purpose of L73F1. It's there to emphasise that L16 is a real Law. It's a hangover from the= days when bridge was a gentlepersons' game, played according to the= Proprieties. Now that those Proprieties are part of the Laws, the notion= seems to be that if you do something we don't like, but we can't penalise= you in what used to be the Law, we will penalise you for some violation of= what used to be the Proprieties. What a way, as the man said, to run a= railroad. >> At least one correspondent has >> suggested that any action taken has become an LA thereby - and I am >> happy to use that as a basis for ruling. This, to use a phrase already employed by DWS and therefore by definition= in the category of non-offensive language, is an awful approach. >I'm sure all of us appreciate the humor, but the statement isn't so. >The ACBL definition of LA specifies "in a vacuum," i.e. without >considering the UI. Thus actions that make sense _only_ because of the >UI are explicitly not LA's within the ACBL. (Recall my example of a >jump to 3NT based on partner's comment, not the hand.) The serious flaw in my argument is this. If a player decides that anything= logical he does will be negated if it works, and therefore he will do= something illogical and hope for the best, his "illogical" choice becomes= the product of a reasoning process and therefore "logical". You would need= Bertrand Russell or Kurt Godel to sort this out. However... From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 24 01:51:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 01:51:24 +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 BAA13359 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 01:51:15 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-64.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.64]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA29827525 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 09:54:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36A9E18F.1185BFD1@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 08:49:51 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199901222328.SAA28492@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199901230429250560.10055096@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The nature of most laws is maintaining equity. Unlike most laws, the nature of L16 is to severely punish. David, it looks like you are making a case that L16 is unfair and needs to be fixed. Roger Pewick David Burn wrote: > > On 22/01/99, at 18:28, Steve Willner wrote: > > >> From: David Stevenson > >> The suggestion has been made that making a > >> call that is not an LA is not improper under L16A ["... choose from > >> among logical alternative actions ..."]. However, it is a contravention > >> of L73C, and we shall adjust some way or other. > > > >Yes. There is no doubt that a successful action based on UI will and > >should be adjusted. The only problem is that in some situations L16A > >does not, or at least may not, allow an adjustment. In such cases, > >L73C comes to the rescue. > > What "rescue"? And why should we need rescuing? If a player who knows both L16 and L73 selects an illogical alternative action because he believes he is doing his duty thereby, and that illogical action happens to work, I see no reason why his result should be taken away. Otherwise, the position is this: a player in possession of UI cannot do anything at all that works, for if what he does is logical we will take it away under L16, while if it is not we will invoke L73, muttering incantations the while. > > >All this is an amusing technical discussion, > >but I hope we all agree on the need for score adjustment, even if we > >don't agree on exactly which law to use. > > You hope in vain. I will not do anything that is not justifed by the Laws; if neither L16 nor L73 allows me to adjust the score, I will let it stand. And I do not believe that either of those Laws allows me to cancel the result of a selection from among illogical alternatives. It is possible, I suppose, for a player to think along these lines: "partner has furnished me with UI; so anything sensible I might do is likely to be taken away from me by an AC if it happens to work; therefore I will do something insensible and hope for the best." As, for example (love all, teams): > > J9xx Axxx x Axxx > > Partner opens 1H (five card majors), RHO bids 1S, you bid 3H (limit - don't tell me about your superior methods, because I have seen them all and they are not relevant) and LHO bids 4S. This, after a pause by partner, comes back to you (partner's pass was not forcing). > > Now, it is obviously ludicrous to pass. If partner had passed in tempo you might double, or you might bid 5H - but because of partner's slow pass, either of these actions will be taken away by the TD and the AC if it happens to be the one that works. Knowing this, you bid 6H, which makes because partner has: > > None Kxxxx Kxxx KQxx > > and hearts are 2-2, clubs 3-2 with DA onside. Should a TD or AC take your result away? What should they put in its place? > > (I don't understand why there > >is any disagreement; perhaps it's because L73C is so seldom needed.) > > Not at all. L73 is a refuge for people who find L16 inadequate for the purpose of shooting someone who hesitates (to be exact, shooting the partner of someone who hesitates). > > >One thing I don't understand, though, is the purpose of L73F1. > > It's there to emphasise that L16 is a real Law. It's a hangover from the days when bridge was a gentlepersons' game, played according to the Proprieties. Now that those Proprieties are part of the Laws, the notion seems to be that if you do something we don't like, but we can't penalise you in what used to be the Law, we will penalise you for some violation of what used to be the Proprieties. What a way, as the man said, to run a railroad. > > >> At least one correspondent has > >> suggested that any action taken has become an LA thereby - and I am > >> happy to use that as a basis for ruling. > > This, to use a phrase already employed by DWS and therefore by definition in the category of non-offensive language, is an awful approach. > > >I'm sure all of us appreciate the humor, but the statement isn't so. > >The ACBL definition of LA specifies "in a vacuum," i.e. without > >considering the UI. Thus actions that make sense _only_ because of the > >UI are explicitly not LA's within the ACBL. (Recall my example of a > >jump to 3NT based on partner's comment, not the hand.) > > The serious flaw in my argument is this. If a player decides that anything logical he does will be negated if it works, and therefore he will do something illogical and hope for the best, his "illogical" choice becomes the product of a reasoning process and therefore "logical". You would need Bertrand Russell or Kurt Godel to sort this out. However... From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 24 02:43:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 02:43:39 +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 CAA13640 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 02:43:32 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 1045DW-0003Qi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:43:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 13:57:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199901222328.SAA28492@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199901230429250560.10055096@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901230429250560.10055096@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >On 22/01/99, at 18:28, Steve Willner wrote: > >>> From: David Stevenson >>> The suggestion has been made that making a >>> call that is not an LA is not improper under L16A ["... choose from >>> among logical alternative actions ..."]. However, it is a contravention >>> of L73C, and we shall adjust some way or other. >> >>Yes. There is no doubt that a successful action based on UI will and >>should be adjusted. The only problem is that in some situations L16A >>does not, or at least may not, allow an adjustment. In such cases, >>L73C comes to the rescue. > >What "rescue"? And why should we need rescuing? If a player who knows both L16 >and L73 selects an illogical alternative action because he believes he is doing >his duty thereby, and that illogical action happens to work, I see no reason why >his result should be taken away. Otherwise, the position is this: a player in >possession of UI cannot do anything at all that works, for if what he does is >logical we will take it away under L16, while if it is not we will invoke L73, >muttering incantations the while. Perhaps he could try doing something not suggested by the UI? -- 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 Jan 24 03:53:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 03:53:00 +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 DAA13727 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 03:52:51 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.46] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 1046Ih-0002fy-00; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 16:52:48 +0000 Message-ID: <199901231652350720.12ADCF35@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: <199901222328.SAA28492@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199901230429250560.10055096@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 16:52:35 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 23/01/99, at 13:57, David Stevenson wrote: >David Burn wrote: >>On 22/01/99, at 18:28, Steve Willner wrote: >> >>>> From: David Stevenson >>>> The suggestion has been made that making a >>>> call that is not an LA is not improper under L16A ["... choose from >>>> among logical alternative actions ..."]. However, it is a= contravention >>>> of L73C, and we shall adjust some way or other. >>> >>>Yes. There is no doubt that a successful action based on UI will and >>>should be adjusted. The only problem is that in some situations L16A >>>does not, or at least may not, allow an adjustment. In such cases, >>>L73C comes to the rescue. >> >>What "rescue"? And why should we need rescuing? If a player who knows= both L16 >>and L73 selects an illogical alternative action because he believes he is= doing >>his duty thereby, and that illogical action happens to work, I see no= reason why >>his result should be taken away. Otherwise, the position is this: a= player in >>possession of UI cannot do anything at all that works, for if what he= does is >>logical we will take it away under L16, while if it is not we will invoke= L73, >>muttering incantations the while. > > Perhaps he could try doing something not suggested by the UI? That is precisely what I am trying to argue. An illogical alternative is,= ex def, not suggested by anything (if it were, it would be logical to do= it). If a player selects an illogical alternative, therefore, he _is_= doing something not suggested by the UI. What I do not understand is the notion that L73 somehow conveys wider= powers than L16. Steve said, in effect, that if we don't like what a= player does, but don't think he's broken L16, we can rule against him= under L73C. DWS said, in effect, that whereas L16 deals only with logical= alternatives, illogical alternatives fall within the scope of L73C. It is= my belief that they do not - I think that L16 is the way to implement in= Law the Propriety expressed in L73C, and I do not think that L73C in any= way extends the power of L16. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 24 05:57:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 05:57:51 +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 FAA13897 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 05:57:41 +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 UAA06854; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:10:26 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36AA10AA.7F73D12C@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:10:50 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dburn@btinternet.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199901222328.SAA28492@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199901230429250560.10055096@mail.btinternet.com> <199901231652350720.12ADCF35@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As I told Steve I had never real problems to decide in this cases : It happened that the AC changed my bridgistic judgment (very seldom but it happened - once I used the new L83 because I wasn't sure what two ex-European champs thought ....) but I always let the game finish and then - ONLY THEN - checked the (offender)infractor's partner hand : If he called totally irrational I didn't changed the score (I mean irrational IMO , not wild or gambling). If the infractor's partner "had the call" without the UI the score stands. If not adjusted score. I would like to know your opinions again - especially what is the difference between irrational and wild/gambling. Dany David Burn wrote: > > On 23/01/99, at 13:57, David Stevenson wrote: > > >David Burn wrote: > >>On 22/01/99, at 18:28, Steve Willner wrote: > >> > >>>> From: David Stevenson > >>>> The suggestion has been made that making a > >>>> call that is not an LA is not improper under L16A ["... choose from > >>>> among logical alternative actions ..."]. However, it is a contravention > >>>> of L73C, and we shall adjust some way or other. > >>> > >>>Yes. There is no doubt that a successful action based on UI will and > >>>should be adjusted. The only problem is that in some situations L16A > >>>does not, or at least may not, allow an adjustment. In such cases, > >>>L73C comes to the rescue. > >> > >>What "rescue"? And why should we need rescuing? If a player who knows both L16 > >>and L73 selects an illogical alternative action because he believes he is doing > >>his duty thereby, and that illogical action happens to work, I see no reason why > >>his result should be taken away. Otherwise, the position is this: a player in > >>possession of UI cannot do anything at all that works, for if what he does is > >>logical we will take it away under L16, while if it is not we will invoke L73, > >>muttering incantations the while. > > > > Perhaps he could try doing something not suggested by the UI? > > That is precisely what I am trying to argue. An illogical alternative is, ex def, not suggested by anything (if it were, it would be logical to do it). If a player selects an illogical alternative, therefore, he _is_ doing something not suggested by the UI. > > What I do not understand is the notion that L73 somehow conveys wider powers than L16. Steve said, in effect, that if we don't like what a player does, but don't think he's broken L16, we can rule against him under L73C. DWS said, in effect, that whereas L16 deals only with logical alternatives, illogical alternatives fall within the scope of L73C. It is my belief that they do not - I think that L16 is the way to implement in Law the Propriety expressed in L73C, and I do not think that L73C in any way extends the power of L16. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 24 06:03:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 06:03:03 +1100 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA13918 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 06:02:57 +1100 Received: from ip225.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.225]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990123190251.LZIY324.fep4@ip225.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:02:51 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:02:48 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36b41cbd.9807622@post12.tele.dk> References: <199901222328.SAA28492@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199901222328.SAA28492@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:28:59 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> The suggestion has been made that making a >> call that is not an LA is not improper under L16A ["... choose from >> among logical alternative actions ..."]. However, it is a = contravention >> of L73C, and we shall adjust some way or other. > >Yes. There is no doubt that a successful action based on UI will and >should be adjusted. The only problem is that in some situations L16A >does not, or at least may not, allow an adjustment. Now that we've seen that part of L16 quoted several times, I would like to quote the part that occurs a little further down the page (L16A2): "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." There is nothing here about the action having to be logical. So one might suspect that the L16 author did not really consider the question of whether the action has to be logical or not. Do we know anything about what the WBFLC intended when they wrote this? Grattan? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 24 08:31:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 08:31:54 +1100 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA14116 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 08:31:47 +1100 Received: from modem105.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.233] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 104AeZ-0001dl-00; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:31:40 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:29:42 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "I thought it prudent to comply, until I could find a better director" - Gulliver's Travels. ====================================== ---------- From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: 23 January 1999 19:02 ------------------------ \x/ --------------------------- "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." There is nothing here about the action having to be logical. So one might suspect that the L16 author did not really consider the question of whether the action has to be logical or not. Do we know anything about what the WBFLC intended when they wrote this? Grattan? -- ++++ I must be careful here. My reply is more than just a personal opinion but less than a confirmed committee position! I have been tracking this knotted string with some wry good humour; rather like observing a struggling dragonfly wreck a spider's web. [There's the country boy for you - often both dragonfly and spider end up discomfited. :-))) ]. I think the drafting committee looked through the telescope from the other end. The object as we all understand is to arrange that the player does not achieve an advantage out of the receipt from partner of UI, so one could remove the word 'logical' were it not for one factor. The purpose of having it there is so that the Director (or AC) cannot impose upon the infractor [:-)] an action that is not logical; the player is allowed the least suggested by the UI of all the logical possibilities but he is not to be taken outside of the range of logical alternatives in order to find an action that is suggested even less than that one. Coming now to the choice by a player of a so-say illogical alternative action, I am confident that in the drafting it was assumed that the player who seeks advantage must believe that his chosen course leads in that direction and is therefore a logical action. I read the language of the laws somewhat differently here from the way in which BLML contributors generally read it; where the law states "may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that" I link to the wording of 16A2 where, as has been noted, the law makes no requirement that the action chosen shall have been logical, but only that the other possible actions to be compared with it shall be logical. So I read the earlier words as to say "may not choose, where there are logical alternative actions, an action that could have demonstrably been suggested over a logical alternative by...". The chosen action could thus be an apple in a basket of pears. ( The drafting is loose enough to allow that 'one' may relate to 'action' rather than , as our rational colleagues read it, to 'logical alternative action'.) It was nice of you to ask me, Jesper - are you glad that you did? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 24 08:45:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 08:45:25 +1100 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA14155 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 08:45:19 +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 QAA22009 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 16:45:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 16:45:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901232145.QAA20899@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: UI from correct alert/non-alert Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I brought this up on rec.games.bridge. but it seems to be more appropriate here. Partner's alert/non-alert of your bid is UI to you, even it is correct. This rarely causes a problem, and the original case raised did not (Blackwood is alertable, and the alert tells you that 4NT was taken as Blackwood, but your hand is inconsistent with a natural 4NT), but I found such an example. Some players play responsive doubles after a weak 2-bid; others don't. Most haven't discussed the issue. LHO CHO RHO You 2H X 3H X P 4D Now, if you have a hand which could have made either a responsive or a penalty double, like x QTxx Kxxx Axxx, you do have a UI problem from partner's alert or non-alert. If partner didn't alert and pulled a penalty double, he should have five or six diamonds and a heart void, probably something like like KQxx - Axxxxx KJx. If he alerted, treating your double as responsive, his 4D bid says only that diamonds are his better minor and that he probably doesn't have a good hand with a heart stopper; he could have KQxx xx Axxx KJx, and even 4D is down. Therefore, partner's alert, even if correct, suggests that you should pass, and partner's non-alert suggests 5D or 6D. This is more a theoretical problem than anything else. It's a consequence of not knowing your system, and it took me quite a while to come up with such an example, as it must be a hand which is consistent with either meaning of an ambiguous bid. If you do know your system, you have no UI other than that partner remembers the agreement as well. If I had the example hand, I would pass 4D with a clear conscience, as my system notes say this double is responsive. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 24 10:10:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:10:03 +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 KAA14327 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:09:57 +1100 Received: from michael (user-38lcitn.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.183]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA29012 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 18:09:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990123180918.00700f68@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 18:09:18 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI from correct alert/non-alert In-Reply-To: <199901232145.QAA20899@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:45 PM 1/23/99 -0500, David G wrote: >This is more a theoretical problem than anything else. It's a >consequence of not knowing your system, and it took me quite a while to >come up with such an example, as it must be a hand which is consistent >with either meaning of an ambiguous bid. > >If you do know your system, you have no UI other than that partner >remembers the agreement as well. If I had the example hand, I would >pass 4D with a clear conscience, as my system notes say this double is >responsive. > I agree that it is primarily a theoretical problem, but only insofar as it would rarely arise as an enforcement issue. I'm pretty sure that opponents who summoned the director to complain that my partner had properly alerted (or properly failed to alert) and requested a ruling on any consequent UI issues would receive an unsympathetic hearing. But I suspect that the situation is not all that uncommon. "Knowing your system" is far from a black-or-white issue. Even for experienced partnerships, some sequences are undiscussed or otherwise ambiguous, and for most less well-travelled partnerships, there are often large swamps of bidding ambiguity. In a delicate bidding situation, I believe that anyone's decision-making can be subtly influenced by the confidence that partner is on the same page, confidence which is reinforced when partner correctly alerts or fails to do. And you know what? I don't really care! The notion that the ham-handed machinery of L16 could be brought to bear against players in such a situation is far more offensive than the likelihood that some will obtain a slight advantage thereby. Of course these problems are best solved by controlling the environment in such a way that the problems don't occur, i.e., with screens or via computer. In the mean time, I would renew my plea for reconsideration of the pre-1987 treatment which differentiated between UI derived from irregularities or infractions and that derived from correct procedure. It is clearly wrong for a player to take strong advantage of ANY UI by making a bid which would be illogical save for that information. But IMO it should not be wrong for a player to take a normal course of action when in posession of the more benign type of UI, even when he has LA's and the chosen action is demonstrably suggested. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 24 10:48:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:48:37 +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 KAA14373 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:48:31 +1100 Received: from modem119.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.247] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 104Cmp-0005kn-00; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:48:20 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:46:10 -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 "I thought it prudent to comply, until I could find a better director" - Gulliver's Travels. ====================================== ---------- From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: 23 January 1999 16:52 ------------------------------- \x/ -------------------------------- That is precisely what I am trying to argue. An illogical alternative is, ex def, not suggested by anything (if it were, it would be logical to do it). If a player selects an illogical alternative, therefore, he _is_ doing something not suggested by the UI. What I do not understand is the notion that L73 somehow conveys wider powers than L16. Steve said, in effect, that if we don't like what a player does, but don't think he's broken L16, we can rule against him under L73C. DWS said, in effect, that whereas L16 deals only with logical alternatives, illogical alternatives fall within the scope of L73C. It is my belief that they do not - I think that L16 is the way to implement in Law the Propriety expressed in L73C, and I do not think that L73C in any way extends the power of L16. +++ I do think that you are stepping out onto a limb here, David, and it might be worthwhile looking how far the drop would be should it break. Law 16 is concerned primarily with basing calls or plays upon unauthorised information; Law 73C refers to 'taking any advantage', which might just be a more widely drawn phrase. If there were some advantage to be gained outwith the scope of Law 16, then 73C is a safety-net that would catch it if the UI derived from partner and although it may express a Propriety it is nevertheless a law. As for your proposition in the round, I do have some anxieties over the idea of a player deliberately doing something that outrages expectation and coming up roses. I would look hard and long, and with inherent scepticism, at the motivation for the action. To justify redress it would require for me no more than to discover a scintilla of logic underpinning the action. In the longer term there may be reason to rediscover the objectives of the law on UI. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 24 12:21:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:21:13 +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 MAA14492 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:21:07 +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 UAA07386 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:21:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id UAA29147 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:21:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:21:19 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901240121.UAA29147@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > Now that we've seen that part of L16 quoted several times, I > would like to quote the part that occurs a little further down > the page (L16A2): If you read this part carefully, you will see it tells the player what to do, and then it tells the TD to look for an infraction, but 16A2 does not itself define what an infraction is. That's left to 16A and 73C. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 24 13:06:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:06:17 +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 NAA14581 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:06:11 +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 VAA08239 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id VAA29249 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:06:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:06:24 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901240206.VAA29249@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > > Perhaps he could try doing something not suggested by the UI? > That is precisely what I am trying to argue. An illogical alternative > is, ex def, not suggested by anything It seems to me you may be confusing the general term "logical alternative" with the bridge usage "Logical Alternative," which has specific definition in most jurisdictions. > What I do not understand is the notion that L73 somehow conveys wider > powers than L16. Steve said, in effect, that if we don't like what a > player does, but don't think he's broken L16, we can rule against him > under L73C. You may be disagreeing with something I didn't say. I certainly don't believe you will or should always rule against someone who has UI and obtains a good result. Remember, I'm one of the _opponents_ of the "If it hesitates, shoot it!" mentality. But let's try my example again: 1NT ("Oops, I'm too strong.") - 3NT (on a six-count). In the ACBL, at least, 3NT is _not_ a LA by the official definition, although given the UI, it is certainly a reasonable choice of action (perhaps a logical alternative by the D. Burn definition) for a player who doesn't know or care about the rules. Yet 3NT clearly takes advantage of the UI, and I cannot believe that David Burn or any other director (well, except possibly a few in North America, sad to say) would fail to adjust the score if 3NT succeeds. I am simply claiming, as a minor technical note, that this adjustment comes under L73C and not L16A, and I'm surprised this claim is controversial. In the example above, if the player with the six-count passes (as legally required), and the result happens to be good, there is no infraction and no reason for adjustment. If you follow L16A and L73C, you keep your score. I was interested in Grattan's fine point that "any advantage" in L73C could include something besides a call or play. Offhand I cannot think of an example, but it's well to keep the point in mind. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 24 23:16:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:16:57 +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 XAA15688 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:16:50 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-83.uunet.be [194.7.13.83]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA23169 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:16:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36AB05F4.B6CAA7D2@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:37:24 +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: L73C vs L16A References: <199901222328.SAA28492@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199901230429250560.10055096@mail.btinternet.com> <199901231652350720.12ADCF35@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have not been following this discussion very closely, but would like to contribute something. David Burn wrote: > > On 23/01/99, at 13:57, David Stevenson wrote: > > >David Burn wrote: > >>On 22/01/99, at 18:28, Steve Willner wrote: > >> > >>>> From: David Stevenson > >>>> The suggestion has been made that making a > >>>> call that is not an LA is not improper under L16A ["... choose from > >>>> among logical alternative actions ..."]. However, it is a contravention > >>>> of L73C, and we shall adjust some way or other. > >>> It is said that L16 would authorize a player to choose an illogical alternative. I don't think it does, but I am not a native english speaker, so I will not further comment on this, and bow to the english semantics. > > > > Perhaps he could try doing something not suggested by the UI? > Seems to me the correct approach. The question really put here is whether a player may select an illogical alternative. But how to define a logical alternative ? There seem to be two qualities attached to the alternatives : logical or illogical, suggested by the UI and not suggested. That should produce four subsets of alternatives, mutually exclusive. I shall prove that one subset is empty : Illogical alternatives, suggested by the UI. The term logical can be defined in two ways : with or without the UI. An action might seem totally illogical without some UI, but perfectly logical with it. If we agree on the semantics of the English phrase, an illogical action cannot be prohibited by L16. Clearly a false statement. So we must then also agree on the adapted definition for logical : "given the information available to the player, both AI and UI". That proves that alternatives, suggested by UI, cannot be illogical. So there are only three non-empty subsets of alternatives : logical ones, not suggested by UI; logical ones, suggested by UI; and illogical ones (not suggested by UI). An action from the first set is allowed by L16; one from the second is prohibited. Nothing really is said about the third option. > That is precisely what I am trying to argue. An illogical alternative is, ex def, not suggested by anything (if it were, it would be logical to do it). If a player selects an illogical alternative, therefore, he _is_ doing something not suggested by the UI. > So I have now proven this statement of DB's. > What I do not understand is the notion that L73 somehow conveys wider powers than L16. Steve said, in effect, that if we don't like what a player does, but don't think he's broken L16, we can rule against him under L73C. DWS said, in effect, that whereas L16 deals only with logical alternatives, illogical alternatives fall within the scope of L73C. It is my belief that they do not - I think that L16 is the way to implement in Law the Propriety expressed in L73C, and I do not think that L73C in any way extends the power of L16. I agree with this. An illogical alternative cannot be to the advantage of the pair, so L73C is not broken by taking an illogical alternative. Which leads us to a different question : what is advantage : before or after the board. Suppose I have UI that my partner has opening values. I am in first hand with 17HCP. I pass. Clearly illogical in the extreme, and not even suggested by the UI. Partner opens and I pass again. Clearly illogical. However, the whole room is in a failing slam. Director ! Maybe I'm fantasising - don't answer that one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 24 23:16:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:16:59 +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 XAA15689 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:16:52 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-83.uunet.be [194.7.13.83]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA23177 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:16:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36AB06D5.73267B37@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:41:09 +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: L73C vs L16A References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > As for your proposition in the round, I do have some anxieties > over the idea of a player deliberately doing something that outrages > expectation and coming up roses. I would look hard and long, and with > inherent scepticism, at the motivation for the action. To justify redress > it would require for me no more than to discover a scintilla of logic > underpinning the action. In the longer term there may be > reason to rediscover the objectives of the law on UI. ~ Grattan ~ +++ > Which is the correct answer to my fantasy example. There is something fishy there, and a scintilla of evidence might lead to serious allegations of cheating in the worst degree. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 24 23:56:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:56:40 +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 XAA15865 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:56:34 +1100 Received: from modem119.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.119] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 104P5S-0006oM-00; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:56:23 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI from correct alert/non-alert Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:55:06 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "I thought it prudent to comply, until I could find a better director" - Gulliver's Travels. ====================================== ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI from correct alert/non-alert > Date: 23 January 1999 23:09 > ---------------------- \x/ ----------------------------- > In the mean time, I would renew my plea for reconsideration of the pre-1987 > treatment which differentiated between UI derived from irregularities or > infractions and that derived from correct procedure. It is clearly wrong > for a player to take strong advantage of ANY UI by making a bid which would > be illogical save for that information. But IMO it should not be wrong for > a player to take a normal course of action when in posession of the more > benign type of UI, even when he has LA's and the chosen action is > demonstrably suggested. > ++++ Personally I think the combined effect of Law 16 with Laws 40A and 40B should be examined. in the following respects: (a) players are authorised to base their calls on information from legal calls and plays (b) a call or play is legal if it is one that opponents may be expected to understand or one in accordance with a significance disclosed to opponents in the manner required by the regulations in force. (c) it is therefore *always* legitimate to take partner's action to be in accordance with the disclosed partnership methods and to base one's own action on its being so. ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 25 05:27:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 05:27:32 +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 FAA18824 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 05:27:24 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka9jk.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.38.116]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA15066 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:27:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990124132703.0070873c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:27:03 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199901231652350720.12ADCF35@mail.btinternet.com> References: <199901222328.SAA28492@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199901230429250560.10055096@mail.btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:52 PM 1/23/99 +0000, David B wrote: >What I do not understand is the notion that L73 somehow conveys wider powers than L16. Steve said, in effect, that if we don't like what a player does, but don't think he's broken L16, we can rule against him under L73C. DWS said, in effect, that whereas L16 deals only with logical alternatives, illogical alternatives fall within the scope of L73C. It is my belief that they do not - I think that L16 is the way to implement in Law the Propriety expressed in L73C, and I do not think that L73C in any way extends the power of L16. > This is the heart of the matter, and I would like to lend my strong support to David Burn's statement on this point. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 25 07:43:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 07:43:45 +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 HAA19174 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 07:43:37 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 104WNQ-0002pY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:43:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 19:16:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199901240206.VAA29249@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199901240206.VAA29249@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Right, let me just attack this problem once more, with an example beautifully constructed by someone else. John Smith opens 1NT [15-17], saying "Ooops, I would have opened 2NT if I had noticed that other ace." His partner, William Brown, bids 3NT with a balanced 6 HCP, and this makes opposite partner's 20 HCP. 3NT is not a "Logical Alternative" based on the European/Australian standard of an action that 25% of his peers would find, nor on the various different standards employed by Great Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands [*1]. Furthermore it is not a "Logical Alternative" based on the NAmerican standard of an action that some number of his peers would seriously consider [*2]. According to some things I have read on this thread that means we cannot adjust under L16A because the player has not chosen amongst LAs nor L73C because it does not tell the TD what to do nor is it different from L16A. I have suggested that we just adjust and live with it. Certain people find this unacceptable: they want the Law to be the Law. Certain others have suggested that the language of L16A is vague enough to allow a reasonable interpretation. Not so long ago there were two highly offensive post about Bridge Lawyers, not apparently meaning the normal usage of the term, but meaning that anyone who dug amongst the Laws to see what they really meant should not be doing so. Apart from the fact that the writers of those posts seem to do this as much as anyone, and that most other people on BLML seem to think this is a large part of our raison d'etre, this particular thread seems to me to show not only the value of digging, but also the ridiculousness of being too firmly wedded to people's own interpretation, however ridiculous. How many of you out there want the TD to say to William Brown that since his action is not an LA the result stands? So, let us consider the actual UI Laws - Law 73C first. 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. Did William Brown do this? No, he did not carefully avoid taking advantage, so he has committed an infraction. Now L73C is a Law that tells a player what to do, not what the TD should do. Let us look at L73F: F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent: Well? Is this what has happened? Certainly. So if there is a violation of L73 and there is damage, this tells us to apply L73F1 or L73F2. What happens if neither applies? I suggest this should not be the case. Once there is a breach than the wording of L73F tells you how to adjust. In the past people have suggested that L73F differs in vital places from the rest of L73. This wording suggests that if so, it is a mistake, since a breach plus damage should be dealt with by L73F. I thus suggest that if we really do find a case, then L12A1 or L84E might be acceptable - but not in the current case! 1. Player Acts on Unauthorised Information If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see Law 16). Now I agree that it is a pity that this wording does not appear to cover everything in L73C. Perhaps the reason is simply that the lawmakers failed to realise the problem. If so, perhaps L73F might be reviewed in 2007. But how about this case? There are several possible answers. If we dismiss the argument supported by some that despite the clear breach of L73C we are not going to adjust because this Law does not tell us to, then it seems we are left with either an interpretation that allows the wording "... from among logical ..." to permit actions that are not LAs to be considered, or we must allow that the 3NT action is, in fact, an LA. I have suggested we should treat an action taken as an LA, getting the usual amount of scorn. I think the time has come to consider this a bit deeper. Why did the player bid 3NT? I'll tell you: because it seemed a logical action ***in the circumstances*** ! What circumstances? The UI, of course. Whatever your SO's definition of an LA, that 3NT bid was made because it was logical - so we *must* include in our definition of LA _actions that *become* LAs because of the UI_. Now all is clear. If someone takes an action that is neither logical nor suggested by the UI then there is no reason to adjust anyway. If someone takes an action that is suggested by the UI then it will automatically become a "logical alternative action" because it is made such by the UI, and we can adjust under L73F1 [or L16A]. [*1] Great Britain: a "Logical Alternative" is an action that 30% of his peers would find. Denmark: a "Logical Alternative" is an action that is logically an alternative, or I know it when I see it The Netherlands: as the ACBL I am not sure of the Danish or Dutch definitions, being based on what I remember from some years ago, and corrections would be welcome. Also it would be helpful if anyone from another jurisdiction could let us know if they do not follow the European approach. [*2] I also have a feeling that I have read somewhere [Barry Rigal on RGB?] that the ACBL has recently revised its definition - any comments welcome. -- 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 Jan 25 09:57:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 09:57:39 +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 JAA19380 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 09:57:33 +1100 Received: from ip117.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.117]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990124225726.OMKE324.fep4@ip117.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:57:26 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:57:26 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36ac9c00.1102234@post12.tele.dk> References: <199901240121.UAA29147@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199901240121.UAA29147@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:21:19 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> Now that we've seen that part of L16 quoted several times, I >> would like to quote the part that occurs a little further down >> the page (L16A2): > >If you read this part carefully, you will see it tells the player >what to do, and then it tells the TD to look for an infraction, but >16A2 does not itself define what an infraction is. That's left to >16A and 73C. Yes. But it does tell us to adjust when an infraction has resulted in damage. So when an infraction of L73C results in damage, L16A2 clearly instructs us to adjust, even under the most literal interpretation imaginable. It seems to me that (a) The varied wording suggests that there probably was no intention to distinguish between logical and illogical actions. (b) It makes no difference in practice because it really is hard to imagine an action that is suggested by the UI but still is not, at least to some degree and (to quote David) in those circumstances, logical. (c) It makes no difference in practice because L16A2 tells us to adjust when an infraction of law, not necessarily in the form of a logical action, has resulted in damage. My conclusion is that there is no reason at all to not always rule the same way with the current L16 as we would do with one that instead had Grattans suggested wording: >So I read the >earlier words as to say "may not choose, where there are logical=20 >alternative actions, an action that could have demonstrably been >suggested over a logical alternative by...". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 25 09:57:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 09:57:44 +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 JAA19387 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 09:57:38 +1100 Received: from ip117.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.117]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990124225732.OMKJ324.fep4@ip117.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:57:32 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:57:33 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36ae9eed.1851041@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, 23 Jan 1999 21:29:42 -0000, "Grattan" wrote: > It was nice of you to ask me, Jesper - are you glad that >you did? Yes, indeed. If you had said categorically that the WBFLC had intentionally made a distinction between logical and illogical actions in this respect, I would have had to try to understand why. I agree completely with your view of this. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 25 13:03:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:03:46 +1100 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net ([195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA19674 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:03:38 +1100 Received: from modem85.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.213] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 104bND-0002Hl-00; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 02:03:32 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 01:56:42 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "I thought it prudent to comply, until I could find a better director" - Gulliver's Travels. ====================================== --------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 24 January 1999 19:16 > > > Right, let me just attack this problem once more, with an example > beautifully constructed by someone else. > > John Smith opens 1NT [15-17], saying "Ooops, I would have opened 2NT > if I had noticed that other ace." His partner, William Brown, bids 3NT > with a balanced 6 HCP, and this makes opposite partner's 20 HCP. > ------------------ \x/ ---------------------------- > > Not so long ago there were two highly offensive post about Bridge > Lawyers, not apparently meaning the normal usage of the term, but > meaning that anyone who dug amongst the Laws to see what they really > meant should not be doing so. +++ I look for highly offensive words to describe the 'bridge lawyer' who digs in the laws in search of personal gain; the researcher whose motivation is pure and altruistic does not meet with my scorn. +++ ------------------------- \x/ -------------------------------- > I have suggested we should treat an action taken as an LA, getting the > usual amount of scorn. I think the time has come to consider this a bit > deeper. Why did the player bid 3NT? I'll tell you: because it seemed a > logical action ***in the circumstances*** ! What circumstances? The > UI, of course. Whatever your SO's definition of an LA, that 3NT bid was > made because it was logical - so we *must* include in our definition of > LA _actions that *become* LAs because of the UI_. > > Now all is clear. If someone takes an action that is neither logical > nor suggested by the UI then there is no reason to adjust anyway. If > someone takes an action that is suggested by the UI then it will > automatically become a "logical alternative action" because it is made > such by the UI, and we can adjust under L73F1 [or L16A]. > +++ You take a long route to arrive here, David, but since you end up adjusting the score you are on the side of the angels. However, recourse to 73F1 does appear to depend on the chosen action being a LA since in 73F1 the implication is that both the action and its alternative are logical ("one.....over another" - I think the indicative 'another' is not used in other areas of the law concerning use of UI). For safety, you should not dump the safety-net of 84E. 73F says what to do 'if this' or 'if that' but does not stop you going to 84E if neither. +++ -------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- > > [*1] Great Britain: a "Logical Alternative" is an action that 30% of his > peers would find. > Denmark: a "Logical Alternative" is an action that is logically an > alternative, or I know it when I see it > The Netherlands: as the ACBL > > I am not sure of the Danish or Dutch definitions, being based on what > I remember from some years ago, and corrections would be welcome. Also > it would be helpful if anyone from another jurisdiction could let us > know if they do not follow the European approach. > > > > [*2] I also have a feeling that I have read somewhere [Barry Rigal on > RGB?] that the ACBL has recently revised its definition - any comments > welcome. > ++++ I view these measures as standards, not definitions. I think the definition is universal - 'an alternative action that has a logical basis'. ++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 25 13:03:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:03:45 +1100 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net ([195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA19673 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:03:37 +1100 Received: from modem85.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.213] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 104bNB-0002Hl-00; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 02:03:30 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 01:21:43 -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 "I thought it prudent to comply, until I could find a better director" - Gulliver's Travels. ====================================== ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 24 January 1999 18:27 > > At 04:52 PM 1/23/99 +0000, David B wrote: > >What I do not understand is the notion that L73 somehow conveys wider > powers than L16. Steve said, in effect, that if we don't like what a player > does, but don't think he's broken L16, we can rule against him under L73C. > DWS said, in effect, that whereas L16 deals only with logical alternatives, > illogical alternatives fall within the scope of L73C. It is my belief that > they do not - I think that L16 is the way to implement in Law the Propriety > expressed in L73C, and I do not think that L73C in any way extends the > power of L16. > > > This is the heart of the matter, and I would like to lend my strong support > to David Burn's statement on this point. > ++++ What is clear enough is that if there is a way of taking advantage of UI from partner which Law 16 does not cover, a remedy is available through Law 73C and either 73F or 84E. ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 25 14:27:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 14:27:52 +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 OAA19809 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 14:27:44 +1100 Received: from default (ptp60.ac.net [205.138.54.162]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA02750 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 22:27:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:16:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: References: <199901240206.VAA29249@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199901240206.VAA29249@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:16 PM 1/24/99 +0000, you wrote: > > >[*1] Great Britain: a "Logical Alternative" is an action that 30% of his > peers would find. > Denmark: a "Logical Alternative" is an action that is logically an > alternative, or I know it when I see it > The Netherlands: as the ACBL > > I am not sure of the Danish or Dutch definitions, being based on what >I remember from some years ago, and corrections would be welcome. Also >it would be helpful if anyone from another jurisdiction could let us >know if they do not follow the European approach. > > > >[*2] I also have a feeling that I have read somewhere [Barry Rigal on >RGB?] that the ACBL has recently revised its definition - any comments >welcome. The current ACBL definition of a LA is: "A call that some number of the player's peers would seriously consider." Of course, that leaves us with the question as to what 'seriously consider' means. Rich Colker's view is that 'seriously consider' means (and I am quoting from the soon to be released Chicago casebook - Case Three): " a call cannot be seriously considered unless it is one which the player would actually make some of the time - or under some conditions (ie given the right vulnerability, opponents, state of the match, mood, etc). .... if a call ends up being one that every player would think about but almost no one would actually make, then it hasn't been seriously considered..." Our Laws Commission has declined to change the phrase 'seriously consider' to 'choose to make' So there we are. Linda > >-- >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 ~ > ----------- Used to be Linda Weinstein. Brian and I tied the knot on 12/25/98 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 25 15:51:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA20063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:51:37 +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 PAA20058 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:51:30 +1100 Received: from michael (user-38lcitm.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.182]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA02865 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:51:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990124235106.006f078c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:51:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:21 AM 1/25/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: >++++ What is clear enough is that if there is a way of taking advantage of >UI from partner which Law 16 does not cover, a remedy is available >through Law 73C and either 73F or 84E. ~Grattan~ ++++ Perhaps, but I don't accept the predicate. To my way of thinking, L16 simply defines the procedural mechanism by which the propriety expressed in L73C is enforced. Especially in view of your helpful clarification as to the (possibly) ambiguous reading of L16 when the chosen action seems illogical, I really don't see how this danger could present itself. It seems silly to say that the lawmakers were so uncertain about the various ways that UI could arise that they provided a catch-all "safety net", as some have described L73C in this thread. For all our arguments about its application, L16 provides a fairly comprehensive and clear description of the problem and its remedy. Is it legal to benefit from a completely illogical action when in possession of UI? Yes, but only so long as the UI does not demonstrably suggest that action over any LA's. This is the clear meaning of L16, ambiguously placed modifying clauses notwithstanding. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 25 23:18:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:18:30 +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 XAA20605 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:18:23 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA00908 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 07:18:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 07:18:17 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > > Right, let me just attack this problem once more, with an example > beautifully constructed by someone else. > > John Smith opens 1NT [15-17], saying "Ooops, I would have opened 2NT > if I had noticed that other ace." His partner, William Brown, bids 3NT > with a balanced 6 HCP, and this makes opposite partner's 20 HCP. > > 3NT is not a "Logical Alternative" based on the European/Australian > standard of an action that 25% of his peers would find, nor on the > various different standards employed by Great Britain, Denmark and the > Netherlands [*1]. Furthermore it is not a "Logical Alternative" based > on the NAmerican standard of an action that some number of his peers > would seriously consider [*2]. I think that David has chosen/borrowed a very bad example here. As I remember, the "illogical alternative" when first raised was one that made no sense even given the unauthorised information. Partner has hesitated before doubling a game level contract. Was he thinking about passing or bidding? The illogical suggestion was to jump to six. We don't know what he was thinking about, but it wasn't about bidding slam and the UI has not suggested it. In the example here, we know partner has 20-21 points. It is clearly logical to bid 3NT on a 6-count, and it is equally wrong to do so. You, the TD or Appeals Committee do have to take into account what alternatives the UI has created. The problems with the "seriously considered" or "percentage of one's peers" approaches are that a player may have no call to make within the regulations. Once that situation occurs, the infraction has become the hesitation whether you like it or not. This is undesirable (to put it mildly). What's the answer? I don't know, but surely the ruling has to take into account what calls make any sense at all, and which of those calls is "more suggested." And I can't write that sort of answer into a regulation. It has to be "I need to be at the table/in the committee room" feel. > -- Richard Lighton |"I once made an affidavit--but it died" (lighton@idt.net)| Wood-Ridge NJ | W. S. Gilbert USA | (Ruddigore) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 01:23:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:23:29 +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 BAA23179 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:23:22 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-81.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.81]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA31392854 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 09:26:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36AC7DB6.E493ED7A@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:20:38 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <3.0.1.32.19990124235106.006f078c@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When in possession of UI and you do not bid in accordance with your agreements, this is strong evidence that you used UI to make your bid. If the law does not call for an adjustment in such cases, maybe the law ought to be changed. Roger Pewick Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > At 01:21 AM 1/25/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >++++ What is clear enough is that if there is a way of taking advantage of > >UI from partner which Law 16 does not cover, a remedy is available > >through Law 73C and either 73F or 84E. ~Grattan~ ++++ > > Perhaps, but I don't accept the predicate. To my way of thinking, L16 > simply defines the procedural mechanism by which the propriety expressed in > L73C is enforced. Especially in view of your helpful clarification as to > the (possibly) ambiguous reading of L16 when the chosen action seems > illogical, I really don't see how this danger could present itself. It > seems silly to say that the lawmakers were so uncertain about the various > ways that UI could arise that they provided a catch-all "safety net", as > some have described L73C in this thread. For all our arguments about its > application, L16 provides a fairly comprehensive and clear description of > the problem and its remedy. > > Is it legal to benefit from a completely illogical action when in > possession of UI? Yes, but only so long as the UI does not demonstrably > suggest that action over any LA's. This is the clear meaning of L16, > ambiguously placed modifying clauses notwithstanding. > > Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 02:02:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 02:02:59 +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 CAA23410 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 02:02:51 +1100 Received: from [195.99.53.212] [195.99.53.212] by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 104nXH-0001TI-00; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:02:46 +0000 From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:03:22 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: >On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, David Stevenson wrote: >>Right, let me just attack this problem once more, with an example = beautifully constructed by someone else. >>John Smith opens 1NT [15-17], saying "Ooops, I would have opened 2NT if I = had noticed that other ace." His partner, William Brown, bids 3NT with a = balanced 6 HCP, and this makes opposite partner's 20 HCP. >>3NT is not a "Logical Alternative" based on the European/Australian = standard of an action that 25% of his peers would find, nor on the various = different standards employed by Great Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands = [*1]. Furthermore it is not a "Logical Alternative" based on the NAmerican = standard of an action that some number of his peers would seriously = consider [*2]. >I think that David has chosen/borrowed a very bad example here. On the contrary, I found it helpful (though somewhat trivial) in the sense = that it explained a message of Steve Willner's that I had not understood, = and has helped to clarify some confusion that existed between Grattan and = myself. Moreover, it is a good example to illustrate that there ought to be = an extension to the definition of LA that brings it into line with common = sense. >As I remember, the "illogical alternative" when first raised was one that = made no sense even given the unauthorised information. Herman has correctly pointed out that there are three categories that make = sense: (1) LAs suggested by UI; (2) LAs not suggested by UI; (3) illogical = alternatives (which are ex def not suggested by anything). It is obvious = enough that the intent of the Laws is simply: a player may not do anything = in category (1) unless category (2) is empty. If an NCBO's definition of LA = is inadequate to implement this policy within the context of L16, then the = NCBO should redraft its definition, and not have recourse to L73. However, = DWS is quite correct to point out that L16 combined with the definitions of = LA that exist in many NCBOs will not allow us to trap even the simple case = in his example, and this is a valuable thing for us to realise. >In the example here, we know partner has 20-21 points. It is clearly = logical to bid 3NT on a 6-count, and it is equally wrong to do so. As Steve Willner pointed out, although it is logical in an Englsh sense to = bid on a 6 count, the definitions of LA in a bridge sense do not admit this = possibility. This just means that the definitions are hopeless - it does = not mean that L73 is a superset of L16, as has been argued. >You, the TD or Appeals Committee do have to take into account what = alternatives the UI has created. Not really. The player who has a logical alternative may not take an action = suggested by the UI, whether the action he chooses falls within the flawed = definitions or not. L16 stops William Brown from bidding 3NT because he has = the LA of pass, and the fact that 3NT is not an LA within the definitions = does not make it available to him.=20 When I postulated that a player may always choose an illogical alternative, = I meant the word "illogical" in its normal English sense, not in the sense = of: the opposite of "logical" as used in the EBU or ACBL definition of LA = (since these "definitions" are only partial, and make almost no sense at = all in terms of interpreting the word "logical" in English). However, this = may not have been obvious (judging by what Grattan and Steve said to me, it = was not clear), and I apologise for the confusion. >The problems with the "seriously considered" or "percentage of one's = peers" approaches are that a player may have no call to make within the = regulations.=20 I suppose it is possible for all of a player's options to fall within = category (1). In that case, I would imagine the ruling to be that a degree = of "suggestedness" is assigned to each call, and the player is deemed to = select that option whose "suggestedness quotient" is closed to zero. Of = course, this is not what happens in practice, where the player is simply = deemed to select that option which works least well. This is usually the = same thing - but by no means always. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 04:16:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:16:03 +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 EAA23623 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:15:54 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26702 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:11:25 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199901251711.LAA26702@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:11:25 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Herman's proof snipped--I generally agree with it] > So there are only three non-empty subsets of alternatives : > logical ones, not suggested by UI; logical ones, suggested > by UI; and illogical ones (not suggested by UI). > > An action from the first set is allowed by L16; one from the > second is prohibited. > > Nothing really is said about the third option. Agreed. > An illogical alternative cannot be to the advantage of the > pair, so L73C is not broken by taking an illogical > alternative. > > Which leads us to a different question : what is advantage : > before or after the board. > > Suppose I have UI that my partner has opening values. I am > in first hand with 17HCP. I pass. Clearly illogical in the > extreme, and not even suggested by the UI. Partner opens > and I pass again. Clearly illogical. However, the whole > room is in a failing slam. Director ! > > Maybe I'm fantasising - don't answer that one. No, I think we must answer that one. David Burn also provided a similar example, where a player jumps to slam on a hand where partner's UI clearly did not suggest the slam would succeed, but by quirk of fate it does. [There's an example from the play in Simon's "Why You Lose at Bridge", where the "Unlucky" Expert defeats a slam by leading the card counter-indicated by the UI--unfortunately, Simon didn't have BLML to turn to back then. :)] If we say that advantage is determined after the hand, I think we are led to the conclusion that only unsuccessful choices can avoid using UI. My Proof: If we use the 'take advantage' language of L73C to rule against the 17 HCP 'passer' here, then we think that advantage is determined by the results. But if advantage is determined by the results, then a player who choose a logical alternative that works has also taken advantage of the UI. Therefore, only unsuccessful actions do not take advantage of UI, and so one will be ruled against under L73 whenever one's bid succeeds. Obviously, we should agree that: One will not be ruled against if one makes a call, logical or illogical, Logical or Illogical, if that bid is not suggested by the UI, even if it works. [I do wonder, though, what the list thinks of David B's original example. If I think that partner's UI suggests either bidding 5H or doubling 4S, and I do not think that pass is a LA, is bidding 6H ethically and legally acceptable?] > Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 04:34:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:34:13 +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 EAA23677 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:34:06 +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 MAA12599 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:33:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id MAA00165 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:33:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:33:56 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901251733.MAA00165@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > There seem to be two qualities attached to the alternatives > : > > logical or illogical, suggested by the UI and not suggested. > > That should produce four subsets of alternatives, mutually > exclusive. Yes, a good way of looking at things. > I shall prove that one subset is empty : Illogical > alternatives, suggested by the UI. In other words, if an alternative is suggested, it becomes logical. OK. > The term logical can be defined in two ways : with or > without the UI. > An action might seem totally illogical without some UI, but > perfectly logical with it. Yes. > If we agree on the semantics of the English phrase, an > illogical action cannot be prohibited by L16. Clearly a > false statement. Clearly a true statement, but yes, dependent on the semantics. Illogical actions are, I claim, not prohibited by L16. > So we must then also agree on the adapted > definition for logical : "given the information available to > the player, both AI and UI". Except that at least one large SO defines "logical alternative" as "in a vacuum," i.e. without the UI, and even without such a definition, I think that would be the normal way to interpret the L16 (and L73F1) language. If a player gains by an action that is logical with the UI, illogical without the UI, and (therefore) suggested by the UI, it is still illegal. Personally, I'd far rather use L73C to adjust than try to twist the language of L16A, but if someone insists on using L16A instead, the result will be the same. > From: Jesper Dybdal > So when an infraction of L73C results in > damage, L16A2 clearly instructs us to adjust, even under the most > literal interpretation imaginable. Yes! I was thinking of L12A1, but L16A2 is even more explicit. Breach L73C, and you get an adjusted score. > From: David Stevenson > Now I agree that it is a pity that [the L73F1] wording does not appear to > cover everything in L73C. Perhaps the reason is simply that the > lawmakers failed to realise the problem. If so, perhaps L73F might be > reviewed in 2007. Yes, that would give L73F1 a purpose. > I have suggested we should treat an action taken as an LA, getting the > usual amount of scorn. I think the time has come to consider this a bit > deeper. Why did the player bid 3NT? I'll tell you: because it seemed a > logical action ***in the circumstances*** ! What circumstances? The > UI, of course. Whatever your SO's definition of an LA, that 3NT bid was > made because it was logical - so we *must* include in our definition of > LA _actions that *become* LAs because of the UI_. The effect would be to consider the SO's definition of LA applicable for L16A but not for L73F1. The result of that is what we all want, but using L73C plus L16A2 seems a lot more straightforward to me. Either way gives the same result, so perhaps it's not worth further argument. > From: Linda Trent > The current ACBL definition of a LA is: > > "A call that some number of the player's peers would seriously consider." Has the final phrase "in a vacuum" been officially removed, then, or did you omit it for brevity? > From: Richard Lighton > The problems with the "seriously considered" or "percentage of one's > peers" approaches are that a player may have no call to make within > the regulations. I'm afraid I don't see how this can happen. If no alternative is suggested over another, every option is legal. (The classic case is a hesitant forcing pass, which tells partner nothing useful.) If one or more options are suggested, then the player is obliged to pick one not suggested. Perhaps you could offer an example? From: David Burn > If an NCBO's definition of LA is inadequate to implement this policy > within the context of L16, then the NCBO should redraft its definition, > and not have recourse to L73. What is wrong with using L73? It seems clear and straightforward to me. > From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu > But if advantage is determined by the results, then a player > who choose a logical alternative that works has also taken advantage of > the UI. Therefore, only unsuccessful actions do not take advantage of UI, > and so one will be ruled against under L73 whenever one's bid succeeds. I think I see how this can be confusing. We measure "damage" by the results, but the L73C "taking any advantage" must be measured by what the player knew at the time, not by the results. > Obviously, we should agree that: > One will not be ruled against if one makes a call, logical or > illogical, Logical or Illogical, if that bid is not suggested by the UI, > even if it works. Yes. > [I do wonder, though, what the list thinks of David B's original > example. If I think that partner's UI suggests either bidding 5H or > doubling 4S, and I do not think that pass is a LA, is bidding 6H ethically > and legally acceptable?] If 6H is not suggested by UI, then it is legal and proper. (I'm not sure David B.'s example fits the premise, but the example of passing with a 17-count does. No infraction, no adjustment.) Whew! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 06:30:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 06:30:52 +1100 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA23894 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 06:30:44 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.40] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 104rhr-0006lD-00; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:29:55 +0000 Message-ID: <199901251930170900.1D8B544F@mail.btinternet.com> References: <199901240206.VAA29249@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199901251734110370.1D21031F@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:30:17 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 24/01/99, at 19:16, David Stevenson wrote: >Right, let me just attack this problem once more, with an example >beautifully constructed by someone else. > > John Smith opens 1NT [15-17], saying "Ooops, I would have opened 2NT >if I had noticed that other ace." His partner, William Brown, bids 3NT >with a balanced 6 HCP, and this makes opposite partner's 20 HCP. > > 3NT is not a "Logical Alternative" based on the European/Australian >standard of an action that 25% of his peers would find, nor on the >various different standards employed by Great Britain, Denmark and the >Netherlands [*1]. Furthermore it is not a "Logical Alternative" based >on the NAmerican standard of an action that some number of his peers >would seriously consider [*2]. I have addressed this in a previous post. Just because something is not a= "Logical Alternative" based on someone's incomplete definition of the= words, that does not mean that it is not a logical alternative within the= meaning of L16. One might as well say that a carrot is not a vegetable= because the European Union's Agricultural Policy Committee has defined it= as a fruit. Of course, the people who drafted the standards to which David refers did= not intend them to constitute complete definitions. They are supposed to= be guidelines to help ACs deal with marginal questions of bridge judgment.= The EBU did not think it necessary to say: "a logical alternative is: (a)= an action that will demonstrably be more likely to succeed in the presence= of UI when it would have been demonstrably more likely to fail in its= absence; or (b) an action that would have been taken by X% of the player's= peers", because this is sufficiently obvious not to require stating. At= least, so I would have thought until reading some of the comments in this= thread - and so I continue to think despite them. Moreover, if a word or phrase in the standards provided by an NCBO is= defined in a fashion that is repugnant to common sense, then I should= imagine that the sense of the word as used in the Laws would always= prevail. >According to some things I have read on this thread that means we >cannot adjust under L16A because the player has not chosen amongst LAs I don't think anyone has suggested this. Of course we can adjust in this= case under L16A2, for the player "had a logical alternative" to 3NT, and= has "chosen an action that could have been suggested by" the unauthorised= information that his partner has 21-22 and not 15-17. As I said, this case= is trivial, and does nothing to refute the notion that L16 is sufficient= for all practical purposes (and that L73C might as well be removed from= the statute books). The point is that the player _has_ chosen from among LAs, if those words= are to be interpreted in any normal sense deriving from their English= meaning - indeed, he has chosen the only LA in such circumstances. Just= because he has not chosen among LAs as "defined" by the EBU or the ACBL,= that does not mean that he has chosen an illogical alternative. More interesting would be: what happens if William Brown bids 6NT, which= makes on a miraculous lie of cards? I will return to this point later. >nor L73C because it does not tell the TD what to do I don't know if anyone has suggested this; if so, they are probably= misguided. L73C says what a player must not do; L73F and other Laws say= what the TD should do if a player does something that he must not do. But= this is not relevant. >nor is it different >from L16A. I have suggested that we just adjust and live with it. We don't have to "live with" anything - our consciences are entirely clear! >Certain people find this unacceptable: they want the Law to be the Law. Well, I would like the Law to be a different Law, one that was a lot easier= to understand, but I am clear on one point: the Law _is_ the Law, and= nothing else is. If the Law says one thing in plain English, and some= Directive says something else that contradicts not only the Law but the= language itself, then let us by all means follow the Law. >Certain others have suggested that the language of L16A is vague enough >to allow a reasonable interpretation. What's vague about it? The only things in this business that appear vague= or incomplete are the various "standards" that you have quoted, But they= are not the Law. >Not so long ago there were two highly offensive post about Bridge >Lawyers, not apparently meaning the normal usage of the term, but >meaning that anyone who dug amongst the Laws to see what they really >meant should not be doing so. Oh, well. As one of those "highly offensive" posters, I had better go on= record as saying that: people who dig among the Laws to see what they= really mean are performing a noble service to the game. However, I= consider it a pity that such digging is necessary, and I consider that= those massive intellects who carry out this worthy task would be more= gainfully employed in rewriting the Laws so that they mean only one thing= to all bridge players. If people were offended either by this notion or by= the way in which it was expressed, then I am sorry. >Apart from the fact that the writers of >those posts seem to do this as much as anyone, and that most other >people on BLML seem to think this is a large part of our raison d'etre, >this particular thread seems to me to show not only the value of >digging, but also the ridiculousness of being too firmly wedded to >people's own interpretation, however ridiculous. How many of you out >there want the TD to say to William Brown that since his action is not >an LA the result stands? None of us. (Does the word "ridiculous" not constitute unparliamentary= language in the context of the New Bridge Laws Mailing List?) If what you= are saying is that at present, we have to tell William Brown that his= action is not a Logical Alternative because there exists an incomplete set= of standards which implies this, then those standards should be: (a)= rewritten so that they provide a complete working interpretation of L16;= and (b) ignored until this has occurred. > So, let us consider the actual UI Laws - Law 73C first. > > 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. > >Did William Brown do this? No, he did not carefully avoid taking >advantage, so he has committed an infraction. Gracious, Holmes, I believe you've got it! >Now L73C is a Law that >tells a player what to do, not what the TD should do. Let us look at >L73F: > >F. Violation of Proprieties > When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results > in damage to an innocent opponent: ...he shall award an adjusted score (see Law 16). This appears to me to be a clear indication that Law 73 is simply the= "Proprietorial version" of Law 16. It confers no additional powers upon= the Director or an AC. > 1. Player Acts on Unauthorised Information > If the Director determines that a player chose from among > logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have > been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, > tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see Law > 16). > > Now I agree that it is a pity that this wording does not appear to >cover everything in L73C. Perhaps the reason is simply that the >lawmakers failed to realise the problem. If so, perhaps L73F might be >reviewed in 2007. But how about this case? Nothing about this case. This case, as I have indicated, is= straightforward, and comprehensively covered under L16A2 (as Jesper has= already pointed out). This case arises only if you rule according to the= passage you quote from L73F1, and do not use the wording in L16A2. I= firmly believe that to do so is an error, though I also believe it to be= unfortunate that the two Laws do not say the same thing. >There are several possible answers. If we dismiss the argument >supported by some that despite the clear breach of L73C we are not going >to adjust because this Law does not tell us to, then it seems we are >left with either an interpretation that allows the wording "... from >among logical ..." to permit actions that are not LAs to be considered, >or we must allow that the 3NT action is, in fact, an LA. You are continuing to argue as if the definitions of LA provided by the= various bodies you have quoted were to be treated as comprehensive= restatements of the words as used in Law 16. They are not. Insofar as your= argument is based on this false premise, it is a false argument (and, as= far as I can see, it is based on nothing else). > I have suggested we should treat an action taken as an LA, getting the >usual amount of scorn. I think the time has come to consider this a bit >deeper. Why did the player bid 3NT? I'll tell you: because it seemed a >logical action ***in the circumstances*** ! What circumstances? The >UI, of course. Whatever your SO's definition of an LA, that 3NT bid was >made because it was logical - so we *must* include in our definition of >LA _actions that *become* LAs because of the UI_. I agree entirely. This simply means, however, that we must rewrite those= standards to which you have referred - or, more simply, that we take for= granted what is missing from those standards: that anything a player does= because of UI that he would not do without the UI is a logical= alternative. It does not mean that there is anything missing from L16 that= is covered by L73 instead. The deficiencies in L16 are created only= because the words "logical alternative" have been redefined in a partial= and non-comprehensive fashion. But that has nothing to do with what the= Laws say. >Now all is clear. If someone takes an action that is neither logical >nor suggested by the UI then there is no reason to adjust anyway. That is actually far from clear. If William Brown were to bid 6NT, then= this is clearly neither logical nor suggested by the UI. However, if 6NT= were to make, then I imagine some of us might want to adjust the score to= 1NT plus five, and I believe that the majority of bridge players would= regard this as a more equitable outcome than allowing 6NT making to stand.= How would we do this? William Brown could argue thus: "When I bid 6NT, I was doing my best not to= take advantage of the position we were in. After all, I was far more= likely to get a good result by passing and hoping we could only make eight= tricks than by bidding and hoping we could make twelve. So, I have done my= best to comply with L73 as you read it out to me - and now you want to= take my result away!" I do not, in actual fact, believe that the Laws compel us to allow William= his slam. However, neither L16 nor L73 appears to state explicitly that if= a player has only one logical course of action absent any UI he may= possess, then he should be compelled to follow that course and not adopt a= wholly illogical one in its place. Perhaps the Laws should make this= provision - all I will say at the moment is that they do not seem to me to= do so. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 06:30:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 06:30:31 +1100 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA23887 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 06:30:25 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.40] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 104rhY-0006gV-00; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:29:36 +0000 Message-ID: <199901251929590060.1D8B0AB8@mail.btinternet.com> References: <199901251733.MAA00165@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199901251915040100.1D7D6213@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:29:59 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 25/01/99, at 12:33, Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >From: David Burn >> If an NCBO's definition of LA is inadequate to implement this policy >> within the context of L16, then the NCBO should redraft its definition, >> and not have recourse to L73. > >What is wrong with using L73? It seems clear and straightforward to me. L73F1: If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical= alternative actions one that could have been demonstrably suggested over= another... he shall award an adjusted score. This creates the problem to which DWS has been drawing attention: if a= player does something which would not be considered an LA absent the UI,= then this Law leaves matters unclear in terms of whether or not to rule= against that player. The problem, as I have tried to point out, does not= actually lie within the Laws, but with the definitions of "LA" by various= organisations. However, because this problem exists, L73F1 is in my= opinion less satisfactory than: L16A2: When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a= logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by= such [unauthorised] information, he should summon the Director... [who is]= ... standing ready to award an adjusted score if... This means that if a player chooses an action which would be illogical= without the UI but logical with it, he may still lose the benefits= thereof. In short, L16 will operate regardless of the inattention with= which SOs define "logical alternative"; L73 will not. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 08:40:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:40:12 +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 IAA24129 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:40:03 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.219]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA14886 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:39:55 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36ACE4BA.F7977D90@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:40:10 +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 - Season greetings for the clever friends - Jan. 99 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 Here is the 5th 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 Trent - 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) Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (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 Tue Jan 26 09:06:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:06:45 +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 JAA24227 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:06:40 +1100 Received: from ip52.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.52]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990125220631.RKCU324.fep4@ip52.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:06:31 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:06:30 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36b5ea73.2812704@post12.tele.dk> References: <199901240206.VAA29249@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 19:16:11 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >[*1] Great Britain: a "Logical Alternative" is an action that 30% of his > peers would find. > Denmark: a "Logical Alternative" is an action that is logically an > alternative, or I know it when I see it > The Netherlands: as the ACBL > > I am not sure of the Danish or Dutch definitions, being based on what >I remember from some years ago, and corrections would be welcome. The Danish attitude to LAs is based on whether the player's peers would actually take the action, not on whether they would merely consider it. There is no official percentage limit. The limit is currently officially "defined" only indirectly by the rulings actually made by the NA. My guess is that it probably is somewhere around 15-20%. =20 It thus tends to consider more actions to be logical alternatives than the GB definition does, but it is still very far from the ACBL point of view. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 09:23:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:23:29 +1100 Received: from smtp0.mindspring.com (smtp0.mindspring.com [207.69.200.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA24260 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:23:23 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka8qe.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.35.78]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA19637 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:23:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990125170334.006f570c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:03:34 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199901251711.LAA26702@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:11 AM 1/25/99 -0600, Grant wrote: > [I do wonder, though, what the list thinks of David B's original >example. If I think that partner's UI suggests either bidding 5H or >doubling 4S, and I do not think that pass is a LA, is bidding 6H ethically >and legally acceptable?] > Your legal status depends less on what you think than on what a TD or perhaps an AC thinks about these alternatives. Is 6H demonstrably suggested over any LA's, which presumably include only 5H or double? I would think not. Logical or otherwise, then, it is a completely legal option, and the fact that it happens to work is of no consequence (except, of course for your opponents). I would not regard 6H as a LA in this situation, even by ACBL standards, so the hypothesis that "partner's UI suggests either bidding 5H or doubling 4S" begs the question: "suggests" in comparison to what? If one of these is suggested over the other, then the suggested one is impermissible. What I originally understood from David's question is the suggestion that: 1. Pass is not an LA (I agree). 2. The hesitation suggests either bidding 5H or doubling, although neither one more so than the other. 3. That therefore I should bid 6H, an illogical alternative, since any favorable outcome resulting from either 5H or doubling will be disallowed. I was not clear from his post whether David was simply being cynical about the ability of the authorities to correctly apply the laws or whether he was postulating that a fair reading of those Laws could create such a dilemma. But the latter is quite impossible. If Pass is not an LA and if neither 5H nor Dbl are suggested with respect to each other or with respect to any other prospective LA, then both are completely legal choices. And so is 6H, since it is not demonstrably suggested, either. If OTOH David was suggesting a tactic for coping with the incompetence of TD's or AC's afflicted with the "if it hesitates, shoot it" approach, then I would argue that such a tactic is doomed to fail. Anybody who would disallow 5H or Dbl after the hesitation would be unlikely to allow a successful 6H bid, and might well be tempted to top it off with a bogus PP to boot. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 10:20:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:20:44 +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 KAA24477 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:20:36 +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 SAA31701 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:20:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id SAA00393 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:20:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:20:30 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901252320.SAA00393@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote > >What is wrong with using L73? It seems clear and straightforward to me. >From: David Burn > L73F1: I was thinking of L73C and no doubt should have specified it. Sorry. Yes, 73F1 is just a rewrite of 16A and has the same problems. > L16A2: I don't think you have read it carefully enough. It tells the TD to adjust if there has been a violation, but it doesn't define what constitutes a violation. For that we need 16A, 73C, 73F1, or perhaps something I've overlooked. The combination of L73C and L16A2 seems to do what we need. (I'd be happy with 73C and 12A1, too.) Why is there any problem with this? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 11:13:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:13:31 +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 LAA24686 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:13:25 +1100 Received: from modem78.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.78] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 104w82-0008MT-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:13:15 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:22:30 -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 "I thought it prudent to comply, until I could find a better director" - Gulliver's Travels. ====================================== ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 25 January 1999 04:51 > -------------------- \x/ -------------------------- > It > seems silly to say that the lawmakers were so uncertain about the various > ways that UI could arise that they provided a catch-all "safety net", -------------------- \X/ ---------------------------- +++ It may *seem* silly, but please rest fully assured that it was very much the Kaplan philosophy to do just that, and often enough with varied wording so that one way or another a desired outcome could be achieved by the director. Of this there is no possible doubt, no possible doubt whatever. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 12:31:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA24772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:31:57 +1100 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA24767 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:31:51 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.121] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 104xLU-0007nM-00; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:31:12 +0000 Message-ID: <199901260131450730.01180B5B@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901252320.SAA00393@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <199901252320.SAA00393@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:31:45 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 25/01/99, at 18:20, Steve Willner wrote: >I wrote >> >What is wrong with using L73? It seems clear and straightforward to= me. > >>From: David Burn >> L73F1: > >I was thinking of L73C and no doubt should have specified it. Sorry. >Yes, 73F1 is just a rewrite of 16A and has the same problems. No it isn't, and no it doesn't. In brief, L16 does not permit the selection= from among otherwise illogical alternatives of one that has "become= logical" in DWS's phrase because of the UI (and only because of the UI).= It is crucial to this argument (inasmuch as this argument matters a hill= of beans, which it does not), that L73F1 (on a literal interpretation)= talks only about logical alternatives - it does not consider the question= of illogical ones. L16A2 addresses the question so far as it needs to be= addressed - that is, it refers to the action of a player (whether= illogical or not) when he had a logical alternative available. >> L16A2: > >I don't think you have read it carefully enough. That's possible, of course. I have not read it more than 17 times in the= course of my contributions to this debate. >It tells the TD >to adjust if there has been a violation, but it doesn't define what >constitutes a violation. Well, at least I've read it more carefully than that. "When... an opponent= who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been= suggested..." (this being a definition of the violation), "the Director= shall..." (this being a definition of what the Director shall do). >For that we need 16A[1] If you believe that L16A1 contains a definition of a violation ("When a= player considers that...") then L16A2 assuredly does. >73C, 73F1, or perhaps >something I've overlooked. Oh, well. It is possible to argue that L73 defines a violation explicitly,= whereas L16 defines it only by implication. But if the rules of, for= example, soccer were to say only: "When a player trips his opponent up in= the penalty area, the referee shall award a penalty kick", it would be= casuistry to argue that tripping up an opponent was not an infraction of= Law. And it would not matter whether your argument carried weight - the= other guys would still get the penalty. The rules need not also say: "You= must not trip up your opponents in the penalty area." >The combination of L73C and L16A2 seems to do what we need. (I'd be >happy with 73C and 12A1, too.) Why is there any problem with this? I have none, apart from the argument against redundancy, and L73C in my= view adds nothing and serves only to confuse. Grattan has pointed out that= Edgar adopted a "belt and braces" approach to the Laws, hence his= (in)famous comment to the effect that "whenever I want to give a ruling I= believe to be right, I can always find a Law under which to do it." No= doubt he could. I have equally no doubt that this is not what should have= happened. The Laws, as I have said I know not how many times, ought to be= unarguable. DWS, as far as I can see, continues to have a problem in that he believes= L73 to say things which L16 does not say. Since he never replies to any of= my messages (I was one of the "highly offensive" posters that he mentioned= in a recent message, and he has not spoken to me since), I have no idea= whether he has shifted from his current position. Time will (or will not)= tell. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 13:14:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:14:02 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA24827 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:13:56 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n44.san.rr.com [204.210.47.68]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA22088; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:13:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901260213.SAA22088@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:12:04 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: > At 04:52 PM 1/23/99 +0000, David B wrote: > >What I do not understand is the notion that L73 somehow conveys wider > powers than L16. Steve said, in effect, that if we don't like what a player > does, but don't think he's broken L16, we can rule against him under L73C. > DWS said, in effect, that whereas L16 deals only with logical alternatives, > illogical alternatives fall within the scope of L73C. It is my belief that > they do not - I think that L16 is the way to implement in Law the Propriety > expressed in L73C, and I do not think that L73C in any way extends the > power of L16. > > > This is the heart of the matter, and I would like to lend my strong support > to David Burn's statement on this point. > Now I don't feel so stupid after all, not understanding this whole thread. L16 implements L73C, as L73F1 says, so WTP? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 13:34:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:34:15 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA24877 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:34:05 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 104yKD-0003mK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 02:33:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:18:27 +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 Pur Byantara Begung 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 Tue Jan 26 13:38:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:38:13 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA24897 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:38:07 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n44.san.rr.com [204.210.47.68]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA00102; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:38:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901260238.SAA00102@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" , "Linda Trent" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:35:26 -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 Linda Trent wrote: > > At 07:16 PM 1/24/99 +0000, you wrote: > > > > > > >[*1] Great Britain: a "Logical Alternative" is an action that 30% of his > > peers would find. > > Denmark: a "Logical Alternative" is an action that is logically an > > alternative, or I know it when I see it > > The Netherlands: as the ACBL > > > > I am not sure of the Danish or Dutch definitions, being based on what > >I remember from some years ago, and corrections would be welcome. Also > >it would be helpful if anyone from another jurisdiction could let us > >know if they do not follow the European approach. > > > > > > > >[*2] I also have a feeling that I have read somewhere [Barry Rigal on > >RGB?] that the ACBL has recently revised its definition - any comments > >welcome. > > > The current ACBL definition of a LA is: > > "A call that some number of the player's peers would seriously consider." > > Of course, that leaves us with the question as to what 'seriously consider' > means. Rich Colker's view is that 'seriously consider' means (and I am > quoting from the soon to be released Chicago casebook - Case Three): > > " a call cannot be seriously considered unless it is one which the player > would actually make some of the time - or under some conditions (ie given > the right vulnerability, opponents, state of the match, mood, etc). > > .... if a call ends up being one that every player would think about but > almost no one would actually make, then it hasn't been seriously > considered..." > > Our Laws Commission has declined to change the phrase 'seriously consider' > to 'choose to make' > > So there we are. > Rich Colker continually quotes Edgar Kaplan as the authority on various issues, so it's surprising that he departs (as I think he does) from EK's interpretation of "seriously consider," which is best presented by his words in *The Bridge World*, November 1995: "S-KQ10763 H-4 D-K7 C-QJ82 LHO opens 4H, non-vulnerable vs vulnerable. Partner takes 25 seconds to pass; after RHO passes, you balance with 4S, +650. "A committee member, like most bridge players, believes that he would come up with the winning action, which, invariably, is the one made at the table (otherwise the case would never have come to committee). So, the verdict is likely to be that "all good players" would reopen--the result stands. "What the Commission tried to do with its new guideline was to redirect the committee's attention: away from the successful action, to the losing alternative. Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus the score should be adjusted to that for four hearts passed out. "If you are convinced that you would always bid four spades, huddle or no huddle, do not blame the committee for robbing you--blame partner. Let him act in tempo next time." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 14:11:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:11:21 +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 OAA24947 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:11:15 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 104yuC-0003uQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 03:11:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 02:54:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199901252320.SAA00393@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199901260131450730.01180B5B@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901260131450730.01180B5B@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >I have none, apart from the argument against redundancy, and L73C in my view >adds nothing and serves only to confuse. Grattan has pointed out that Edgar >adopted a "belt and braces" approach to the Laws, hence his (in)famous comment >to the effect that "whenever I want to give a ruling I believe to be right, I >can always find a Law under which to do it." No doubt he could. I have equally >no doubt that this is not what should have happened. The Laws, as I have said I >know not how many times, ought to be unarguable. > >DWS, as far as I can see, continues to have a problem in that he believes L73 to >say things which L16 does not say. Since he never replies to any of my messages >(I was one of the "highly offensive" posters that he mentioned in a recent >message, and he has not spoken to me since), I have no idea whether he has >shifted from his current position. Time will (or will not) tell. I have no problem in _speaking_ to you but I do believe you deliberately argue _on BLML_ in a way that is designed to make anyone who disagrees with you feel inferior. I think it a pity because if you did not consider these arguments as a contest to be won at any cost then your input would be very useful. If I disagree with you I know that you will put me down if I disagree on BLML and you will not if I disagree in person. I find it distressing. I think I have useful input here, and I am trying to help others: I do not see why I should be subject to personal attack. That does not mean that I am always right - unlike some here I *know* that I have much to learn where the Laws of the game are concerned. I have been avoiding responding to your posts solely because I do not want to receive more personal attacks. This does not seem the forum for it. It is my view that L73C serves a useful purpose insofar as it says that players are required not to take advantage of UI, and no other Law says that. L16A says that a player may not do specific things, but L73C covers the gamut. You asked about bidding 6NT over 1NT [15-17] with 6 HCP after partner has announced he has found another ace. A cheat might say to himself "If I pass 1NT I shall get a bad board. If I bid 3NT I shall get ruled back by the TD. If I bid 6NT it will probably go off for a bad board but it just might make for a good board. So I might as well bid 6NT." He is taking advantage of the UI position to try to get an advantage - what he is doing is illegal under L73C, but is it under L16A? I have failed to arrange a game at the YC on Wednesday night: are you interested? -- 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 Jan 26 14:19:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:19:57 +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 OAA24973 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:19:50 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka9dh.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.37.177]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA24859 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:19:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990125221912.006f9194@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:19:12 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199901260131450730.01180B5B@mail.btinternet.com> References: <199901252320.SAA00393@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199901252320.SAA00393@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:31 AM 1/26/99 +0000, David B wrote: >I have none, apart from the argument against redundancy, and L73C in my view adds nothing and serves only to confuse. Grattan has pointed out that Edgar adopted a "belt and braces" approach to the Laws, hence his (in)famous comment to the effect that "whenever I want to give a ruling I believe to be right, I can always find a Law under which to do it." No doubt he could. I have equally no doubt that this is not what should have happened. The Laws, as I have said I know not how many times, ought to be unarguable. > And what, pray tell, would we do with the time freed up thereby? But seriously, I agree. The Laws should be clear. To intentionally write the Laws in an ambiguous or vague way in order to give TD's latititude to rule just any old way is to invite chaos and lawlessness. I don't have any doubt that a director with the skill and experience of DWS, to pick one possible name from among many on this list, can apply ambiguous Laws wisely and to the benefit of the game. But DWS doesn't direct any game I play in, and I would feel much better about those games if the discretion of TD's could be sharply limited by clear and unambiguous legal standards. Grattan says Kaplan deliberately crafted the Laws with ambiguity in order to give himself the kind of flexibility such ambiguity can provide. He knew and worked with the man, and I certainly did not, so I would not wish to challenge him on this point. But I will say that this approach does not comport with the careful and precise language he used when writing about the Laws, IMO. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 15:31:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA25189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:31:48 +1100 Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA25184 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:31:39 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.121] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10509v-00056s-00; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:31:27 +0000 Message-ID: <199901260431340140.01BCAFDA@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990125221912.006f9194@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199901252320.SAA00393@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199901252320.SAA00393@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990125221912.006f9194@pop.mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:31:34 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: msd@mindspring.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 25/01/99, at 22:19, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Edgar adopted a "belt and braces" approach to the Laws, hence his >(in)famous comment to the effect that "whenever I want to give a ruling I >believe to be right, I can always find a Law under which to do it." No >doubt he could. I have equally no doubt that this is not what should have >happened. The Laws, as I have said I know not how many times, ought to be >unarguable. >And what, pray tell, would we do with the time freed up thereby? I have always thought that what "we" ought to be doing is bombarding Ton= and Grattan with revised versions of the Laws that cause problems. That= ought not to be so hard to do - if we are af the firm opinion that "the= Law says X", we ought to be able to produce a redraft of the Law in such a= way that it says X unequivocally, and offer that for the consideration of= the members of the list and (indirectly) the WBF Laws Commission. In short= - don't complain, just put up or shut up! >But seriously, I agree. The Laws should be clear. To intentionally write >the Laws in an ambiguous or vague way in order to give TD's latititude to >rule just any old way is to invite chaos and lawlessness. I don't have any >doubt that a director with the skill and experience of DWS, to pick one >possible name from among many on this list, can apply ambiguous Laws= wisely >and to the benefit of the game. That's the trouble. The state of things is so bad that DWS (our ablest TD= in terms of "knowing the Laws" by several miles) and I (who must have= chaired more appeals committees in this country by now than anyone except= Grattan) still do not agree (as you will have seen) on various aspects of= what the Laws actually say. This has nothing very much to do with the fact= that he is a TD while I am a player - his abilities as a player are at= least the equal of mine. It is simply a comment on the fact that two= equally capable people can violently disagree on what the Laws actually= mean. This, as I have said before, simply must not be. >But DWS doesn't direct any game I play in, >and I would feel much better about those games if the discretion of TD's >could be sharply limited by clear and unambiguous legal standards. To do that, you'd need my approach and not his. DWS will conscientiously= examine every case on its merits, and give everyone the benefit of= whatever doubt is going. I, by contrast, believe that the penalty for a= revoke should be death. The difference between us is that I think more= people would play bridge if my approach held sway, and ... er.. so does= he, mutatis mutandis. >Grattan says Kaplan deliberately crafted the Laws with ambiguity in order >to give himself the kind of flexibility such ambiguity can provide. He= knew >and worked with the man, and I certainly did not, so I would not wish to >challenge him on this point. But I will say that this approach does not >comport with the careful and precise language he used when writing about >the Laws, IMO. Edgar was a Grand Master of language, and Grattan is at least a Premier= Life Master, which is part of the problem. When it comes to covering the= bases, you can bet that both of them will have an answer to everything.= When the spotlight is shone on third base, the picture is not as finely= granulated as one could wish. However... From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 16:10:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA25339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:10:45 +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 QAA25334 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:10:37 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.121] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 1050lz-0002jT-00; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 05:10:47 +0000 Message-ID: <199901260510340180.01E065F6@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: <199901252320.SAA00393@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199901260131450730.01180B5B@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 05:10:34 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 26/01/99, at 02:54, David Stevenson wrote: >David Burn wrote: > I have no problem in _speaking_ to you but I do believe you >deliberately argue _on BLML_ in a way that is designed to make anyone >who disagrees with you feel inferior. I am genuinely sorry if this is the case. When I join in an argument (which= is seldom), I argue as forcefully as I can, since I have good reason to= think that everyone else is doing likewise, and also good reason to= believe that they can argue at least as well as I can. I think that on= this list at least, I am playing with the grown-ups. >I think it a pity because if you >did not consider these arguments as a contest to be won at any cost then >your input would be very useful. Well, my position is this: if a debate does not lead to a conclusion which= can be expressed at they very least in terms of a recommendation to the= WBF Laws Commission along the lines of: "we have identified a problem,= which will happen when ... and the solution in our opinion is ..." then we= have wasted an awful lot of bandwidth. >If I disagree with you I know that you >will put me down if I disagree on BLML and you will not if I disagree in >person. I find it distressing. I think I have useful input here, and I >am trying to help others: I do not see why I should be subject to >personal attack. If that's how you or anyone else feels, then again I am sorry. I don't want= to attack people - but I do want to attack those notions of how the game= should be played that I believe are harmful. >That does not mean that I am always right - unlike >some here I *know* that I have much to learn where the Laws of the game >are concerned. And that is the foremost notion that I want to attack. No one should have= anything to learn where the Laws of the game are concerned, except what= those Laws are - having learned them, there should be no difficulty= thereafter. It seems to me that on occasion, people on this list and= elsewhere take some kind of perverse pride in being the _only_ ones who= know what the Laws actually mean. This must not be so, and it is this that= we should as our first priority strive to eliminate. > It is my view that L73C serves a useful purpose insofar as it says >that players are required not to take advantage of UI, and no other Law >says that. L16A says that a player may not do specific things, but L73C >covers the gamut. It is my view that there is no point in a Law which says: "in general, a= player must not do something nebulously wrong", for this will lead only to= subjective judgments of the kind that I do not believe are good for the= game (and, as far as I can see, neither does anyone else). Rather, there= is a point in a Law which says: "if you do this wrong thing, then you will= be penalised in this specific way". L73 is in the former category, L16 in= the latter. Je reste ma valise. > You asked about bidding 6NT over 1NT [15-17] with 6 HCP after partner >has announced he has found another ace. A cheat might say to himself >"If I pass 1NT I shall get a bad board. If I bid 3NT I shall get ruled >back by the TD. If I bid 6NT it will probably go off for a bad board >but it just might make for a good board. So I might as well bid 6NT." >He is taking advantage of the UI position to try to get an advantage - >what he is doing is illegal under L73C, but is it under L16A? That, as I said earlier, is the flaw in my argument and the reason why L73C= might turn out to have some relevance. However, I do not believe that it= does, for if the above-mentioned cheat actually reasons in this way, then= to bid 6NT becomes a logical alternative _for him at that time_ (given= that LAs are now defined in the broader sense - an argument of mine that I= still do not know whether you accept or not). Philosophically, the= position is equivalent to the well-known wager: "I am going to bet you that you cannot do something which I am pretty sure= you have actually been doing for most of your life without any difficulty= at all." "Well, what's the bet?" "I bet you that for the next 60 seconds, you will be incapable of not= thinking about bottle-nosed whales." Of course, you can't win that bet - yet for just about every given= 60-second period of your life, you have not been thinking about= bottle-nosed whales. On every bridge hand you have ever played, no one has= actually asked you not to take advantage of something that you know, but= have no basis for knowing. And yet... From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 20:18:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:18:16 +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 UAA25545 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:18:10 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA01160 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:17:01 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 26 Jan 99 09:17 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A 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 Burn wrote: > Herman has correctly pointed out that there are three categories that > make sense: (1) LAs suggested by UI; (2) LAs not suggested by UI; (3) > illogical alternatives (which are ex def not suggested by anything). I'm having difficulty classifying the following (starting from the 1NT, oops another ace scenario IMPS, NV). I hold Txx,AJxx,Qxx,9xx and elect to bid 2H (transfer). My expectation is that I will sometimes end up in 3N and sometimes in 4S* with a 3-3 fit. Obviously I wouldn't consider the bid absent UI but should we adjust. (If your expected net gain is +ve then use Tx,AJxx,Qxx,9xxx) Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 20:18:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:18:24 +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 UAA25551 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:18:17 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA01042 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:16:45 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 26 Jan 99 09:16 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A 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: <36AC7DB6.E493ED7A@freewwweb.com> Roger Pewick wrote: > When in possession of UI and you do not bid in accordance with your > agreements, this is strong evidence that you used UI to make your bid. > If the law does not call for an adjustment in such cases, maybe the law > ought to be changed. > > The danger is that this will cause too many "if it hesitates shoot it" situations. Example: In discussion with several partners I have established that 2-Level penalty doubles (don't play -ve) should be pulled with a void - not a fact that fits readily on a quick CC. However, I know that if pard makes a slow double I haven't a cat in hell's chance of avoiding an adjustment if I do pull. Do you really want to adjust when I pass as well? Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 26 23:07:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:07:14 +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 XAA25876 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:07:07 +1100 Received: from p4as01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.75] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 1057GS-0005za-00; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:06:41 +0000 Message-ID: <008a01be4923$dd6947e0$4b8193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:02:31 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 January 1999 02:02 Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A ------------------------------- x/ -------------------------------- The Laws, as I have said I know not how many times, ought to be unarguable. ------------------------- \x/ -------------------------- +++++ Oh, David! You want to spoil all the fun. [ I am currently wondering how it has come about that, all of a sudden, subjects arise which lead to incredibly protracted debates. A former MD of mine (he is somewhere in Thailand now) used to say that he feared responding to any individual who sent him a letter he had typed himself because the typewriter possessed the individual rather than vice-versa. Perhaps the same syndrome grips us who have keyboards for toys? ] ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 01:16:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 01:16:21 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA28403 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 01:16:13 +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 JAA32779780 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:19:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36ADCD88.7993F8D5@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:13:28 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What a marvelous convention. DOUBLE. PULL*. What is it *? Partner promises to be void in the opponent's trump suit. DOUBLE. PASS*. What is it *? Partner promises to not be void in the opponent's trump suit. But personally, I don't like to miss out on juicy penalty doubles so I would not use the convention. Roger Pewick PS But since you make doubles for takeout, one [but not all] of the things that a slow double suggests is penalty values. Therefore, it is imperative that you shall bid unless you have a suitable penalty double yourself based on partner having the minimum values for their bidding! And I would never tempt fate by bidding NT without adequate values plus 1.8 sure stops in the suit. Tim West-meads wrote: > > In-Reply-To: <36AC7DB6.E493ED7A@freewwweb.com> > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > When in possession of UI and you do not bid in accordance with your > > agreements, this is strong evidence that you used UI to make your bid. > > If the law does not call for an adjustment in such cases, maybe the law > > ought to be changed. > > > > > > The danger is that this will cause too many "if it hesitates shoot it" > situations. Example: In discussion with several partners I have > established that 2-Level penalty doubles (don't play -ve) should be pulled > with a void - not a fact that fits readily on a quick CC. However, I know > that if pard makes a slow double I haven't a cat in hell's chance of > avoiding an adjustment if I do pull. Do you really want to adjust when I > pass as well? > > Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 01:34:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 01:34:54 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA28432 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 01:34:47 +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 JAA33082539 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:37:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36ADD1E4.7BEC7502@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:32:04 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx2.freewwweb.com id JAA33082539 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As L16 etc is presently constructed, I have reason to believe that your prediction is accurate- the law calls upon the TD to shoot it if it hesitates. For that matter, the present law calls for the same thing.=20 Gratten has stated that the intention of the WBFLC has been to write the laws ambiguously enough that the TD must play God=85err must rule in a wa= y that he feels at the moment and then find an interpretation of the law that justifies the ruling. Such a state of affairs imo is reprehensible and defies sensibilities. Getting back to 'shoot it if it hesitates'. For most people, they feel that it must be inherently wrong that every UI situation must result in the OS getting the worst result probable. That is to say, conversely, that some times there must be a call that will not be grounds for adjustment. To this vain, I have seen a lot of rulings where very raunchy calls were ruled that it was the only possible call in spite of the fact that based on AI there was at least one other call that stood head and shoulders above it on the 'bridge merits'. L16 has been hailed by most to be a good law. However, its practitioners do not apply as they are supposed to. From the discussion on the list I can draw only the inescapable conclusion that that the practitioners indeed apply it as intended. Part of the point is that it is applied with boundless energy so that even in the same jurisdiction the results are disparate for similar situations. Much has been made of requirement for full disclosure. The resulting alert system has essentially made EVERY auction chock full of UI. But what difference does it make whether the opponents know the agreements if the score is likely to be subject to adjustment where the adjustment is based upon the official's concept of what agreements mean.. One of the things that I think L16 must address is that it must not coerce a player to break tempo for the purpose of finding the most stupid LA. I contend that finding the stupidest call is not playing Bridge but is in fact playing Laws. I think that not taking advantage of UI can coexist with playing good bridge. Contrary to the apparent consensus, I think that the law's attempt to define 'what does not take advantage of UI' is flawed and severely so.=20 Some have mentioned that if our discussions reveal flaws in the Law that we ought to find the words that will fix it. I in fact feel that L16 is seriously flawed and am currently in the process of constructing a version that I believe will achieve harmony. I suspect that 'my harmony' does not fit with other's version of harmony, but perhaps I will be proven wrong. This project is not my highest priority as there are other issues that need to be resolved before some semblance of a final draft can be produced. I realize that there are great complexities in such an undertaking, many of which I feel that I am not aware. So I suspect that it will take several months to first do my learning. If the list is interested, I will post the result when in a suitable form. Roger Pewick Tim West-meads wrote: >=20 > In-Reply-To: <36AC7DB6.E493ED7A@freewwweb.com> > Roger Pewick wrote: >=20 > > When in possession of UI and you do not bid in accordance with your > > agreements, this is strong evidence that you used UI to make your bid. > > If the law does not call for an adjustment in such cases, maybe the l= aw > > ought to be changed. > > > > >=20 > The danger is that this will cause too many "if it hesitates shoot it" > situations. Example: In discussion with several partners I have > established that 2-Level penalty doubles (don't play -ve) should be pul= led > with a void - not a fact that fits readily on a quick CC. However, I k= now > that if pard makes a slow double I haven't a cat in hell's chance of > avoiding an adjustment if I do pull. Do you really want to adjust when= I > pass as well? >=20 > Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 03:07:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 03:07:39 +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 DAA28745 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 03:07:33 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 105B1R-0000FE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:07:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:36:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >Roger Pewick wrote: >> When in possession of UI and you do not bid in accordance with your >> agreements, this is strong evidence that you used UI to make your bid. >> If the law does not call for an adjustment in such cases, maybe the law >> ought to be changed. >The danger is that this will cause too many "if it hesitates shoot it" >situations. Example: In discussion with several partners I have >established that 2-Level penalty doubles (don't play -ve) should be pulled >with a void - not a fact that fits readily on a quick CC. However, I know >that if pard makes a slow double I haven't a cat in hell's chance of >avoiding an adjustment if I do pull. Do you really want to adjust when I >pass as well? There seems a case for making sure that anything that is likely to affect ethical situations must be on the CC, even if other things are not. You have the advantage of an English CC with plenty of room for oddities, unlike [for example] an ACBL card which is much easier to fill in and use but does not cover strangenesses and/or detail nearly as well. My strongest advice to any English pair writing a new CC: put down Ghestem in full detail *first*, then worry about the rest of the CC. You think I am joking? No, I am completely serious. When I used to play with Grattan as a partner we used to alert doubles of the 1H 2C X variety. Sputnik? Negative? No, co-operative. As for pulling with a void even without such an agreement written down I consider that to be good Bridge. If you make penalty doubles that require partner to pass whatever his hand then either you must expect quite a few of them to make or you will find they never [what *never*? well, nearly never] occur. While I do not like your choice of example, your contention is valid. Roger wrote: >> When in possession of UI and you do not bid in accordance with your >> agreements, this is strong evidence that you used UI to make your bid. >> If the law does not call for an adjustment in such cases, maybe the law >> ought to be changed. Strong evidence is not proof, and I do not think we want a Law that penalises the innocent as well as the guilty. -- 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 Jan 27 03:26:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 03:26:45 +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 DAA28779 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 03:26:36 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA04236 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:23:32 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199901261623.KAA04236@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Simple, Boring Problem To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:23:32 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk All: This is a simple, boring problem. I apologize for even posting it, but I was curious and have no other outlet for intelligent opinion. [I can't even read newsgroups and shoot at rgb.] Here goes: Club game, matchpoints, everybody vulnerable. Your partner is a good player who is having a terrible night. Your opponents are very good players. You had 4 hours of sleep the night before [and you're the sort of person who needs 9 or 10] and have been up all day, and you can't concentrate.... Playing [sub-]standard American, you are South: The bidding: N E S W 1C X 1D 1S 2C 2S 3D P P* 3S ? *Partner hesitates about 5 seconds before passing. But since partner ordinarily bids like a machine gun, _you_ know that he's paused. What does partner's hesitation suggest, if anything? Which bids would you be inclined to disallow as a TD/AC? Are there any calls you would feel ethically barred from making? Your hand [you're stuck with your bidding--blame lack of sleep]: S K H xxx D Kxxxxx C KQx Before the hesitation, I was planning on bidding 4C. I probably should have supported clubs the round before, but I didn't, so I intended to now if the bidding got back to me. After the hesitation, I was desperately trying to work out what the pause suggested, but I was having enough trouble concentrating that this was beyond me. Rather than hesitate myself, I made the 4C bid anyway. That ended the auction, and turned out to be a good score. {It turns out that partner was hesitating because he thought for some inexplicable reason that my 3D bid was forcing, and it took him a moment to decide to pass my 'forcing' bid. We had a double-fit in the minors, everything split, and we cruised home. Opponents either didn't notice the hesitation, or didn't know what it suggested, or figured that they'd show a nice profit from any two guys who bid like us. I would have called the director anyway, but the regular director was with her husband in the hospital and so we were running with an emergency TD, who wasn't likely to be ready for a UI case.} Anyway, thanks for any help you can give, Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 04:24:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 04:24:06 +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 EAA28883 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 04:23:59 +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 RAA13213 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:23:23 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 RAA01949 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:22:24 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990126182357.007acbf0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:23:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Simple, Boring Problem In-Reply-To: <199901261623.KAA04236@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:23 26/01/99 -0600, cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: >All: > > This is a simple, boring problem. I apologize for even posting >it, but I was curious and have no other outlet for intelligent opinion. >[I can't even read newsgroups and shoot at rgb.] Here goes: > > Club game, matchpoints, everybody vulnerable. > Your partner is a good player who is having a terrible night. >Your opponents are very good players. You had 4 hours of sleep the night >before [and you're the sort of person who needs 9 or 10] and have been up >all day, and you can't concentrate.... > Playing [sub-]standard American, you are South: > > The bidding: > N E S W > 1C X 1D 1S > 2C 2S 3D P > P* 3S ? > > *Partner hesitates about 5 seconds before passing. But since >partner ordinarily bids like a machine gun, _you_ know that he's paused. > > What does partner's hesitation suggest, if anything? Values, willingness to try for game. >Which bids would you be inclined to disallow as a TD/AC? Bids suggested by UI over LA, but it is not possible to tell precisely which before seeing South's hand and determining which are LA. >Are there any calls you >would feel ethically barred from making? All bids I would not have chosen in the absence of UI. Player's duty is to forget UI, not even to think to minimize the effect of adjustment which TD could operate later. > > Your hand [you're stuck with your bidding--blame lack of sleep]: >S K H xxx D Kxxxxx C KQx > I would see as LA: double, 3NT, pass and 4C ; the 3 former suggested (over 4C) by UI; especially pass which, due to UI, would become a free forcing pass (if N hesitates over 3D, it's very improbable he will pass 3S) and would be the best mean to know why precisely he did hesitate. (I don't like 3D but it's irrelevant) > Before the hesitation, I was planning on bidding 4C. I probably >should have supported clubs the round before, but I didn't, so I intended >to now if the bidding got back to me. After the hesitation, I was >desperately trying to work out what the pause suggested, but I was having >enough trouble concentrating that this was beyond me. Rather than >hesitate myself, I made the 4C bid anyway. That ended the auction, and >turned out to be a good score. > > {It turns out that partner was hesitating because he thought for >some inexplicable reason that my 3D bid was forcing, and it took him a >moment to decide to pass my 'forcing' bid. We had a double-fit in the >minors, everything split, and we cruised home. Opponents either didn't >notice the hesitation, or didn't know what it suggested, or figured that >they'd show a nice profit from any two guys who bid like us. I would have >called the director anyway, but the regular director was with her husband >in the hospital and so we were running with an emergency TD, who wasn't >likely to be ready for a UI case.} > In AC, I would vote to allow 4C. Interesting case, anyway; I would not be surprised to disagree with others and could even be convinced to change my mind. JP Rocafort > Anyway, thanks for any help you can give, > > Grant Sterling > > > > ________________________________________________________________ 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 Jan 27 04:57:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 04:57:26 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA28965 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 04:57:18 +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 MAA31792 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:57:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id MAA00924 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:57:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:57:08 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901261757.MAA00924@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> L16A2: > >It tells the TD > >to adjust if there has been a violation, but it doesn't define what > >constitutes a violation. > From: "David Burn" > Well, at least I've read it more carefully than that. "When... an > opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could > have been suggested..." (this being a definition of the violation), But the part you have replaced by ellipses is important! The first sentence simply tells the opponents when to summon the TD. Given the rest of the laws, which define what constitutes a violation in at least three other places, I don't think one should read this sentence as creating yet another definition. Obviously you disagree; so it goes. > "the Director shall..." (this being a definition of what the Director > shall do). ...namely, determine whether an infraction of law has resulted in damage. If we cannot even agree on the simple matter of what L16A2 says, indeed there must be a problem with the text. Personally, up 'til now I've rather liked the UI laws structured the way they are. L16A deals with the ordinary instances, where there are logical alternatives and a player picks one that may be suggested over others. L73C deals with rare, pathological cases that escape L16A for some reason. I suppose one could try to rewrite 16A so tightly that nothing escapes its net, but I wouldn't care to be the person assigned to draft the text. Oh, well. At least we more or less agree on which actions require adjustments, even if we disagree on the specific laws to apply. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 05:06:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 05:06:44 +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 FAA28990 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 05:06:21 +1100 Received: from p60s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.97] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 105Crv-0007BW-00; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:05:43 +0000 Message-ID: <002c01be4956$05ff8700$618a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , Cc: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A and all that Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:59:42 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: msd@mindspring.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 January 1999 04:57 Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A -------------------- \x/ ------------------------- I have always thought that what "we" ought to be doing is bombarding Ton and Grattan with revised versions of the Laws that cause problems. That ought not to be so hard to do - if we are af the firm opinion that "the Law says X", we ought to be able to produce a redraft of the Law ++++ Yes. But the first need is to obtain worldwide consensus on what should be the effect of the law. We are far from any such goal. As to the difference between the David approach and the David approach I truly believe that players at large would be content with either if they could rely on its being applied consistently. I think players want above all to know what ground they stand on. I am absolutely overjoyed in consequence to hear the President of the WBF urging the creation of a single universal jurisprudence as a basis for the decisions of appeals committees. That said, the task is daunting if you fully appreciate the depth of certain differences and the reluctance of some to bend to the wind of progress. I do think the tightness of world proximities, as represented by the internet, will demand the change, however, sooner rather than later.++++ ----------------- \x/ ---------------------- >Grattan says Kaplan deliberately crafted the Laws with ambiguity in order >to give himself the kind of flexibility such ambiguity can provide. He knew >and worked with the man, and I certainly did not, so I would not wish to >challenge him on this point. But I will say that this approach does not >comport with the careful and precise language he used when writing about >the Laws, IMO. Edgar was a Grand Master of language, and Grattan is at least a Premier Life Master, which is part of the problem. When it comes to covering the bases, you can bet that both of them will have an answer to everything. When the spotlight is shone on third base, the picture is not as finely granulated as one could wish. However... ++++ Edgar had the advocate's gift of being positive and convincing whichever way he was arguing a case. He also had a very fine mind. One of the great peaks of my life has been in the private debating with Edgar about what the law should be, how the laws should be construed; and I always considered it a great victory if I moulded some small aspect of the matter. To be fair you have to allow that it was his business to be "careful and precise" and he always made sure he possessed the instruments of law with which to accomplish the result he desired. The difficulty now is that he has left us to inherit the vast seas of his concepts, and we poor puny sailors are looking for the safety of secure landlocked harbo(u)rs, somewhat dismayed when we discover ambiguities and stratagems in his courses. But we have to produce answers and my purpose currently would be to seek what agreements are possible between one David and another, between one zone and another, between players and directors and legislators; it should be a time for reconciliation of differences and not for any intransigence that will not serve the game. ++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 05:15:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 05:15:51 +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 FAA29019 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 05:15:34 +1100 Received: from Panther3581.ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Panther3581.eiu.edu [139.67.29.179]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA29478 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:12:25 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990126121355.0079baf0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:13:55 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199901260431340140.01BCAFDA@mail.btinternet.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990125221912.006f9194@pop.mindspring.com> <199901252320.SAA00393@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199901252320.SAA00393@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990125221912.006f9194@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:31 AM 1/26/1999 +0000, you wrote: >On 25/01/99, at 22:19, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>Edgar adopted a "belt and braces" approach to the Laws, hence his >>(in)famous comment to the effect that "whenever I want to give a ruling I >>believe to be right, I can always find a Law under which to do it." No >>doubt he could. I have equally no doubt that this is not what should have >>happened. The Laws, as I have said I know not how many times, ought to be >>unarguable. > I disagree, as I have said only a few times. :) There are too many ways in which it is possible to argue about the laws, and to eliminate all those arguments would require a re-writing of the lawbook so radical that I don't know what bridge would be like under those new rules. Consider just the one example where a player, having received UI that partner has 21 HCP instead of 17, jumps to 6NT with a 6 count. We have argued about whether there is _any_ law that prohibits making an 'illogical' bid when having received UI, about _which_ law it is that prohibits it, about what circumstances under which such action is or is not acceptable, and about whether this particular case would be legal or not. {And, FWIW, you and I appear to disagree on this last point. I would happily allow him his result if 6NT happens to make on a miraculous lie of the cards, since I cannot see any way in which his bid was suggested by the UI, and I cannot roll back a bid which does not violate any law. You apparently think we can roll back the contract to 1NT, unless I have misunderstood you.} How could we eliminate such judgements? It seems to me that most legal controversies are at this last level, the application of law to a specific case, and I do not think the laws can be re-written to remove individual judgement from such decisions. [Unless we really do write the law as "whenever any member of a partnership gives UI in any way, the board will be scored as -4000/+4000." or something like that.] >That's the trouble. The state of things is so bad that DWS (our ablest TD in terms of "knowing the Laws" by several miles) and I (who must have chaired more appeals committees in this country by now than anyone except Grattan) still do not agree (as you will have seen) on various aspects of what the Laws actually say. This has nothing very much to do with the fact that he is a TD while I am a player - his abilities as a player are at least the equal of mine. It is simply a comment on the fact that two equally capable people can violently disagree on what the Laws actually mean. This, as I have said before, simply must not be. > I agree that we should work to clarify cases where the laws themselves are ambiguous. I do not think we need to eliminate differences in judgement. Bridge is certainly not the only place where officials are required and expected to use their judgement. >>But DWS doesn't direct any game I play in, >>and I would feel much better about those games if the discretion of TD's >>could be sharply limited by clear and unambiguous legal standards. > I agree that the laws ought to limit the discretion of TD's. But I think that as long as you have bad TD's, no set of laws, no matter how unambiguous, will do much good. If you have good TD's, then allowing discretion is no harm. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 06:46:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 06:46:43 +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 GAA29185 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 06:46:35 +1100 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA27349 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:46:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:46:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901261946.OAA21941@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199901260238.SAA00102@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > Rich Colker continually quotes Edgar Kaplan as the authority on > various issues, so it's surprising that he departs (as I think he > does) from EK's interpretation of "seriously consider," which is > best presented by his words in *The Bridge World*, November 1995: > "S-KQ10763 H-4 D-K7 C-QJ82 LHO opens 4H, non-vulnerable vs > vulnerable. Partner takes 25 seconds to pass; after RHO passes, you > balance with 4S, +650. > "A committee member, like most bridge players, believes that he > would come up with the winning action, which, invariably, is the > one made at the table (otherwise the case would never have come to > committee). So, the verdict is likely to be that "all good players" > would reopen--the result stands. > "What the Commission tried to do with its new guideline was to > redirect the committee's attention: away from the successful > action, to the losing alternative. Would it have been obviously > foolish to pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass > would be right quite often. Thus the score should be adjusted to > that for four hearts passed out. Kaplan had a very similar example (or maybe it was the same one) in his own article, and made the opposite point. Pass world be right quite often because 4Sx could go for 800, or go down one when 4H wasn't making. But it is clear to a good player than 4S will be right more often than not, and this is sufficient for him to make the bid. (On another thread: If you do pass this hand, that is clearly an abnormal bid. Suppose that you play penalty doubles, out that parter was considering a penalty double but decided against it because of his short spades and a fear you would pull. 4H goes down two undoubled, and 4S would have been down one. Shound there be an adjustment? I would say no, because the bid was not "demonstrably" suggested by the UI.) -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 07:20:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:20:15 +1100 Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA29274 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:20:02 +1100 Received: from default ([195.89.178.89]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 4533900 ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:21:04 -0000 Message-ID: <001001be4968$fd53b320$59b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:56:54 -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 magda.thain@cookbury.purplenet.co.uk My mother, who is very wise, says that Mr Franklin directed in every part of the world and he said that a bid that was 75% had no logical alternative. My mother cannot understand what could have changed about a thing like that. My father, who was wise enough to marry my mother, says nothing. -----Original Message----- From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 January 1999 00:22 Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A My guess is that it probably is somewhere around 15-20%. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 07:24:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:24:45 +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 HAA29297 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:24:37 +1100 Received: from default (ptp75.ac.net [205.138.54.177]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA02475 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:24:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901262024.PAA02475@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:20:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199901260238.SAA00102@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:35 PM 1/25/99 -0800, you wrote: >> >> The current ACBL definition of a LA is: >> >> "A call that some number of the player's peers would seriously >consider." >> >> Of course, that leaves us with the question as to what 'seriously >consider' >> means. Rich Colker's view is that 'seriously consider' means >(and I am >> quoting from the soon to be released Chicago casebook - Case >Three): >> >> " a call cannot be seriously considered unless it is one which >the player >> would actually make some of the time - or under some conditions >(ie given >> the right vulnerability, opponents, state of the match, mood, >etc). >> >> .... if a call ends up being one that every player would think >about but >> almost no one would actually make, then it hasn't been seriously >> considered..." >> >> Our Laws Commission has declined to change the phrase 'seriously >consider' >> to 'choose to make' >> >> So there we are. >> >Rich Colker continually quotes Edgar Kaplan as the authority on >various issues, so it's surprising that he departs (as I think he >does) from EK's interpretation of "seriously consider," which is >best presented by his words in *The Bridge World*, November 1995: > Just because Rich happens to agree with Edgar frequently (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), doesn't mean that Edgar's way is the only way, to him. What I quoted above is correct. Rich has been lobbying the Laws Commission for several other changes he would like to see for a darn long time. This is just one of them. The Laws Commission has the final authority, and Rich will continue his crudade, I'm sure. Linda >"S-KQ10763 H-4 D-K7 C-QJ82 LHO opens 4H, non-vulnerable vs >vulnerable. Partner takes 25 seconds to pass; after RHO passes, you >balance with 4S, +650. > >"A committee member, like most bridge players, believes that he >would come up with the winning action, which, invariably, is the >one made at the table (otherwise the case would never have come to >committee). So, the verdict is likely to be that "all good players" >would reopen--the result stands. > >"What the Commission tried to do with its new guideline was to >redirect the committee's attention: away from the successful >action, to the losing alternative. Would it have been obviously >foolish to pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass >would be right quite often. Thus the score should be adjusted to >that for four hearts passed out. > >"If you are convinced that you would always bid four spades, huddle >or no huddle, do not blame the committee for robbing you--blame >partner. Let him act in tempo next time." > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > ----------- Used to be Linda Weinstein. Brian and I tied the knot on 12/25/98 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 08:17:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:17:38 +1100 Received: from oznet14.ozemail.com.au (oznet14.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.120]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA29391 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:17:34 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn32p02.ozemail.com.au [203.108.125.2]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA10495 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:17:30 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:17:30 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199901262117.IAA10495@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk from DWS after snipping: > You asked about bidding 6NT over 1NT [15-17] with 6 HCP after partner >has announced he has found another ace. A cheat might say to himself >"If I pass 1NT I shall get a bad board. If I bid 3NT I shall get ruled >back by the TD. If I bid 6NT it will probably go off for a bad board >but it just might make for a good board. So I might as well bid 6NT." >He is taking advantage of the UI position to try to get an advantage - >what he is doing is illegal under L73C, but is it under L16A? 99 times out of 100, the opponents are going to get a good board, no TD called, no BLML discussion. On the 100th time, the opponents will be aggrieved, TD called and rules that "under the circumstances, 6NT was indeed a logical alternative, suggested by the UI, so I adjust". If the punter knew beforehand that this is the likely fate of his action, wouldn't 6NT be illogical?, almost irrational? Tony > > I have failed to arrange a game at the YC on Wednesday night: are you >interested? > sorry, interested but can't get there before Friday. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 09:00:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:00:19 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f214.hotmail.com [207.82.251.105]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA29605 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:00:13 +1100 Received: (qmail 7830 invoked by uid 0); 26 Jan 1999 21:59:39 -0000 Message-ID: <19990126215939.7829.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.128.125 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:59:38 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.128.125] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:59:38 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One thing that I wonder about - as far as I can understand the laws, all this work about finding LA's isn't really relevant (except for the ilLA becoming logical after the UI bit). Yes, we have to work out all the LA's. But the player need not get the stupidest call to not get an agreement - e need only choose one not "demonstrably suggested" over another by the UI. As far as I am concerned, there should not ever be a situation where A is "demonstrably suggested" over B, and B is "demonstrably suggested" over A, by the UI (where A and B are either calls or groups of calls). I don't care how many LA's there are. There should be at most one LA or one class of LA's demonstrably suggested over other LA's by the UI - and those are to be disallowed. The rest, lucky, unlucky or downright horrible, are fair game. The AC should be expected to, in their writeup, show the logic that they used to demonstrate what the LA's suggested by the UI were. I guess what I'm saying is that I think this argument is focussing on the wrong end of the discussion, and also that I thought the reason for the wording change in the 1997 Laws was to avoid the "A was suggested over B if A was right, and B was suggested over A if B was right" mentality that AC's (especially in the ACBL) were rumoured to have. I also worry about the inherent penalty that pickup partners have in UI situations; at least regular partnerships have system notes that can show that the supposed "LA" was neither possible nor logical in their system, sometimes. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 11:51:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:51:01 +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 LAA00255 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:50:48 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 105JBo-0001du-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:50:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:16:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <36ADCD88.7993F8D5@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: <36ADCD88.7993F8D5@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: >What a marvelous convention. DOUBLE. PULL*. What is it *? Partner >promises to be void in the opponent's trump suit. DOUBLE. PASS*. What >is it *? Partner promises to not be void in the opponent's trump suit. > >But personally, I don't like to miss out on juicy penalty doubles so I >would not use the convention. If you allow partner to pull on unsuitable hands then you will double opponents more frequently - so while this method may miss the juiciest penalty doubles of all, you are missing a good few others. -- 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 Jan 27 12:53:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:53:37 +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 MAA00338 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:53:30 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka8fu.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.33.254]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA29567 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:53:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990126205315.006fb130@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:53:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:17 AM 1/26/99 GMT0, Tim wrote: > >I'm having difficulty classifying the following (starting from the 1NT, >oops another ace scenario IMPS, NV). I hold Txx,AJxx,Qxx,9xx and elect to >bid 2H (transfer). My expectation is that I will sometimes end up in 3N >and sometimes in 4S* with a 3-3 fit. Obviously I wouldn't consider the >bid absent UI but should we adjust. > Do you have a LA, i.e., a bid which is logical absent the UI? Pass, of course. Does the UI make bidding _anything at all_ more attractive, compared to pass? Yes, as your comment clearly demonstrates. You hope to turn a likely disaster into a prospective decent result. Then by my reading of L16 and, more authoritatively, by Grattan's interpretation, you are forbidden by L16 from making any such call, and any gain from such an action must be negated by adjustment. Not that Pass necessarily will work out all that badly. It is certainly possible that Pass will net you a top when the field finds an unlucky lie in their game contracts. That top you get to keep, however, because Pass is obviously not suggested by the UI. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 13:14:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:14:51 +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 NAA00378 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:14:44 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka8fu.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.33.254]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA17309 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:14:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990126211431.006f3984@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:14:31 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199901261946.OAA21941@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <199901260238.SAA00102@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:46 PM 1/26/99 -0500, Marv wrote: >Kaplan had a very similar example (or maybe it was the same one) in his >own article, and made the opposite point. Pass world be right quite >often because 4Sx could go for 800, or go down one when 4H wasn't >making. But it is clear to a good player than 4S will be right more >often than not, and this is sufficient for him to make the bid. > If we are talking about the same article (one in the Appeals Committee series), you are quite right. I too was reminded of his comments in this context by the above example. However, that example and the accompanying comments pre-dated the ACBL adoption of the present standard for a LA. As I understood his point, it was that since a clear majority (i.e., more than 75%) of good players would bid despite the risks, Pass was not a LA. Under the present criterion, it seems quite a bit less clear. Even if we agree that most strong players would bid in this situation, they would generally only do so only after due consideration of the risks, and probably a few would pass. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 13:55:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:55:08 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-punt-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA00426 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:54:58 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 105L7z-00059r-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 02:54:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:58:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199901262117.IAA10495@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199901262117.IAA10495@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >from DWS after snipping: > > >> You asked about bidding 6NT over 1NT [15-17] with 6 HCP after partner >>has announced he has found another ace. A cheat might say to himself >>"If I pass 1NT I shall get a bad board. If I bid 3NT I shall get ruled >>back by the TD. If I bid 6NT it will probably go off for a bad board >>but it just might make for a good board. So I might as well bid 6NT." >>He is taking advantage of the UI position to try to get an advantage - >>what he is doing is illegal under L73C, but is it under L16A? > >99 times out of 100, the opponents are going to get a good board, no TD >called, no BLML discussion. On the 100th time, the opponents will be >aggrieved, TD called and rules that "under the circumstances, 6NT was indeed >a logical alternative, suggested by the UI, so I adjust". If the punter >knew beforehand that this is the likely fate of his action, wouldn't 6NT be >illogical?, almost irrational? If a player *knows* that a bid he makes *will* be ruled back, no, I don't suppose he will make it. But this applies to any bid that uses UI, and is hardly relevant. -- 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 Jan 27 13:55:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:55:06 +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 NAA00428 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:54:59 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 105L7z-0004wF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 02:54:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 01:06:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Simple, Boring Problem References: <199901261623.KAA04236@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.5.32.19990126182357.007acbf0@phedre.meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990126182357.007acbf0@phedre.meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >All bids I would not have chosen in the absence of UI. Player's duty is to >forget UI, not even to think to minimize the effect of adjustment which TD >could operate later. No, this is not correct. You must play to the Laws of the game, and that means avoiding making calls or plays that take advantage of UI - L73C says so. Bidding what you would have without the UI is not good enough. -- 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 Jan 27 13:55:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:55:05 +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 NAA00427 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:54:59 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 105L7z-0003y0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 02:54:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 01:00:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <19990126215939.7829.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19990126215939.7829.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >I guess what I'm saying is that I think this argument is focussing on >the wrong end of the discussion, and also that I thought the reason for >the wording change in the 1997 Laws was to avoid the "A was suggested >over B if A was right, and B was suggested over A if B was right" >mentality that AC's (especially in the ACBL) were rumoured to have. We are discussing a different problem: what is wrong with that? A is suggested over B *and* B is suggested over A was not the case under the 1985 Laws and is not the case under the 1997 Laws, despite the change in the wording. -- 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 Jan 27 16:41:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA00755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:41:03 +1100 Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA00750 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:40:58 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn27p27.ozemail.com.au [203.108.123.219]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA16648 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:40:53 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:40:53 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199901270540.QAA16648@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Defective Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's one for Herman - from the Australian National Open Teams (Daily Bulletin #8. Dealer West, All Vul 9 7 5 2 10 8 J 10 9 2 A 9 3 A Q 4 3 K J 8 K 9 6 3 J 7 4 Q 3 A K 8 7 6 Q J 6 5 2 10 6 A Q 5 2 5 4 K 10 8 7 4 The Bidding: West North East South 1NT pass 3NT all pass The Play: 1. Lead DJ, won by DQ 2. D3 to DK 3. DA from dummy. Declarer discarding H3 (Declarer turns this trick the wrong way as if losing the trick) 4. D7 from dummy won by North, declarer discarding H6 5. H10 lead from North, won by South's HA 6. Club switch, declarer played CQ, won by North with CA 7. Heart lead from North won by declarer's HK, at which point declarer claimed as follows: "Crossing to K,J of spades", "I then looked at my tricks on the table and saw I only had three tricks (before I played the spades). I said I was throwing a club on the diamond and taking A,Q of spades, conceding a club for one off. Dummy pointed out I had a trick pointed the wrong way earlier in play and I had made the contract." The remaining cards were: 9 7 5 2 -- -- 9 3 A Q x x K J 8 -- J -- 8 J x x 6 Q x -- K x x Tournament Director's Report and Decision: Alleged defective claim and concession. Unable to determine the actual facts so ruled under L70D and L85B, 3NT -1. Appellants Claim: The point of the appeal is that I was clearly claiming 4 spades and 1 diamond and mistakenly said one off because of the third trick pointing the wrong way. The AC decision: The committee was no more able to determine the facts than was the director. The claim seemed 'clouded'. Dummy, the committee felt, interfered possibly before the claim was complete. However, we will never be sure whether or not declarer mentioned the club pitch on the diamond prior to the 'one off' statement, but we do believe it was her intention to do so. The claim seemed on the face of it, defective. Equity restored by assigning average score of +600 and - 100 - +250 EW. Any comments? Tony From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 17:54:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA00830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:54:49 +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 RAA00825 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:54:41 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-7.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.7]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA33374334 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 01:57:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36AEB78D.52F74E13@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:51:57 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: Simple, Boring Problem References: <199901261623.KAA04236@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The huddle suggests that partner was considering further action because you have [a] suggested a good hand [b] suggested that diamonds would be a better place to play than clubs or NT. Those further actions can include, not necessarily in a particular order : A] 4C- I really hate diamonds and strongly prefer clubs and do not see much prospect in NT [looking at your hand this is not it] B] 3H- I am interested in 3N and guess what I am worried about [spades and diamonds] C] 3S- - I am interested in 3N and guess what I am worried about [hearts and diamonds] D] 3N- but I am worried about cashing all those diamonds and or can I cash 9 tricks without losing the lead E] raising diamonds- an 11 trick game does not seem too likely on the auction As an opponent, once I found out that your hand is what it was, I would not seek adjustment if you had bid PASS or 4C. If damaged, I would want an adjustment for any other call. Roger Pewick cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > All: > > This is a simple, boring problem. I apologize for even posting > it, but I was curious and have no other outlet for intelligent opinion. > [I can't even read newsgroups and shoot at rgb.] Here goes: > > Club game, matchpoints, everybody vulnerable. > Your partner is a good player who is having a terrible night. > Your opponents are very good players. You had 4 hours of sleep the night > before [and you're the sort of person who needs 9 or 10] and have been up > all day, and you can't concentrate.... > Playing [sub-]standard American, you are South: > > The bidding: > N E S W > 1C X 1D 1S > 2C 2S 3D P > P* 3S ? > > *Partner hesitates about 5 seconds before passing. But since > partner ordinarily bids like a machine gun, _you_ know that he's paused. > > What does partner's hesitation suggest, if anything? Which bids > would you be inclined to disallow as a TD/AC? Are there any calls you > would feel ethically barred from making? > > Your hand [you're stuck with your bidding--blame lack of sleep]: > S K H xxx D Kxxxxx C KQx > > Before the hesitation, I was planning on bidding 4C. I probably > should have supported clubs the round before, but I didn't, so I intended > to now if the bidding got back to me. After the hesitation, I was > desperately trying to work out what the pause suggested, but I was having > enough trouble concentrating that this was beyond me. Rather than > hesitate myself, I made the 4C bid anyway. That ended the auction, and > turned out to be a good score. > > {It turns out that partner was hesitating because he thought for > some inexplicable reason that my 3D bid was forcing, and it took him a > moment to decide to pass my 'forcing' bid. We had a double-fit in the > minors, everything split, and we cruised home. Opponents either didn't > notice the hesitation, or didn't know what it suggested, or figured that > they'd show a nice profit from any two guys who bid like us. I would have > called the director anyway, but the regular director was with her husband > in the hospital and so we were running with an emergency TD, who wasn't > likely to be ready for a UI case.} > > Anyway, thanks for any help you can give, > > Grant Sterling > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 18:44:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA00911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:44:47 +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 SAA00906 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:44:41 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-7.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.7]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA33908166 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 02:47:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36AEC345.64FFA39B@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 01:41:58 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Defective Claim References: <199901270540.QAA16648@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Prior to the claim, declarer had won the DAKQ and the HK. He claimed, in order, SK, SJ, diamond, SA, SQ. This totals 9 tricks so the line of play is not a defective point. What is defective is the statement of down 1. The contract was for 9 tricks and 9 tricks were taken. The adjudicated score is 3N making, L71A. I would very much look forward to perusing the Australian laws. I will find the section particularly interesting that covers the averaging of scores for adjudicating a contested claim. Roger Pewick Tony Musgrove wrote: > > Here's one for Herman - from the Australian National Open Teams (Daily > Bulletin #8. > > Dealer West, All Vul > 9 7 5 2 > 10 8 > J 10 9 2 > A 9 3 > > A Q 4 3 K J 8 > K 9 6 3 J 7 4 > Q 3 A K 8 7 6 > Q J 6 5 2 > > 10 6 > A Q 5 2 > 5 4 > K 10 8 7 4 > > The Bidding: > West North East South > 1NT pass 3NT all pass > > The Play: > 1. Lead DJ, won by DQ > 2. D3 to DK > 3. DA from dummy. Declarer discarding H3 (Declarer turns this trick > the wrong way as if losing the trick) > 4. D7 from dummy won by North, declarer discarding H6 > 5. H10 lead from North, won by South's HA > 6. Club switch, declarer played CQ, won by North with CA > 7. Heart lead from North won by declarer's HK, at which point declarer > claimed as follows: > > "Crossing to K,J of spades", "I then looked at my tricks on the table and > saw I only had three tricks (before I played the spades). I said I was > throwing a club on the diamond and taking A,Q of spades, conceding a club > for one off. Dummy pointed out I had a trick pointed the wrong way earlier > in play and I had made the contract." > > The remaining cards were: > > 9 7 5 2 > -- > -- > 9 3 > A Q x x K J 8 > -- J > -- 8 > J x x > 6 > Q x > -- > K x x > > Tournament Director's Report and Decision: > Alleged defective claim and concession. Unable to determine the > actual facts so ruled under L70D and L85B, 3NT -1. > > Appellants Claim: > The point of the appeal is that I was clearly claiming 4 spades and > 1 diamond and mistakenly said one off because of the third trick pointing > the wrong way. > > The AC decision: > The committee was no more able to determine the facts than was the > director. The claim seemed 'clouded'. Dummy, the committee felt, > interfered possibly before the claim was complete. However, we will never > be sure whether or not declarer mentioned the club pitch on the diamond > prior to the 'one off' statement, but we do believe it was her intention to > do so. > The claim seemed on the face of it, defective. Equity restored by assigning > average score of +600 and - 100 - +250 EW. > > Any comments? > > Tony From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 19:38:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:38:01 +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 TAA00958 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:37:55 +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 IAA29436 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:37:19 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 IAA29912 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:36:20 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990127093750.007acae0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:37:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Simple, Boring Problem In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990126182357.007acbf0@phedre.meteo.fr> <199901261623.KAA04236@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.5.32.19990126182357.007acbf0@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:06 27/01/99 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >>All bids I would not have chosen in the absence of UI. Player's duty is to >>forget UI, not even to think to minimize the effect of adjustment which TD >>could operate later. > > No, this is not correct. You must play to the Laws of the game, and >that means avoiding making calls or plays that take advantage of UI - >L73C says so. Bidding what you would have without the UI is not good >enough. > I answered the question: "are there any calls you would feel ethically barred from making?". I think this point (ethics) is only adressed by L73C which I read as "not to take account of UI" and furthermore not to anticipate on possible unpleasant consequences. I don't understand how it is possible to take advantage of something we don't even consider. I agree an ethical attitude could however logically induce a score adjustment. Isn't one's fair conscience more important than anything else? JP Rocafort >-- >David Stevenson > ________________________________________________________________ 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 Jan 27 21:02:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:02:27 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA01089 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:02:11 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-156.uunet.be [194.7.14.156]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA03656 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:02:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36AECAB4.1841143F@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:13:40 +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: L73C vs L16A References: <199901262117.IAA10495@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > You asked about bidding 6NT over 1NT [15-17] with 6 HCP after partner > >has announced he has found another ace. A cheat might say to himself > >"If I pass 1NT I shall get a bad board. If I bid 3NT I shall get ruled > >back by the TD. If I bid 6NT it will probably go off for a bad board > >but it just might make for a good board. So I might as well bid 6NT." > >He is taking advantage of the UI position to try to get an advantage - > >what he is doing is illegal under L73C, but is it under L16A? > > 99 times out of 100, the opponents are going to get a good board, no TD > called, no BLML discussion. On the 100th time, the opponents will be > aggrieved, TD called and rules that "under the circumstances, 6NT was indeed > a logical alternative, suggested by the UI, so I adjust". If the punter > knew beforehand that this is the likely fate of his action, wouldn't 6NT be > illogical?, almost irrational? > Don't start a circle going, Tony ! It's rational, then it's going to be ruled against, so it will always be a bad result, so it's irrational, so it will not be ruled against, so ... That leads us nowhere ! (or everywhere, if you prefer) The conclusion is, that it is rational if player thinks he can get a good result from it (even if only once in a hundred). The next conclusion is that almost every bid is rational, and players who make irrational bids, I rule against under L74B1 and L74C6. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 21:02:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:02:32 +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 VAA01090 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:02:22 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-156.uunet.be [194.7.14.156]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA03745 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:02:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36AEDCE5.7FBA75A0@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:31:17 +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: Defective Claim References: <199901270540.QAA16648@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: > > Here's one for Herman - from the Australian National Open Teams (Daily > Bulletin #8. > I cannot pass, can I ? > Dealer West, All Vul > 9 7 5 2 > 10 8 > J 10 9 2 > A 9 3 > > A Q 4 3 K J 8 > K 9 6 3 J 7 4 > Q 3 A K 8 7 6 > Q J 6 5 2 > > 10 6 > A Q 5 2 > 5 4 > K 10 8 7 4 > > The Bidding: > West North East South > 1NT pass 3NT all pass > > The Play: > 1. Lead DJ, won by DQ > 2. D3 to DK > 3. DA from dummy. Declarer discarding H3 (Declarer turns this trick > the wrong way as if losing the trick) > 4. D7 from dummy won by North, declarer discarding H6 > 5. H10 lead from North, won by South's HA > 6. Club switch, declarer played CQ, won by North with CA > 7. Heart lead from North won by declarer's HK, at which point declarer > claimed as follows: > > "Crossing to K,J of spades", "I then looked at my tricks on the table and > saw I only had three tricks (before I played the spades). I said I was > throwing a club on the diamond and taking A,Q of spades, conceding a club > for one off. Dummy pointed out I had a trick pointed the wrong way earlier > in play and I had made the contract." > > The remaining cards were: > > 9 7 5 2 > -- > -- > 9 3 > A Q x x K J 8 > -- J > -- 8 > J x x > 6 > Q x > -- > K x x > > Tournament Director's Report and Decision: > Alleged defective claim and concession. Unable to determine the > actual facts so ruled under L70D and L85B, 3NT -1. > > Appellants Claim: > The point of the appeal is that I was clearly claiming 4 spades and > 1 diamond and mistakenly said one off because of the third trick pointing > the wrong way. > > The AC decision: > The committee was no more able to determine the facts than was the > director. The claim seemed 'clouded'. Dummy, the committee felt, > interfered possibly before the claim was complete. However, we will never > be sure whether or not declarer mentioned the club pitch on the diamond > prior to the 'one off' statement, but we do believe it was her intention to > do so. > The claim seemed on the face of it, defective. Equity restored by assigning > average score of +600 and - 100 - +250 EW. > > Any comments? > > Tony There seem to be two problems here : - the determination of the facts, as done by the TD and AC - the ruling itself As to the first, I don't see what we can do about it; As to the second, I don't see what the problem is. I would believe a player who claimed for one down, when it is clear he has one trick put erroneously, to be claiming for the number of tricks correspondent to that statement (in this case 9 tricks). If this declarer claims 9 tricks, I don't see how you cannot award them that number. There is no evidence he does not know the diamond is high, and there is no evidence to suggest he cannot make 4 spade tricks. So barring anything else, I would award 9 tricks. But of course the AC may have found other evidence. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 22:15:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:15:51 +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 WAA01216 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:15:45 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA13497 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:14:52 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 27 Jan 99 11:14 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990126205315.006fb130@pop.mindspring.com> "Michael S. Dennis" > At 09:17 AM 1/26/99 GMT0, Tim wrote: > > > >I'm having difficulty classifying the following (starting from the > 1NT, >oops another ace scenario IMPS, NV). I hold Txx,AJxx,Qxx,9xx and > elect to >bid 2H (transfer). My expectation is that I will sometimes > end up in 3N >and sometimes in 4S* with a 3-3 fit. Obviously I > wouldn't consider the >bid absent UI but should we adjust. > > > Do you have a LA, i.e., a bid which is logical absent the UI? Pass, of > course. Does the UI make bidding _anything at all_ more attractive, > compared to pass? Yes, as your comment clearly demonstrates. You hope to > turn a likely disaster into a prospective decent result. What I was trying to say was that I expected to turn a probable 6 imp loss into a flat board or a 12+ imp loss with approximately equal likelihood. I wouldn't be unhappy if this were seen as "taking advantage" of UI but I didn't feel the answer was clear-cut. Granted the UI gives me a chance to adopt a "high variance" strategy, but whether a high-variance strategy is right is generally based on AI (state of match, opinion of opponents, etc). In other words the UI itself neither suggests, nor contraindicates, the 2H bid. I would never allow the 2H bid at pairs since then you are turning a probable bottom into an average or a huge bottom. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 27 22:43:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:43:46 +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 WAA01331 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:43:39 +1100 Received: from hlyxzurz (dialup-028.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.220]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA31018 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:43:26 GMT Message-ID: <000201be49ea$d44ddc80$dc307dc2@hlyxzurz> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:43:40 -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 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 00:15:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:15:27 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA03853 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:15:21 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA26350 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:13:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990127081547.006f7064@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:15:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Defective Claim In-Reply-To: <199901270540.QAA16648@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:40 PM 1/27/99 +1100, Tony wrote: >Dealer West, All Vul > 9 7 5 2 > 10 8 > J 10 9 2 > A 9 3 > > A Q 4 3 K J 8 > K 9 6 3 J 7 4 > Q 3 A K 8 7 6 > Q J 6 5 2 > > 10 6 > A Q 5 2 > 5 4 > K 10 8 7 4 > >The Bidding: > West North East South > 1NT pass 3NT all pass > >The Play: >1. Lead DJ, won by DQ >2. D3 to DK >3. DA from dummy. Declarer discarding H3 (Declarer turns this trick >the wrong way as if losing the trick) >4. D7 from dummy won by North, declarer discarding H6 >5. H10 lead from North, won by South's HA >6. Club switch, declarer played CQ, won by North with CA >7. Heart lead from North won by declarer's HK, at which point declarer >claimed as follows: > >"Crossing to K,J of spades", "I then looked at my tricks on the table and >saw I only had three tricks (before I played the spades). I said I was >throwing a club on the diamond and taking A,Q of spades, conceding a club >for one off. Dummy pointed out I had a trick pointed the wrong way earlier >in play and I had made the contract." > >The remaining cards were: > > 9 7 5 2 > -- > -- > 9 3 > A Q x x K J 8 > -- J > -- 8 > J x x > 6 > Q x > -- > K x x > > >Tournament Director's Report and Decision: > Alleged defective claim and concession. Unable to determine the >actual facts so ruled under L70D and L85B, 3NT -1. > >Appellants Claim: > The point of the appeal is that I was clearly claiming 4 spades and >1 diamond and mistakenly said one off because of the third trick pointing >the wrong way. > >The AC decision: > The committee was no more able to determine the facts than was the >director. The claim seemed 'clouded'. Dummy, the committee felt, >interfered possibly before the claim was complete. However, we will never >be sure whether or not declarer mentioned the club pitch on the diamond >prior to the 'one off' statement, but we do believe it was her intention to >do so. >The claim seemed on the face of it, defective. Equity restored by assigning >average score of +600 and - 100 - +250 EW. > > >Any comments? There's an uncertainty about the facts here. Claimer: "I said I was throwing a club on the diamond and taking A,Q of spades, conceding a club for one off." AC: "We will never be sure whether or not declarer mentioned the club pitch on the diamond prior to the 'one off' statement." That said, however, the fact of the misturned trick seems to be undisputed, and would probably be enough to convince me that declarer's claim was proper other than his miscounting of the tricks already taken. If declarer did indeed say "conceding a club for one off", he obviously wasn't visualizing a two-card ending in which he had CJx left. -600/+600. 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 Jan 28 03:30:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 03:30:45 +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 DAA04641 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 03:30:36 +1100 Received: from hlyxzurz (dialup-023.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.215]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA01453 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:30:30 GMT Message-ID: <004b01be4a12$f3899760$d7307dc2@hlyxzurz> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:31:47 -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 Sorry for the blank message earlier! Are we any nearer a consensus? Some of us are allowing OS a chance at lucky break e.g. a shot in the dark 6NT, while others are saying that any call chosen is rational whether based on UI or not and whether logical or not and can therefore be cancelled. I'm in the first camp - if the OS goes out of its way to avoid using UI and happens to hit the jackpot then good luck to them. However if we can all agree that any call chosen after UI is rational then lets agree it and move on. I'm thinking of the old chestnut from a DWS workshops along the lines of: You open 1S holding a debatable minimum12 count at matchpoints Game All. S. Q9765 H. Q76 D. K7 C. KQ6 Partner gives you a 'slow' raise to 3S (limit raise). You Pass and just make 3S for a good board where others are going off in 4S. Opponents call the TD but he allows the result to stand. Correct ruling? All agreed? Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 04:28:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 04:28:15 +1100 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA04942 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 04:28:03 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27473 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:24:57 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199901271724.LAA27473@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:24:57 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Before I post this, I should note that I am a professor of philosophy, and I am used to forceful argumentation. I am personally thick-skinned, so I do not take offense at what others say, but I am sometimes afraid others may take what I say more seriously than intended. Please understand that I do not intend to offend, and if you are offended by any of my posts please let me know personally. > from DWS after snipping: > > > > You asked about bidding 6NT over 1NT [15-17] with 6 HCP after partner > >has announced he has found another ace. A cheat might say to himself > >"If I pass 1NT I shall get a bad board. If I bid 3NT I shall get ruled > >back by the TD. If I bid 6NT it will probably go off for a bad board > >but it just might make for a good board. So I might as well bid 6NT." > >He is taking advantage of the UI position to try to get an advantage - > >what he is doing is illegal under L73C, but is it under L16A? > > 99 times out of 100, the opponents are going to get a good board, no TD > called, no BLML discussion. On the 100th time, the opponents will be > aggrieved, TD called and rules that "under the circumstances, 6NT was indeed > a logical alternative, suggested by the UI, so I adjust". If the punter > knew beforehand that this is the likely fate of his action, wouldn't 6NT be > illogical?, almost irrational? > > Tony > If, indeed, 6NT is the bid most likely to produce a good score given the UI, then bidding 6NT is indeed an attempt to 'take advantage of' the UI and should be ruled against. It doesn't matter to me whether you use L73 or L16 to do it. As long as L73 is there and has the greater ambiguity, I'll rule under it. But, frankly, if L73 wasn't there I'd interpret L16 in such a way as to rule against the player. If this means I'm "Kaplaning", so be it. But I keep looking at this case, and I really don't see it. Please, someone, invent a different example or convince me of this one. You and your partner have 27 HCP between you. AI makes it look like you have only 21-23. There is only 1 logical alternative with only the AI--pass. You have [according to the statement of the problem] no long suits, nothing. You pass. UI suggests that passing will not work. It suggests what was not previously a LA--bid 3NT. And I will happily smack anyone who bids 3NT. It might also suggest bidding 2NT. {If 2NT means "bid 3 if at the top of your range", you know that partner, who is an ace above the top of his range, will bid 3NT.} So I would whack anyone who tried that strategy. But in no sense does it suggest 6NT. Pass is an LA, and 6NT isn't an LA, even with the UI. 27 combined points with no suit to run will go down in 3NT much more often than it will make 6. Even if you warp the definition of LA's so badly as to make 6NT an LA, it is not an LA suggested over another [pass], and so bidding it is fine. UI may make a bid that was not previously a LA into a LA. I accept that. Or, if you prefer, it may mean that choosing an illogical alternative action suggested by the UI is illegal under L73. But one does not violate either L73 or L16 in any way if one makes a bid not suggested over another LA, _even if it works spectacularly_. Bidding 6NT with 27 HCP is not illegal. It is not unethical. [It is also not very bright.] Is everyone except me really in agreement that we should roll back the score here if 6NT works? Will you roll back the score to 3NT-1 if it turns out that passing would have worked? Or maybe 6NT-4? -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 04:57:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 04:57:06 +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 EAA05046 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 04:56:55 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04040 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:54:04 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199901271754.LAA04040@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:54:04 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I'm in the first camp - if the OS goes out of its way to avoid using UI and How far out of his way does he have to go? :) > happens to hit the jackpot then good luck to them. However if we can all > agree that > any call chosen after UI is rational then lets agree it and move on. > > I'm thinking of the old chestnut from a DWS workshops along the lines of: > You open 1S holding a debatable minimum12 count at matchpoints Game All. > S. Q9765 H. Q76 D. K7 C. KQ6 > > Partner gives you a 'slow' raise to 3S (limit raise). > You Pass and just make 3S for a good board where others are going off in 4S. > Opponents call the TD but he allows the result to stand. > > Correct ruling? All agreed? If this is my regular partner, then this is a correct ruling, because to him a limit raise means "I have a few cards of the same color as your suit, and more points than fingers on one hand". If he tabled a 10 count with 4 spades I'd count myself fortunate. {Of course, he bids this way partly because he knows I'd _never_ open with the junk above.} I do not think there is a LA to passing, so I think it's the right ruling. But if this was in the ACBL, I might have to give the 'wrong' ruling instead. Surely some percentage of the people who would open a hand like that would also 'consider' going to game on it over a limit raise. {Some people play, in effect, 'limit raises are forcing to game', after all. :)} Ergo, 4S becomes a LA under that reading, and the UI does demonstrably suggest passing over 4S. {Assuming the slow limit raise is usually 'between a limit and a simple raise' and not 'between a limit and a jump to game'.} Frankly, there are many hands where I would avoid making a bid suggested by UI even if I thought I might get away with it. This is a hand where I'd pass and feel ethically sound, even though I recognized that there was a chance I might be ruled against. > Regards, > Fearghal. > Yours, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 05:45:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 05:45:35 +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 FAA05178 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 05:45:29 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 105Zxq-0005Qa-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:45:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:44:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Simple, Boring Problem In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >>All bids I would not have chosen in the absence of UI. Player's duty is to >>forget UI, not even to think to minimize the effect of adjustment which TD >>could operate later. > > No, this is not correct. You must play to the Laws of the game, and >that means avoiding making calls or plays that take advantage of UI - >L73C says so. Bidding what you would have without the UI is not good >enough. > However a player who does do this and admits to it should not receive a pp, because by his understanding of the law he is doing the right thing. It is the job of the TD to educate in this area. > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom paid |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. Quango |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) returned |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ 0.49 MPs |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 06:53:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 06:53:37 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA05273 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 06:53:31 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n44.san.rr.com [204.210.47.68]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA14771; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:53:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901271953.LAA14771@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:50:52 -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 > axeman wrote: > >What a marvelous convention. DOUBLE. PULL*. What is it *? Partner > >promises to be void in the opponent's trump suit. DOUBLE. PASS*. What > >is it *? Partner promises to not be void in the opponent's trump suit. > > > >But personally, I don't like to miss out on juicy penalty doubles so I > >would not use the convention. > Penalty doubles of overcalls were universal in the old days, but are now displaced by near-universal negative doubles, except at my table. S. J. Simon gave the definitive treatment for such doubles in *Why You Lose at Bridge*, which most good players followed. It was something like this: If opener has: -- three cards in the suit, he passes. -- two cards in the suit, he passes unless his opening was based on a long suit and only two defensive tricks. -- one card in the suit, he pulls unless he has at least 3-1/2 defensive tricks -- a void in the suit, he pulls, regardless of strength My treatment adds that opener should pull with a doubleton if he opened a weak 5-5 hand, unless bidding the second suit would require going to the dangerous three level. While Simon was talking of one and two-level doubles in a rubber bridge context, I extend the same principles to higher-level doubles, especially in duplicate bridge. The higher the overcall, the more likely it is that partner has to double with as little as xxx in trumps (never less), when he/she has a strong hand and no safe bid to make. Partner assumes more, but an extra ace can make up for the deficit. There were some old codgers, laughed at for their attitude (and subjected to Webster's great bridge cartoons), who insisted that their penalty doubles must not be pulled. There was no authority I can find who espoused this opinion later than 1932. Good players soon discovered that treating doubles as "proposals to partner" (Simon's words) yields the best results. If you wait for a trump stack to double, you miss too many "juicy penalty doubles." Arguing that partner must have a lot of trumps when you are void ignores the fact, as Simon pointed out, that dummy is likely to have some too, and it's hard to lead through declarer's trumps when you are void. Besides, one can pass with a trump stack and hope partner reopens with a double, as modern players do. To put it another way, if partner opens 1S and you have a void, do you raise because he must have a lot of spades? No, you seek some other contract. As Simon wrote, doubling a low-level contract means you want to take more tricks than declarer, as if you were playing the contract yourself. Would you want to play a suit contract with a void in dummy? Not usually. Thus, when the bidding went 1C-3D (no STOP card)-Double by Alice, with a break in tempo, I had no logical alternative to bidding 3S with S-AQ74 H-63 D-4 C-KJ8642. System demanded a pull to 3S, no choice. This was St. Louis Appeals Case #2, in which the AC ruled I had to pass the double for -870 instead of +680 in 4S. In the absence of documentary evidence, the AC refused to believe me when I said passing was not an LA. As Rich Colker wrote in the St. Louis casebook, "The fact that those methods [Simon's] are foreign to modern bidding practices is not sufficient reason to presume that no one plays them, or that the claim to be playing them is specious (or self-serving)." You see why I like this guy? He went on to maintain that our card should not have been marked "penalty doubles," but something like "cooperative doubles," because an opponent may assume a trump stack when playing the hand. Actually, there's no provision for showing either on the current ACBL cc, one must write it in. Our CC now states: "Penalty doubles of overcalls. Partner *MUST* pull if short in doubled suit and minimum strength." Okay, Rich? However, to say that a penalty double of an overcall must be left in is just as ridiculous as saying that one can never pass partner's takeout or negative double. I would accordingly like others' cards to state: "Negative or takeout doubles may be passed when holding length/strength in the doubled suit." Or (because a declarer might assume otherwise): "A takeout doubler may not be short in the doubled suit." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 07:04:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:04:12 +1100 Received: from cs.bu.edu (cs.bu.edu [128.197.10.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA05305 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:04:06 +1100 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.v1.0)/8.8.8/(BU-S-10/16/98-v1.0a)) with ESMTP id PAA05792; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:03:41 -0500 (EST) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id PAA09307; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:03:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901272003.PAA09307@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: Simple, Boring Problem To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:03:37 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: [entire dialog appears below] >>I answered the question: "are there any calls you would feel ethically >>barred from making?". I think this point (ethics) is only adressed by L73C >>which I read as "not to take account of UI" and furthermore not to >>anticipate on possible unpleasant consequences. I don't understand how it >>is possible to take advantage of something we don't even consider. I agree >>an ethical attitude could however logically induce a score adjustment. >>Isn't one's fair conscience more important than anything else? L73C states: "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, ... ,he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." This does not mean that one should not take account of UI. Indeed, L16A states that one "may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another" by the UI. The use of the word "advantage" in L73C means that one cannot take an action to your advantage based on the UI. However, sometimes circumstances will require that you must take an action which you know is to your DISadvantage, because of the UI (it is an LA, and the UI suggests it is wrong). This is different from ignoring the UI entirely, which is common practice but contrary to the law. --David Metcalf Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >>>Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >>>>All bids I would not have chosen in the absence of UI. Player's duty is to >>>>forget UI, not even to think to minimize the effect of adjustment which TD >>>>could operate later. >>> David Stevenson[?] responded: >>> No, this is not correct. You must play to the Laws of the game, and >>>that means avoiding making calls or plays that take advantage of UI - >>>L73C says so. Bidding what you would have without the UI is not good >>>enough. >>> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >>I answered the question: "are there any calls you would feel ethically >>barred from making?". I think this point (ethics) is only adressed by L73C >>which I read as "not to take account of UI" and furthermore not to >>anticipate on possible unpleasant consequences. I don't understand how it >>is possible to take advantage of something we don't even consider. I agree >>an ethical attitude could however logically induce a score adjustment. >>Isn't one's fair conscience more important than anything else? >> From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 07:22:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:22:58 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA05361 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:22:44 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h10.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id XAA14034; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:22:27 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36B01081.316A@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:23:45 -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: Law and law Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="LAW.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="LAW.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ÔÒ⡱÷4@Ö ¥F$ As non-English-speaking being I have some problems with understanding the Laws. I guess - many of us have similar problems. And as we are preparing Russian edition of the Laws - I ask to explain one of these problems. There are used several form of the word “law” in the Laws: - the Laws - Law No.__ - the/this Law - (a) Law - law First three examples deem to be clear (do they?): - the Laws - this Code as aggregate of all Laws treated as unit - Law No. xx - the Law under this number - the/this Law (or similar) - concrete Law, determined (or quite understood) from the context. The problems appear in examples 4 and 5. “Law” is used 14 times, “law” - 22 times. And what is difference between them? Is it possible to treat “Law” as any Law (on the mention matter or even at the Laws) and “law” as legislation (including the Laws, customs, etc., even may be - the Legend). Or meaning of these words are the same? Thanks in advance for any comments Vitold ÔÒ⡱÷C:\WINWORD\NORMAL.DOTóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóÛ¥e As non-English-speaking being I have some problems with understanding the Laws. I guess - many of us have similar problems. And as we are preparing Russian edition of the Laws - I ask to explain one of these problems. There are used several form of the word “law” in the Laws: - the Laws - Law No.__ - the/this Law - (a) Law - law First three examples deem to be clear (do they?): - the Laws - this Code as aggregate of all Laws treated as unit - Law No. xx - the Law under this number - the/this Law (or similar) - concrete Law, determined (or quite understood) from the context. The problems appear in examples 4 and 5. “Law” is used 14 times, “law” - 22 times. And what is difference between them? Is it possible to treat “Law” as any Law (on the mention matter or even at the Laws) and “law” as legislation (including the Laws, customs, etc., even may be - the Legend). Or meaning of these words are the same? Thanks in advance for any comments Vitold acificÏðôîâíûïýëCREATEDATEEDITTIMEFILENAMEFILESIZEKEYWORDS LASTSAVEDBYNUMCHARSNUMPAGESNUMWORDS PRINTDATEPRIVATERDREVNUMSAVEDATESUBJECTTCTEMPLATETITLEXE ALPHABETICARABICCAPSCARDTEXT CHARFORMAT DOLLARTEXTFIRSTCAPHEXLOWER MERGEFORMATORDINALORDTEXTROMANUPPERABSROUNDDEFINEDINTANDFALSEMAXMINMODAVERAGECOUNTNOTORPRODUCTIFSIGNSUMTRUE D D From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 08:18:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:18:33 +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 IAA05485 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:18:27 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-152.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.152]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA34153336 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:21:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36AF81FC.6F6A0D59@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:15:40 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199901271724.LAA27473@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant, There is the strongest case that your analysis/ ruling is correct. On the other hand, it is also the strongest case for the analysis that says that the UI suggests that passing assures a poor result and therefore suggests that ANY action other than pass is preferable to pass, so therefore, any action taken, with the exception of that action required by AI, is subject to adjustment if damage occurs. What is being said is that BOTH POSITIONS are correct. They are both correct because it was the intention of the WBFLC for the law to be ambiguous. To again restate, the result is that both are correct. All the TD must do is to justify the ruling if called upon to justify it. If you would like me to break your argument perhaps I can as follows: When all is said and done, counting points is merely a guideline for the evaluation of bridge hands. Why? Because points are merely a statistical measure of the expected worth of the hand. When all is said and done it is not points that produce tricks, it is the cards and their relative position to each other that determine their ultimate worth. Opposite a 1N opener I have seen 7 clubs to the K make 6C handily but go down in flames at 3N. Now back to the case. Presumably 1N=15-17 hcp. The basic guideline is for responder to directly bid 6N when the minimum total of the combined hands is 33 hcp. This means that responder promises 18+ hcp for 6N. Now, consider that opener has 20-21. Add that to 18+ and you get 38-39+ hcp. The normal call would therefore be 7N. So, why did not opener bid 1N-6N-7N? He had UI that his partner maybe bidding based upon UI. This means that under no circumstances may the contract rest in 6N. imo, the proper ruling calls for the contract to be 1N. some have suggested that kudos [as in no disciplinary action] go to the player that says that they were trying to find a non LA to bid when they chose an iLA. I believe differently, I would further rule a severe scoring penalty against responder for using UI plus a severe scoring penalty against opener for using UI. The reason for 1N is that it is the contract that was earned while 7NX was not earned. Therefore, the illogical alternative [iLA] leaves the problem of what partner's normal action would be subsequent the nefarious action. The route taken by the iLA is unearned and rife with complications when it comes to adjudication. Roger Pewick cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > Before I post this, I should note that I am a professor of > philosophy, and I am used to forceful argumentation. I am personally > thick-skinned, so I do not take offense at what others say, but I am > sometimes afraid others may take what I say more seriously than intended. > Please understand that I do not intend to offend, and if you are offended > by any of my posts please let me know personally. > > > from DWS after snipping: > > > > > > > You asked about bidding 6NT over 1NT [15-17] with 6 HCP after partner > > >has announced he has found another ace. A cheat might say to himself > > >"If I pass 1NT I shall get a bad board. If I bid 3NT I shall get ruled > > >back by the TD. If I bid 6NT it will probably go off for a bad board > > >but it just might make for a good board. So I might as well bid 6NT." > > >He is taking advantage of the UI position to try to get an advantage - > > >what he is doing is illegal under L73C, but is it under L16A? > > > > 99 times out of 100, the opponents are going to get a good board, no TD > > called, no BLML discussion. On the 100th time, the opponents will be > > aggrieved, TD called and rules that "under the circumstances, 6NT was indeed > > a logical alternative, suggested by the UI, so I adjust". If the punter > > knew beforehand that this is the likely fate of his action, wouldn't 6NT be > > illogical?, almost irrational? > > > > Tony > > > > If, indeed, 6NT is the bid most likely to produce a good score > given the UI, then bidding 6NT is indeed an attempt to 'take advantage of' > the UI and should be ruled against. It doesn't matter to me whether you > use L73 or L16 to do it. As long as L73 is there and has the greater > ambiguity, I'll rule under it. But, frankly, if L73 wasn't there I'd > interpret L16 in such a way as to rule against the player. If this means > I'm "Kaplaning", so be it. > > But I keep looking at this case, and I really don't see it. > Please, someone, invent a different example or convince me of this one. > You and your partner have 27 HCP between you. AI makes it look like you > have only 21-23. There is only 1 logical alternative with only the > AI--pass. You have [according to the statement of the problem] no long > suits, nothing. You pass. > UI suggests that passing will not work. It suggests what was not > previously a LA--bid 3NT. And I will happily smack anyone who bids 3NT. > It might also suggest bidding 2NT. {If 2NT means "bid 3 if at the top of > your range", you know that partner, who is an ace above the top of his > range, will bid 3NT.} So I would whack anyone who tried that strategy. > But in no sense does it suggest 6NT. Pass is an LA, and 6NT isn't > an LA, even with the UI. 27 combined points with no suit to run will go > down in 3NT much more often than it will make 6. Even if you warp the > definition of LA's so badly as to make 6NT an LA, it is not an LA suggested > over another [pass], and so bidding it is fine. > > UI may make a bid that was not previously a LA into a LA. I > accept that. Or, if you prefer, it may mean that choosing an illogical > alternative action suggested by the UI is illegal under L73. But one does > not violate either L73 or L16 in any way if one makes a bid not suggested > over another LA, _even if it works spectacularly_. Bidding 6NT with 27 > HCP is not illegal. It is not unethical. [It is also not very bright.] > Is everyone except me really in agreement that we should roll back the > score here if 6NT works? Will you roll back the score to 3NT-1 if it > turns out that passing would have worked? Or maybe 6NT-4? > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 08:42:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:42:49 +1100 Received: from cs.bu.edu (cs.bu.edu [128.197.10.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA05517 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:42:43 +1100 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.v1.0)/8.8.8/(BU-S-10/16/98-v1.0a)) with ESMTP id QAA19253; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:42:06 -0500 (EST) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id QAA09992; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:42:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901272142.QAA09992@csb.bu.edu> Subject: LA's after a bad bid To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:42:04 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi--- The following appeal took place several weeks ago, but is still being discussed. This occurred in a flight A sectional Swiss team (i.e. IMPs). The player in question (and his partner) is a flight C player, but he is up-and-coming [there was a reason their team was playing in A flight], with perhaps two years of solid tournament experience. They were, however, not a regular partnership. Their opponents were an experienced flight A team, with a number of regional wins. The hand in question (I dont remember the spots, but they werent anything special): x xxx Jxxxxxx xx Their side was vul vs. nonvul. The auction was: LHO partner RHO hand --- ------- --- ---- 1S dbl 2NT!(1) 3D(2) 4S dbl(3) P 5D dbl all pass (1) 2NT was a limit raise or better of spades (2) a terrible bid (3) after an acknowledged hesitation (not just a skip-bid break) result: 5DX went down 1; 4S would have made. The opponents summoned the director at the time of the 5D bid, and later objected to the bid as being suggested by the hesitation. The director ruled that the result be changed to 4SX=4, but a committee later reversed this and reinstated the table result. I was a member of the committee, but I had qualms about the ruling. The commitee's arguments: Once he has made this awful misdescriptive bid of 3D vul vs nonvul, partner is expecting values that he simply doesn't have. If we were forced to make the 3D call, we would have no choice but to bid 5D now; no other bid is a logical alternative. Since the other members of the committee all felt that they personally would have bid 5D without question, they didnt see any LA. The spade bidders argument: The spade bidders brought up several possible hands which the doubler might have where 4S was going down. They felt that this made a pass a LA. An example was a balanced hand which was too strong to overcall 1NT. Also, at this vulnerability, it might be possible that 5DX will be -800, whereas 4SX might be only -590. This would also suggest passing. My question: I think the problem is that the 3D bid was gross, and is what led to the trouble. It is, of course, their right to make awful bids. However, how do we judge LA's in a situation where ones own prior bidding has backed one into a bad corner? --David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 09:34:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:34:58 +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 JAA05684 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:34:49 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa29794; 27 Jan 99 14:34 PST To: bridge laws mailing list CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:42:04 PST." <199901272142.QAA09992@csb.bu.edu> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:34:09 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901271434.aa29794@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Metcalf wrote: [snip] > x > xxx > Jxxxxxx > xx > > Their side was vul vs. nonvul. > > The auction was: > LHO partner RHO hand > --- ------- --- ---- > 1S dbl 2NT!(1) 3D(2) > 4S dbl(3) P 5D > dbl all pass > > (1) 2NT was a limit raise or better of spades > (2) a terrible bid > (3) after an acknowledged hesitation (not just a skip-bid break) > > result: 5DX went down 1; 4S would have made. > > The opponents summoned the director at the time of the 5D bid, and > later objected to the bid as being suggested by the hesitation. The > director ruled that the result be changed to 4SX=4, but a committee > later reversed this and reinstated the table result. I was a member > of the committee, but I had qualms about the ruling. > > The commitee's arguments: > Once he has made this awful misdescriptive bid of 3D vul vs nonvul, > partner is expecting values that he simply doesn't have. If we were > forced to make the 3D call, we would have no choice but to bid 5D now; > no other bid is a logical alternative. > Since the other members of the committee all felt that they > personally would have bid 5D without question, they didnt see any LA. > > The spade bidders argument: > The spade bidders brought up several possible hands which > the doubler might have where 4S was going down. They felt that this > made a pass a LA. An example was a balanced hand which was too strong > to overcall 1NT. It's close. However, I think a general principle needs to be pointed out: Even if you can construct hands for partner that make a certain call a winning action, that does NOT, by itself, make that call a logical alternative. If, hypothetically, partner has a strong 1NT overcall 3% of the time (making pass a winning call), and the other 97% of the time pass is a big loser, then to me, pass is not a logical alternative, and doesn't need to be considered even if the UI suggests that partner doesn't have a strong 1NT overcall. Apparently the committee was thinking along those lines---they would never pass, even though there might be some hands where passing works best. > Also, at this vulnerability, it might be possible that 5DX > will be -800, whereas 4SX might be only -590. This would also suggest > passing. That's a better argument than the other one. It seems to me that Total Tricks would argue against this; give partner a normal takeout double, and there should be at least 19 total trumps most of the time, while the -800 vs. -590 scenario is only 18 tricks. So if LOTT could be depended on to be right all the time, passing would be illogical. Of course, LOTT isn't as accurate as some people seem to believe it is. However, in this case, I'd expect at least 19 tricks most of the time, because of your long diamond suit and because the opponents will know where all the high cards are if they are allowed to play 4S. So do I think pass is an LA? I think it's close, and I wouldn't complain if a committee went either way on this one. If this committee felt that they would always pull, then I have no problem with the ruling that pass is not an LA. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 10:06:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:06:14 +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 KAA05788 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:06:07 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka86k.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.212]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA08666 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:05:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990127180549.006ff0f4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:05:49 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199901271724.LAA27473@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:24 AM 1/27/99 -0600, Grant wrote: > But I keep looking at this case, and I really don't see it. >Please, someone, invent a different example or convince me of this one. >You and your partner have 27 HCP between you. AI makes it look like you >have only 21-23. There is only 1 logical alternative with only the >AI--pass. You have [according to the statement of the problem] no long >suits, nothing. You pass. > UI suggests that passing will not work. It suggests what was not >previously a LA--bid 3NT. And I will happily smack anyone who bids 3NT. >It might also suggest bidding 2NT. {If 2NT means "bid 3 if at the top of >your range", you know that partner, who is an ace above the top of his >range, will bid 3NT.} So I would whack anyone who tried that strategy. > But in no sense does it suggest 6NT. Pass is an LA, and 6NT isn't >an LA, even with the UI. 27 combined points with no suit to run will go >down in 3NT much more often than it will make 6. Even if you warp the >definition of LA's so badly as to make 6NT an LA, it is not an LA suggested >over another [pass], and so bidding it is fine. Does the UI make bidding 6nt more attractive, relative to the LA of Pass, than it would be without the UI? Yes it does. I will concede that 6nt is not the obvious spot, even with the UI. But is it more likely to be right opposite a 20-count than opposite a 16-count? Clearly, yes. If your argument is that the probability of success in either case is virtually 0, then I would reply that the example is moot: we won't get to this problem because the opponents will cheerfully accept their plus score for defending a silly slam. I certainly agree that there is no definition, even in the ACBL, under which 6nt is considered a LA. But the core issue presented in this thread is whether the language of L16A2 requires that the chosen action itself be a LA, or whether it is only the "road(s) not taken" which are subject to the LA test. I prefer the latter reading, but for those who insist on the former, there is the studied ambiguity of L73C to fall back on. In either case, we can reasonably and fairly disallow the 6nt bid as one which seeks to exploit the UI, albeit foolishly. There is no reasonable interpretation of such a bid under which the bidder could truthfully claim to be striving to avoid taking advantage of the UI. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 11:21:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:21:30 +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 LAA05989 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:21:23 +1100 Received: from default (ptp56.ac.net [205.138.54.158]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA10057 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:20:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:15:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199901271752.JAA27013@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by primus.ac.net id TAA10057 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:50 AM 1/27/99 -0800, you wrote: > >(2) It is not legal to adjust the score for one side only, so a PP >must be used in lieu of a score adjustment in such cases. Well, I can tell you this (this info will be in the Chicago casebook (in fact, the following is a quote from it): NOTE: IMPORTANT CHANGE IN THE ACBL=92S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS. In Orlando, close upon the heels of a similar action by the WBF Laws Committee, the ACBL Laws Commission redefined =93damage=94 (with regard t= o the offenders) as any outcome resulting in a more favorable score than would have been obtained without the irregularity. In other words, damage has occurred if the offenders obtain a better score with their infraction tha= n they would have otherwise, regardless of whether or not it occurred as a direct consequence of the infraction. Now we can legally adjust the offenders=92 score if it was made possible by their infraction, even if i= t was caused by the opponents=92 subsequent negligence or bridge error. No longer is there a need for a procedural penalty to accomplish this. No longer will the =93field=94 be disadvantaged by our inability to adjust a= score which benefited from an infraction. Linda > >While on this subject, I have it from an informed source that the >ACBL LC discussed in Orlando the WBF LC's minutes from Lille, and >will decide later, maybe soon, as to the acceptance of the latter's >interpretations of some of the Laws. I have asked that any >decisions be made public, preferably in the ACBL's *Bulletin*. I >hope such decisions will merely involve guidelines for applying the >interpretations, not acceptance of them. Despite some recent >waffling, the By-Laws of the WBF state that the WBF LC is >responsible for interpreting the Laws. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) >=20 ----------- Used to be Linda Weinstein. Brian and I tied the knot on 12/25/98 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 11:36:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:36:40 +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 LAA06030 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:36:33 +1100 Received: from default (ptp56.ac.net [205.138.54.158]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA12181 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:36:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901280036.TAA12181@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:32:30 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199901271754.LAA04040@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:54 AM 1/27/99 -0600, you wrote: >> I'm in the first camp - if the OS goes out of its way to avoid using UI and > > How far out of his way does he have to go? :) > >> happens to hit the jackpot then good luck to them. However if we can all >> agree that >> any call chosen after UI is rational then lets agree it and move on. >> >> I'm thinking of the old chestnut from a DWS workshops along the lines of: >> You open 1S holding a debatable minimum12 count at matchpoints Game All. >> S. Q9765 H. Q76 D. K7 C. KQ6 >> >> Partner gives you a 'slow' raise to 3S (limit raise). >> You Pass and just make 3S for a good board where others are going off in 4S. >> Opponents call the TD but he allows the result to stand. >> >> Correct ruling? All agreed? And if you bid 4S and it happens to be a skinny make, do the opponents also call the Director to have that result taken away because you don't even have close to an accept of a Limit Raise? (i guess that tells us the answer, doesn't it?) Linda > > If this is my regular partner, then this is a correct ruling, >because to him a limit raise means "I have a few cards of the same color >as your suit, and more points than fingers on one hand". If he tabled a >10 count with 4 spades I'd count myself fortunate. {Of course, he bids >this way partly because he knows I'd _never_ open with the junk above.} > I do not think there is a LA to passing, so I think it's the right >ruling. But if this was in the ACBL, I might have to give the 'wrong' >ruling instead. Surely some percentage of the people who would open a >hand like that would also 'consider' going to game on it over a limit >raise. {Some people play, in effect, 'limit raises are forcing to game', >after all. :)} Ergo, 4S becomes a LA under that reading, and the UI does >demonstrably suggest passing over 4S. {Assuming the slow limit raise is >usually 'between a limit and a simple raise' and not 'between a limit and >a jump to game'.} > > Frankly, there are many hands where I would avoid making a bid >suggested by UI even if I thought I might get away with it. This is a >hand where I'd pass and feel ethically sound, even though I recognized >that there was a chance I might be ruled against. > >> Regards, >> Fearghal. >> > > Yours, > Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu > ----------- Used to be Linda Weinstein. Brian and I tied the knot on 12/25/98 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 12:32:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:32:55 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA06144 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:32:49 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-191.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.191]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA34991178 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:35:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36AFBD9C.D15A2E8C@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:30:04 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws mailing list Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid References: <199901272142.QAA09992@csb.bu.edu> 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 UAA34991178 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My immediate sympathy was with the 5D bidder It is rough to give partner a problem that comes back to haunt you. My immediate 'goal' was to find a way to justify the 5D call and I came to the conclusion that it can not be justified when in possession of the UI that was present. =20 Consider no tempo break. There are 8 QT in a deck. The second double said they had four, 2N said they had at least 1 and =BD, and opener's jum= p said they had 3. That is 8.5. They are all accounted for. The auction has told doubler that partner is broke AND had bid 3D on distribution alone. The one aspect of the auction is that responder does not know how good their partner's hand is. Double communicated that information. It also communicated that he felt that the partnership did not have enough assets to make game or slam.. Presumably responder will evaluate the prospect of setting 4S and bid accordingly. Now, it may very well be that 4S could go down and 5D goes for a number. This is a bridge reason for leaving the double in, considering that partner should already know what responder bid 3D on. The huddle deprived responder of the opportunity to prove he would find 5D after an in tempo double . After all, an in tempo double would not have influenced him whether to leave it in or pull. The huddle suggested hesitancy about the action and clarified the matter for responder. Doubler knew at the time of their huddle that they were creating a problem for partner so he knew at the time that he was making the partnership's decision. In these situations, it is judgement that tells a player to pass one time and pull another. Even though it would be typical to pull in the auction it could be best to pass [this time].=20 This time the UI provided the judgement - not the player's skill. Pull was suggested over pass and responder pulled so an adjustment is in order. Roger Pewick David Metcalf wrote: >=20 > Hi--- >=20 > The following appeal took place several weeks ago, but is still > being discussed. >=20 > This occurred in a flight A sectional Swiss team (i.e. IMPs). The play= er > in question (and his partner) is a flight C player, but he is up-and-co= ming > [there was a reason their team was playing in A flight], with perhaps > two years of solid tournament experience. They were, however, not a > regular partnership. Their opponents were an experienced flight A > team, with a number of regional wins. >=20 > The hand in question (I dont remember the spots, but they werent > anything special): > x > xxx > Jxxxxxx > xx >=20 > Their side was vul vs. nonvul. >=20 > The auction was: > LHO partner RHO hand > --- ------- --- ---- > 1S dbl 2NT!(1) 3D(2) > 4S dbl(3) P 5D > dbl all pass >=20 > (1) 2NT was a limit raise or better of spades > (2) a terrible bid > (3) after an acknowledged hesitation (not just a skip-bid break) >=20 > result: 5DX went down 1; 4S would have made. >=20 > The opponents summoned the director at the time of the 5D bid, and > later objected to the bid as being suggested by the hesitation. The > director ruled that the result be changed to 4SX=3D4, but a committee > later reversed this and reinstated the table result. I was a member > of the committee, but I had qualms about the ruling. >=20 > The commitee's arguments: > Once he has made this awful misdescriptive bid of 3D vul vs non= vul, > partner is expecting values that he simply doesn't have. If we were > forced to make the 3D call, we would have no choice but to bid 5D now; > no other bid is a logical alternative. > Since the other members of the committee all felt that they > personally would have bid 5D without question, they didnt see any LA. >=20 > The spade bidders argument: > The spade bidders brought up several possible hands which > the doubler might have where 4S was going down. They felt that this > made a pass a LA. An example was a balanced hand which was too strong > to overcall 1NT. > Also, at this vulnerability, it might be possible that 5DX > will be -800, whereas 4SX might be only -590. This would also suggest > passing. >=20 > My question: I think the problem is that the 3D bid was gross, and > is what led to the trouble. It is, of course, their right to make awfu= l > bids. However, how do we judge LA's in a situation where ones own > prior bidding has backed one into a bad corner? What lead to the trouble was that doubler made two bad decisions- the double could be recovered from, the huddle could not. Once he huddles he needs to act on the percentages and bid 5D himself- that he did not have the skill to figure that out at the table means that he did not thave the skill and it is a reasonable thing for the score to reflect. > --David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 15:50:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA06433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:50:02 +1100 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA06426 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:49:56 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n44.san.rr.com [204.210.47.68]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA07685 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:49:50 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901280449.UAA07685@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:47:30 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com id UAA07685 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote Marv French wrote, citing a Rich Colker belief (or former belief, now): >>(2) It is not legal to adjust the score for one side only, so a PP >>must be used in lieu of a score adjustment in such cases. >Well, I can tell you this (this info will be in the Chicago casebook (in >fact, the following is a quote from it): ####### NOTE: IMPORTANT CHANGE IN THE ACBL=92S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS. In Orlando, close upon the heels of a similar action by the WBF Laws Committee, the ACBL Laws Commission redefined =93damage=94 (with regard to the offenders) as any outcome resulting in a more favorable score than would have been obtained without the irregularity. In other words, damage has occurred if the offenders obtain a better score with their infraction than they would have otherwise, regardless of whether or not it occurred as a direct consequence of the infraction. Now we can legally adjust the offenders=92 score if it was made possible by their infraction, even if it was caused by the opponents=92 subsequent negligence or bridge error. No longer is there a need for a procedural penalty to accomplish this. No longer will the =93field=94 be disadvantaged by our inability to adjust a score which benefited from an infraction. ####### Well, that's clear as mud. Who writes this stuff? Quick, sign him up for the 2007 Laws, he has the right style. At least the conclusion comes out okay, although there never was "a need for a procedural penalty to accomplish this." Anyway, thanks to Linda for passing this on. It will be interesting to see what else comes out of the Orlando meeting. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 18:35:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA06566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:35:18 +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 SAA06561 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:35:12 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990128073505.NGIC6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:35:05 -0800 Message-ID: <36B0140E.A63EDF28@home.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:38:54 -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: L73C vs L16A References: <004b01be4a12$f3899760$d7307dc2@hlyxzurz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > You open 1S holding a debatable minimum12 count at matchpoints Game All. > S. Q9765 H. Q76 D. K7 C. KQ6 > > Partner gives you a 'slow' raise to 3S (limit raise). > You Pass and just make 3S for a good board where others are going off in 4S. > Opponents call the TD but he allows the result to stand. > > Correct ruling? I think clearly yes. Even if some SO would consider 4S (and maybe 3NT) being LA, neither is demonstrably suggested over the other *since we don't know whether responder hesitated between 3S and 2S, or between 3S and 4S, or something else if only 3 cd spades*. I know there are some souls (misguided - imo) who insist we are not allowed any call that works under such circumstances, but I hope they are becoming a smaller and smaller minority. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 18:47:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA06601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:47:29 +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 SAA06596 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:47:23 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990128074717.NHZU6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:47:17 -0800 Message-ID: <36B016EA.AF1B21C@home.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:51:06 -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: L73C vs L16A References: <199901271724.LAA27473@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36AF81FC.6F6A0D59@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: > So, why did not opener bid > 1N-6N-7N? He had UI that his partner maybe bidding based upon UI. > This means that under no circumstances may the contract rest in 6N. This is at least the second time you propose this type of argument, which I find completely flawed both based on logic and on the laws. Knowing that pard has UI is not UI! (To me this is similar to that pard alerting an alertable call does not pass the UI that he remembers the system). You are allowed to assume that pard acted correctly in the face of UI, ie has already chosen a call not suggested over another LA by it, so you can "sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight".What if pard intended to bid a slightly speculative 7NT were it not for the UI, but now this became suggested over 6NT so he correctly chose the latter. Do you still think you must re-raise to 7NT, which now surely makes? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 19:16:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA06641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:16:19 +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 TAA06636 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:16:13 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990128081606.NMGY6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:16:06 -0800 Message-ID: <36B01DAC.BB10F47D@home.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:19:56 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Simple, Boring Problem References: <199901261623.KAA04236@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > Playing [sub-]standard American, you are South: > > The bidding: > N E S W > 1C X 1D 1S > 2C 2S 3D P > P* 3S ? > > *Partner hesitates about 5 seconds before passing. But since > partner ordinarily bids like a machine gun, _you_ know that he's paused. > > What does partner's hesitation suggest, if anything? Extra values, either offensively, defensively, or both. > Which bids > would you be inclined to disallow as a TD/AC? All. Between the various bids it is difficult to judge which are suggested over others, but it seems clear that all LAs are suggested over pass. So pass it is, imo, and I indeed find it fairly "simple". > Are there any calls you > would feel ethically barred from making? If I intended to bid 4C and still do it I feel I have not been "unethical", just wrong. Also, if I make another call that I (erroneously) thought was *not* suggested by the UI, i.e. I attempted to follow L16 but failed, I was not unethical. Only if I conciously tried to take advantage of the UI have I been unethical. I feel the problem, particularly in the US, is that most TDs fail to make the distinction. The result is that most players feel that their ethics are being doubted when they get a UI ruling against them. One of the many side-effects of this is the widespread misconception that in the face of UI you must "bid what you always intended to bid". > S K H xxx D Kxxxxx C KQx > > Before the hesitation, I was planning on bidding 4C. I probably > should have supported clubs the round before, Delete the "probably" and I agree :-)) That way, this whole problem would have been avoided and pard would presumably have continued to 4C over 3S on his own. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 19:55:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA06688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:55:46 +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 TAA06683 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:55:40 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990128085534.NQOM6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:55:34 -0800 Message-ID: <36B026EB.DA4DC32A@home.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:59:23 -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: LA's after a bad bid References: <199901272142.QAA09992@csb.bu.edu> <36AFBD9C.D15A2E8C@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: > Consider no tempo break. There are 8 QT in a deck. Maybe these players never heard of QTs! Maybe QTs are a lousy way of evaluating big fitting hands! Just a couple of comments anyway on your contrived logic: > The second double > said they had four No - the 2nd double *plus the values normally indicated by a 3D bid* said they *might* have 4 tricks, whether "quick" or not! > 2N said they had at least 1 and ½, Is an unguarded king in a sidesuit a QT? > and opener's jump > said they had 3. Sorry, but this is nonsense (so impeach me for that, DS!). Opener will bid 4S also on a minimum opener as soon as he has a 6 card S-suit. > That is 8.5. They are all accounted for. The auction > has told doubler that partner is broke AND had bid 3D on distribution > alone. It can equally well be the opening side bidding mainly on pattern, from the doubler's point of view. Only we know that it is our side that has bid on pattern.Not only do I have zero def.-tricks, but the extreme D-length may well kill one of pard's assumed def.-tricks. > Pull was suggested over pass and responder pulled so an adjustment is > in order. I think all will agree that the UI suggests pulling over passing. That is simply not an issue here. Only whether pass is an LA or not. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 20:51:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA06743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:51:23 +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 UAA06738 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:51:16 +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 JAA05900 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:50:40 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 JAA04428 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:49:41 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990128105114.007a43a0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:51:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <36B016EA.AF1B21C@home.com> References: <199901271724.LAA27473@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36AF81FC.6F6A0D59@freewwweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:51 27/01/99 -0800, you wrote: >axeman wrote: >> So, why did not opener bid >> 1N-6N-7N? He had UI that his partner maybe bidding based upon UI. >> This means that under no circumstances may the contract rest in 6N. > >This is at least the second time you propose this type of argument, >which I find completely flawed both based on logic and on the laws. > >Knowing that pard has UI is not UI! (To me this is similar to that pard >alerting an alertable call does not pass the UI that he remembers the >system). You are allowed to assume that pard acted correctly in the face >of UI, ie has already chosen a call not suggested over another LA by it, >so you can "sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight".What if pard intended >to bid a slightly speculative 7NT were it not for the UI, but now this >became suggested over 6NT so he correctly chose the latter. Do you still >think you must re-raise to 7NT, which now surely makes? > > I strongly disagree but I think you have identified the node of the dispute about LA, iLA and so on. I think knowing that pard has UI is UI; and I could further defend the theory that knowing oneself has UI (and is in a position where one's bids could be ruled against by TD) is UI. The first thing to clearly determine, at this point of the discussion, could be the exact definition of UI: where does the "extraneous information" of the header of L16 begin? How far can UI be recursive (I hope this word exists in English and has the meaning I intend, something like self-refering!)? JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 21:54:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:54:16 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA06829 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:54:10 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-167.uunet.be [194.7.13.167]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24394 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:54:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36B03ACD.8874637C@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:24:13 +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: LA's after a bad bid References: <199901272142.QAA09992@csb.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Metcalf wrote: > > > The spade bidders argument: > The spade bidders brought up several possible hands which > the doubler might have where 4S was going down. They felt that this > made a pass a LA. An example was a balanced hand which was too strong > to overcall 1NT. > Also, at this vulnerability, it might be possible that 5DX > will be -800, whereas 4SX might be only -590. This would also suggest > passing. > This is a faulty argument. Of course for every call that everyone makes, there will be some hands that make the call the wrong option. That does not mean that not everyone is going to make that same call. Of course partner might have a hand on which 4Sp and 5Di both fail, but far more likely is it that partner has doubled on a hand on which 4Sp will make, since he is clearly expecting a little more in your hand than this. > My question: I think the problem is that the 3D bid was gross, and > is what led to the trouble. It is, of course, their right to make awful > bids. However, how do we judge LA's in a situation where ones own > prior bidding has backed one into a bad corner? > Of course we do ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 21:54:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:54:14 +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 VAA06828 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:54:08 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-167.uunet.be [194.7.13.167]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24376 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:54:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36B0377D.1A046F96@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:10:05 +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: L73C vs L16A References: <199901271724.LAA27473@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > > But I keep looking at this case, and I really don't see it. > Please, someone, invent a different example or convince me of this one. > You and your partner have 27 HCP between you. AI makes it look like you > have only 21-23. There is only 1 logical alternative with only the > AI--pass. You have [according to the statement of the problem] no long > suits, nothing. You pass. > UI suggests that passing will not work. It suggests what was not > previously a LA--bid 3NT. And I will happily smack anyone who bids 3NT. > It might also suggest bidding 2NT. {If 2NT means "bid 3 if at the top of > your range", you know that partner, who is an ace above the top of his > range, will bid 3NT.} So I would whack anyone who tried that strategy. > But in no sense does it suggest 6NT. Pass is an LA, and 6NT isn't > an LA, even with the UI. 27 combined points with no suit to run will go > down in 3NT much more often than it will make 6. Even if you warp the > definition of LA's so badly as to make 6NT an LA, it is not an LA suggested > over another [pass], and so bidding it is fine. > Since you know (by UI) that the only LA (your definition) is pass, and that this will almost certainly produce a zero (at matchpoints), and there are other alternatives (2NT, 3NT) which you are not allowed to bid, since they will be ruled against and produce the same zero, there remains only one alternative : 6NT. This will produce an even worse score, to all likelyhood (but zero = zero at matchpoints), but in a small percentage of cases a top, which some directors will not transform into the same zero. That means that the alternative has at least some element of rationality to it, and thus (by my definition at least) has become a Logical alternative, which (by normal reasoning) was suggested by the UI. > UI may make a bid that was not previously a LA into a LA. I > accept that. Or, if you prefer, it may mean that choosing an illogical > alternative action suggested by the UI is illegal under L73. But one does > not violate either L73 or L16 in any way if one makes a bid not suggested > over another LA, _even if it works spectacularly_. Bidding 6NT with 27 > HCP is not illegal. It is not unethical. [It is also not very bright.] Yes it is, if you believe all of the above, you may be thinking it extremely clever ! > Is everyone except me really in agreement that we should roll back the > score here if 6NT works? Will you roll back the score to 3NT-1 if it > turns out that passing would have worked? Or maybe 6NT-4? > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 23:03:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:03:46 +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 XAA07056 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:03:40 +1100 Received: from pd8s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.217] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 105qAR-0007BC-00; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:03:28 +0000 Message-ID: <004b01be4ab5$be15fa80$d98d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" , "Linda Trent" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:58:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws discussion group Date: 28 January 1999 00:59 Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A At 09:50 AM 1/27/99 -0800, you wrote: > >(2) It is not legal to adjust the score for one side only, so a PP >must be used in lieu of a score adjustment in such cases. Well, I can tell you this (this info will be in the Chicago casebook (in fact, the following is a quote from it): NOTE: IMPORTANT CHANGE IN THE ACBL’S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS. In Orlando, close upon the heels of a similar action by the WBF Laws Committee, the ACBL Laws Commission redefined “damage” (with regard to the offenders) as any outcome resulting in a more favorable score than would have been obtained without the irregularity. In other words, damage has occurred if the offenders obtain a better score with their infraction than they would have otherwise, regardless of whether or not it occurred as a direct consequence of the infraction. Now we can legally adjust the offenders’ score if it was made possible by their infraction, even if it was caused by the opponents’ subsequent negligence or bridge error. No longer is there a need for a procedural penalty to accomplish this. No longer will the “field” be disadvantaged by our inability to adjust a score which benefited from an infraction. Linda > >While on this subject, I have it from an informed source that the >ACBL LC discussed in Orlando the WBF LC's minutes from Lille, and >will decide later, maybe soon, as to the acceptance of the latter's >interpretations of some of the Laws. I have asked that any >decisions be made public, preferably in the ACBL's *Bulletin*. I >hope such decisions will merely involve guidelines for applying the >interpretations, not acceptance of them. Despite some recent >waffling, the By-Laws of the WBF state that the WBF LC is >responsible for interpreting the Laws. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > ----------- Used to be Linda Weinstein. Brian and I tied the knot on 12/25/98 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 28 23:44:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:44:07 +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 XAA07222 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:44:00 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-71.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.71]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA34523916 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:47:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36B05AEC.ADCCE050@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 06:41:16 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199901271724.LAA27473@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36AF81FC.6F6A0D59@freewwweb.com> <36B016EA.AF1B21C@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You are making the same argument I am and say that our arguments are precise opposites! My point is that "You are allowed to assume that pard acted correctly in the face of UI, ie has already chosen a call not suggested over another LA by it, so you can "sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight" AND opener bids an easy 7N because the combined hands have 38, or 39, or 40 hcp. To not bid 7N is to NOT "sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight" and that is an infraction. Roger Pewick Jan Kamras wrote: > > axeman wrote: > > So, why did not opener bid > > 1N-6N-7N? He had UI that his partner maybe bidding based upon UI. > > This means that under no circumstances may the contract rest in 6N. > > This is at least the second time you propose this type of argument, > which I find completely flawed both based on logic and on the laws. > > Knowing that pard has UI is not UI! (To me this is similar to that pard > alerting an alertable call does not pass the UI that he remembers the > system). You are allowed to assume that pard acted correctly in the face > of UI, ie has already chosen a call not suggested over another LA by it, > so you can "sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight".What if pard intended > to bid a slightly speculative 7NT were it not for the UI, but now this > became suggested over 6NT so he correctly chose the latter. Do you still > think you must re-raise to 7NT, which now surely makes? YES. And if responder did not have something that clearly resembles a 6N call opposite a minimum 1N opener, the score is adjusted to something between 3N and 6N depending upon the agreements and proven skill of the players [assuming that the hand is at least good enough to invite game]. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 00:20:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:20:11 +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 AAA09568 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:20:05 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-71.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.71]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA35626213 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:23:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36B06361.6F656E6A@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:17:21 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid References: <199901272142.QAA09992@csb.bu.edu> <36AFBD9C.D15A2E8C@freewwweb.com> <36B026EB.DA4DC32A@home.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 IAA35626213 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >=20 > axeman wrote: >=20 > > Consider no tempo break. There are 8 QT in a deck. >=20 > Maybe these players never heard of QTs! Maybe QTs are a lousy way of > evaluating big fitting hands! Just a couple of comments anyway on your > contrived logic: For a player to enter a contest without understanding the importance of the four aces and four kings, no matter what they are called, is an indication of their skill level. To ignore their value does not seem to be in one's best interest. > > The second double > > said they had four doubler knew that partner was [a] broke and [b] very distributional because of the bidding. The double says that he expects to take 4 tricks in spite of this information. This sounds like 4 QT to me,=20 well, a trump trick may be a slow trick. > No - the 2nd double *plus the values normally indicated by a 3D bid* > said they *might* have 4 tricks, whether "quick" or not! >=20 > > 2N said they had at least 1 and =BD, Years of experience where limit raises were not made with 1.5 to 2 QT have convinced me that one gets to the wrong contract way too often. > Is an unguarded king in a sidesuit a QT? It is a devalued card of dubious value. > > and opener's jump > > said they had 3. With a good trump fit, game will make often enough with 4.5 QT+ fillers. If responder has 1.5 then 3 makes up the balance. Of course, less is is frequently needed when working distributional controlsare held, but sometimes this is not enough. The diamond bid increases the probablity that opener has working distribution on this auction. > Sorry, but this is nonsense (so impeach me for that, DS!). Opener will > bid 4S also on a minimum opener as soon as he has a 6 card S-suit. >=20 > > That is 8.5. They are all accounted for. The auction > > has told doubler that partner is broke AND had bid 3D on distribution > > alone. >=20 > It can equally well be the opening side bidding mainly on pattern, from > the doubler's point of view. Only we know that it is our side that has > bid on pattern.Not only do I have zero def.-tricks, but the extreme > D-length may well kill one of pard's assumed def.-tricks. And that information was available to doubler. And he did anyway. > > Pull was suggested over pass and responder pulled so an adjustment is > > in order. >=20 > I think all will agree that the UI suggests pulling over passing. That > is simply not an issue here. Only whether pass is an LA or not. Doubler knew responder's hand and thought that pass was a LA when he doubled. The break in tempo suggested it. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 00:59:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:59:29 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA09722 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:59:17 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h28.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id QAA16415; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:58:49 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36B10817.1D5@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:00:07 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law and law References: <36B01081.316A@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) And sorry for quality of the previous text: probably my Netscape became mad Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 01:49:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:49:23 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09860 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:49:14 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA09608; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:48:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.54) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma009587; Thu Jan 28 08:48:26 1999 Received: by har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE4AA3.57FBD880@har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:48:22 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE4AA3.57FBD880@har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridgelaws , "'cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu'" Subject: RE: L73C vs L16A Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:35:07 -0500 Encoding: 74 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I could not disagree more strongly. If THIS is not a case where bidding to game is NOT a logical alternative there is NO such case. Partner has game forcing options...he did not use them. The limit raise by definition asks you to bid on only with extras. You have a MINIMUM opener. Even if he tanked for an hour, any action BUT a pass would be highly suspect. Can you imagine if you bid 4 and if happened to be the magic hand that makes. How fast would it take the opponents to call director? The only reason for bidding on would be partnership experience that lets you know he only hesitated because he was considering stronger action they would maintain. I strongly suspect they would win the ruling. This is such a clearcut pass that bidding game in spades looks no more logical than bidding 7 clubs. Can't we make ANY use of AI anymore? To summarize: 1. there is no LA AND 2. is is highly questionable that pass is demonstrably suggested by any UI anyhow. Bidding on looks a little rosier actualkly WITH the UI. What else was he considering? 1-2 is a no brainer usually. Does this differ at a more expert level? (But at that level are these methods even in use?) ---------- From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu[SMTP:cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 6:54 AM To: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > I'm in the first camp - if the OS goes out of its way to avoid using UI and How far out of his way does he have to go? :) > happens to hit the jackpot then good luck to them. However if we can all > agree that > any call chosen after UI is rational then lets agree it and move on. > > I'm thinking of the old chestnut from a DWS workshops along the lines of: > You open 1S holding a debatable minimum12 count at matchpoints Game All. > S. Q9765 H. Q76 D. K7 C. KQ6 > > Partner gives you a 'slow' raise to 3S (limit raise). > You Pass and just make 3S for a good board where others are going off in 4S. > Opponents call the TD but he allows the result to stand. > > Correct ruling? All agreed? If this is my regular partner, then this is a correct ruling, because to him a limit raise means "I have a few cards of the same color as your suit, and more points than fingers on one hand". If he tabled a 10 count with 4 spades I'd count myself fortunate. {Of course, he bids this way partly because he knows I'd _never_ open with the junk above.} I do not think there is a LA to passing, so I think it's the right ruling. But if this was in the ACBL, I might have to give the 'wrong' ruling instead. Surely some percentage of the people who would open a hand like that would also 'consider' going to game on it over a limit raise. {Some people play, in effect, 'limit raises are forcing to game', after all. :)} Ergo, 4S becomes a LA under that reading, and the UI does demonstrably suggest passing over 4S. {Assuming the slow limit raise is usually 'between a limit and a simple raise' and not 'between a limit and a jump to game'.} Frankly, there are many hands where I would avoid making a bid suggested by UI even if I thought I might get away with it. This is a hand where I'd pass and feel ethically sound, even though I recognized that there was a chance I might be ruled against. > Regards, > Fearghal. > Yours, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 01:49:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:49:35 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09866 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:49:30 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA16985 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:48:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.54) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma016962; Thu Jan 28 08:48:32 1999 Received: by har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE4AA3.5C774E80@har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:48:30 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE4AA3.5C774E80@har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Simple, Boring Problem Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:39:02 -0500 Encoding: 40 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Agreed, John. But if you or David or I who now know better do this we deserve a ppf. And if players at the highest level do so habitually so do they. Susie Kumquat is a different case...she gets the pleasant lecture at most, eventually leading to a warning on the 40th offense or so. :-) ---------- From: John (MadDog) Probst[SMTP:john@probst.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 1:44 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Simple, Boring Problem In article , David Stevenson writes >Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >>All bids I would not have chosen in the absence of UI. Player's duty is to >>forget UI, not even to think to minimize the effect of adjustment which TD >>could operate later. > > No, this is not correct. You must play to the Laws of the game, and >that means avoiding making calls or plays that take advantage of UI - >L73C says so. Bidding what you would have without the UI is not good >enough. > However a player who does do this and admits to it should not receive a pp, because by his understanding of the law he is doing the right thing. It is the job of the TD to educate in this area. > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom paid |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. Quango |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) returned |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ 0.49 MPs |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 03:10:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA10198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:10:31 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA10193 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:10:24 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.42.201]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990128160945.EWCK24588@default> for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:09:45 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "bridge laws mailing list" Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:04:23 -0600 Message-ID: <01be4ad7$df67d2e0$a4394b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Metcalf Subject: LA's after a bad bid >The hand in question (I dont remember the spots, but they werent >anything special): >x >xxx >Jxxxxxx >xx > >Their side was vul vs. nonvul. > >The auction was: >LHO partner RHO hand >--- ------- --- ---- >1S dbl 2NT!(1) 3D(2) >4S dbl(3) P 5D >dbl all pass > >(1) 2NT was a limit raise or better of spades >(2) a terrible bid >(3) after an acknowledged hesitation (not just a skip-bid break) > >result: 5DX went down 1; 4S would have made. > >The opponents summoned the director at the time of the 5D bid, and >later objected to the bid as being suggested by the hesitation. The >director ruled that the result be changed to 4SX=4, but a committee >later reversed this and reinstated the table result. I was a member >of the committee, but I had qualms about the ruling. Without the UI does the 3D bidder sit for 4Sx? Nope. Irrespective of any hand a player may theoretically construct, no player at the table will sit for this double. The hesitation does not in any way 'demonstably' suggest the pull. We as directors must still allow our players to play bridge. When called for to make judgement rulings of this nature we must do the best we can to demonstrate not only a knowledge of the laws, but their application. Nice job by the committee. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 03:30:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA10250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:30:48 +1100 Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA10245 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:30:40 +1100 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id WCMFa03482; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:29:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <715dec99.36b0907c@aol.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:29:48 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: gester@globalnet.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: new member Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 207 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please include me in your list of addressees. With more time now available and with my dedicated interest in maintaining the universality of bridge, I'd welcome the opportunity to be know what is being discussed. I might even be able to contribute some gems on my own. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 04:48:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:48:39 +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 EAA10473 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:48:32 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-58.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.58]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA35283979 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:51:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36B0A24C.67E3F610@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:45:48 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws mailing list Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid References: <01be4ad7$df67d2e0$a4394b0c@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello, My name is No Player. If I had bid 3D, which I think is most unlikely, my partner knows because of the auction that [a] I am broke and [b] that I have so many diamonds that there is a high probability that diamonds will not cash. They had an option [a] they could have bid after a 10-15 second pause so as to be in tempo or [b] they could think a while before bidding. They chose [b]. the double says that there are good prospects of setting 4S even without more than 1 diamond trick and that they do not think that the partnership has the values to be profitably in 5D. No Player's partner has had the ten seconds after the first skip bid and another ten seconds after the second skip bid and has taken a bit longer to think besides. No Player has no reason to feel that partner does not know what he has done except for the UI- so he does not countermand him. No Player passes. Do we really call it bridge when partner does your thinking for you? However, change the scenario a bit. This time No Player passes the first time around. This time No Player has not told partner that diamonds are not cashing. This time No Player pulls to 5D. Personally, No Player has been in similar situations easily more than a hundred times when in possession of UI and has passed. The pass occasionally gets a good score but usually fetches a zero. That is the breaks of playing with a partner that is not skillful enough to bid in tempo nor good enough to find the best call when they give partner a tempo problem. Roger Pewick Richard F Beye wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Metcalf > Subject: LA's after a bad bid > > >The hand in question (I dont remember the spots, but they werent > >anything special): > >x > >xxx > >Jxxxxxx > >xx > > > >Their side was vul vs. nonvul. > > > >The auction was: > >LHO partner RHO hand > >--- ------- --- ---- > >1S dbl 2NT!(1) 3D(2) > >4S dbl(3) P 5D > >dbl all pass > > > >(1) 2NT was a limit raise or better of spades > >(2) a terrible bid > >(3) after an acknowledged hesitation (not just a skip-bid break) > > > >result: 5DX went down 1; 4S would have made. > > > >The opponents summoned the director at the time of the 5D bid, and > >later objected to the bid as being suggested by the hesitation. The > >director ruled that the result be changed to 4SX=4, but a committee > >later reversed this and reinstated the table result. I was a member > >of the committee, but I had qualms about the ruling. > > Without the UI does the 3D bidder sit for 4Sx? Nope. Irrespective of any > hand a player may theoretically construct, no player at the table will sit > for this double. > > The hesitation does not in any way 'demonstably' suggest the pull. We as > directors must still allow our players to play bridge. When called for to > make judgement rulings of this nature we must do the best we can to > demonstrate not only a knowledge of the laws, but their application. Nice > job by the committee. > > Rick From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 05:28:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 05:28:53 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA10653 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 05:28:26 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA28520 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:27:48 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.54) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028490; Thu Jan 28 12:27:19 1999 Received: by har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE4AC1.E961D900@har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:27:11 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE4AC1.E961D900@har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: bridge laws mailing list Subject: RE: LA's after a bad bid Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:23:26 -0500 Encoding: 66 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let's think for a moment. You have grossly deceived partner into believing you have some values in your hand. That's AI. He doubles. The call itself is AI. Your hand makes it overwhelmingly likely that a pull is right. That's AI. There was hesitation, but it is unclear whether that UI suggests pass or pull. Trust your partner? He is a C flighter playing up and is missing the information needed to make the correct call thanks to your awful bid. What is there to trust? You DO know more about the hand than he does. Pull is obvious, pass is unthinkable. No LA. No adjustment, even in ACBL. If appealed in EBL/row retain deposit. Craig Richard F Beye wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Metcalf > Subject: LA's after a bad bid > > >The hand in question (I dont remember the spots, but they werent > >anything special): > >x > >xxx > >Jxxxxxx > >xx > > > >Their side was vul vs. nonvul. > > > >The auction was: > >LHO partner RHO hand > >--- ------- --- ---- > >1S dbl 2NT!(1) 3D(2) > >4S dbl(3) P 5D > >dbl all pass > > > >(1) 2NT was a limit raise or better of spades > >(2) a terrible bid > >(3) after an acknowledged hesitation (not just a skip-bid break) > > > >result: 5DX went down 1; 4S would have made. > > > >The opponents summoned the director at the time of the 5D bid, and > >later objected to the bid as being suggested by the hesitation. The > >director ruled that the result be changed to 4SX=4, but a committee > >later reversed this and reinstated the table result. I was a member > >of the committee, but I had qualms about the ruling. > > Without the UI does the 3D bidder sit for 4Sx? Nope. Irrespective of any > hand a player may theoretically construct, no player at the table will sit > for this double. > > The hesitation does not in any way 'demonstably' suggest the pull. We as > directors must still allow our players to play bridge. When called for to > make judgement rulings of this nature we must do the best we can to > demonstrate not only a knowledge of the laws, but their application. Nice > job by the committee. > > Rick From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 05:51:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 05:51:11 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA10734 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 05:51:04 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.41.29]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990128185029.GTEN24588@default> for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:50:29 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "bridge laws mailing list" Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:48:54 -0600 Message-ID: <01be4aee$dab63a40$7b2a4b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk So how do Craig and I convince Roger :)) ??? Rick -----Original Message----- From: Craig Senior Subject: RE: LA's after a bad bid >Let's think for a moment. You have grossly deceived partner into believing >you have some values in your hand. That's AI. He doubles. The call itself >is AI. Your hand makes it overwhelmingly likely that a pull is right. >That's AI. There was hesitation, but it is unclear whether that UI suggests >pass or pull. Trust your partner? He is a C flighter playing up and is >missing the information needed to make the correct call thanks to your >awful bid. What is there to trust? You DO know more about the hand than he >does. Pull is obvious, pass is unthinkable. No LA. No adjustment, even in >ACBL. If appealed in EBL/row retain deposit. > >Craig > > >Richard F Beye wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Metcalf >> Subject: LA's after a bad bid >> >> >The hand in question (I dont remember the spots, but they werent >> >anything special): >> >x >> >xxx >> >Jxxxxxx >> >xx >> > >> >Their side was vul vs. nonvul. >> > >> >The auction was: >> >LHO partner RHO hand >> >--- ------- --- ---- >> >1S dbl 2NT!(1) 3D(2) >> >4S dbl(3) P 5D >> >dbl all pass >> > >> >(1) 2NT was a limit raise or better of spades >> >(2) a terrible bid >> >(3) after an acknowledged hesitation (not just a skip-bid break) >> > >> >result: 5DX went down 1; 4S would have made. >> > >> >The opponents summoned the director at the time of the 5D bid, and >> >later objected to the bid as being suggested by the hesitation. The >> >director ruled that the result be changed to 4SX=4, but a committee >> >later reversed this and reinstated the table result. I was a member >> >of the committee, but I had qualms about the ruling. >> >> Without the UI does the 3D bidder sit for 4Sx? Nope. Irrespective of >any >> hand a player may theoretically construct, no player at the table will >sit >> for this double. >> >> The hesitation does not in any way 'demonstably' suggest the pull. We >as >> directors must still allow our players to play bridge. When called for >to >> make judgement rulings of this nature we must do the best we can to >> demonstrate not only a knowledge of the laws, but their application. > Nice >> job by the committee. >> >> Rick > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 05:55:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 05:55:09 +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 FAA10767 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 05:55:03 +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 NAA23425 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:54:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id NAA02577 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:55:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:55:04 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901281855.NAA02577@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: LA's after a bad bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Craig Senior > There was hesitation, but it is unclear whether that UI suggests > pass or pull. At least two people have said this now, but I can't understand what they are thinking. Partner has made a slow double in a position where the double will often be passed. How can the hesitation suggest anything other than pulling the double? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 06:14:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:14:55 +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 GAA10816 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:14:49 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990128191442.RTBS6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:14:42 -0800 Message-ID: <36B0B807.F3B8F3BA@home.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:18:31 -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: L73C vs L16A References: <199901271724.LAA27473@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36AF81FC.6F6A0D59@freewwweb.com> <3.0.5.32.19990128105114.007a43a0@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > I could further defend the > theory that knowing oneself has UI (and is in a position where one's bids > could be ruled against by TD) is UI. So the law, or at least knowing it, is UI? I really feel this position neccesitates a giant logical leap (but of course I may be wrong). The laws specifically tells us how to act in the face of UI. Applying this neccesitates that one *does* recognize that one has UI in the first place. I think this makes the recognition "authorized". If not, but using your argument, I could bid what I want in the face of UI -i.e. not applying L16 - since I'm not authorized to know that I have UI in the first place so L16 doesn't apply to me! (Btw, your reading would lend credence to all those who think one must "bid what I was always going to bid" - something I thought we here on BLML had long since dispelled with, and unanimously at that!) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 06:22:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:22:33 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA10831 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:22:27 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.41.166]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990128192152.HBMI24588@default> for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:21:52 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:20:19 -0600 Message-ID: <01be4af3$3e94cc80$7b2a4b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner Subject: RE: LA's after a bad bid >> From: Craig Senior >> There was hesitation, but it is unclear whether that UI suggests >> pass or pull. > >At least two people have said this now, but I can't understand what >they are thinking. > >Partner has made a slow double in a position where the double will >often be passed. How can the hesitation suggest anything other than >pulling the double? Steve, it seems that you are saying that once UI is made available to me I can not bid my hand. This is neither the case nor the Law. Irrespective of partner's actions I am always entitled to bid my hand. Should I take unusual action, based on the UI made available to me, it is now time for the tournament director. In the case cited the 3D bidder did nothing other than bid his hand normally (though badly in the eyes on many). I continue to see no violation. And I am now starting to agree with Craig, we keep the deposit! Rick From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 06:29:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:29:12 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA10870 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:29:05 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.41.166]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990128192830.HDHB24588@default> for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:28:30 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:26:57 -0600 Message-ID: <01be4af4$2b91be80$7b2a4b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner Subject: RE: LA's after a bad bid >> From: Craig Senior >> There was hesitation, but it is unclear whether that UI suggests >> pass or pull. > >At least two people have said this now, but I can't understand what >they are thinking. > >Partner has made a slow double in a position where the double will >often be passed. How can the hesitation suggest anything other than >pulling the double? And one more thing. To characterize this hand as one that ' . . .the double will often be passed.' is a pretty deep position. I refer you to my first posting on this topic. A player is still entitled to play bridge, albeit under pressure now that his partner has made available UI. Bridge is not passing with this hand. Passing is simply not a LA, nor is the pull demonstably suggested by the hesitation. The hand itself says 'bid again.' Rick From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 06:46:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:46:05 +1100 Received: from eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.189]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA10915 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:45:59 +1100 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA02839 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:46:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id LAA13597; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:47:42 -0800 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:47:42 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199901281947.LAA13597@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: LA's after a bad bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: |From: Steve Willner |Subject: RE: LA's after a bad bid | |>> From: Craig Senior |>> There was hesitation, but it is unclear whether that UI suggests |>> pass or pull. |> |>At least two people have said this now, but I can't understand what |>they are thinking. |> |>Partner has made a slow double in a position where the double will |>often be passed. How can the hesitation suggest anything other than |>pulling the double? | |Steve, it seems that you are saying that once UI is made available to me I |can not bid my hand. This is neither the case nor the Law. | |Irrespective of partner's actions I am always entitled to bid my hand. |Should I take unusual action, based on the UI made available to me, it is |now time for the tournament director. In the case cited the 3D bidder did |nothing other than bid his hand normally (though badly in the eyes on many). |I continue to see no violation. And I am now starting to agree with Craig, |we keep the deposit! Time to be the Ugly American again... No, Rick, you are confused. Steve simply said that the UI provided clearly suggests one alternative over another, not that one must rule against the hesitating side. The main issue is "what's a logical alternative if someone has already done something crazy with the hand in question?" The issue really does hit a grey area in the English the rules use. In the ACBL, an LA is defined as something that some number of the *player's peers* would seriously consider. Once a player has done something nuts, he has no peers, so nothing is a logical alternative (unless zero is considered a number this time, which breaks the definition anyway). If nothing is a LA, then we are stuck having to allow any action unless there was a L73 violation, which is, in my opinion, a different standard. So, the question becomes, given a player without any peers, what do we do about defining logical alternative? We can't simply decide that the player will suddenly become sane; we don't know if he intentionally stepped out or always thinks that way. On the other hand, we can't assume he'll stay nuts. Indeed, we have no idea why he did the silly thing in the first place. Did he missort his cards? Did he not notice one? Did he psych intentionally? Did he just make an error in judgment? How can we tell? I think the optimal solution is for the AC to evaluate each situation on its own merits and try to judge whether the player really was goofing around and knew it or made an error inadvertantly. This is not as hard to judge as one might think, although express testimony by a player about that should probably be disregarded as self-serving. His other actions and discussion of his thinking should be used to figure this out. If he intentionally stepped out, one might judge him sane later and allow as LAs only reasonable actions. If it's not clear that he knows he did something goofy, a harsher standard applies: anything is an LA and he may not choose anything suggested by UI. Yes, this means that stronger players will generally get the benefit of the doubt a little more than weaker ones sometimes. They'll pay off sometimes, too. I'm not sure the optimal solution is the right law interpretation, but it does seem the fairest. Since this sort of decision-making is extremely difficult, to judge such an appeal to be substantially without merit does a massive disservice to the non-offending side and suggests that the committee hasn't thought through the issue. --Jeff # 125-50---1998 World Champs # Go New York Yankees! # --- # http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 07:00:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:00:34 +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 HAA10961 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:00:27 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa00127; 28 Jan 99 11:59 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:20:19 PST." <01be4af3$3e94cc80$7b2a4b0c@default> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:59:49 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9901281159.aa00127@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Willner > Subject: RE: LA's after a bad bid > > > >> From: Craig Senior > >> There was hesitation, but it is unclear whether that UI suggests > >> pass or pull. > > > >At least two people have said this now, but I can't understand what > >they are thinking. > > > >Partner has made a slow double in a position where the double will > >often be passed. How can the hesitation suggest anything other than > >pulling the double? > > Steve, it seems that you are saying that once UI is made available to me I > can not bid my hand. This is neither the case nor the Law. > > Irrespective of partner's actions I am always entitled to bid my hand. > Should I take unusual action, based on the UI made available to me, it is > now time for the tournament director. No, that's a misunderstanding of the Law (my apologies I'm misunderstanding you). You seem to think that UI can lead to adjustment only if you do something unusual, but that's not the case. Say you open 1S. You're playing "Standard" with limit raises. Partner mumbles out loud, "Should I bid 2 spades, or am I good enough for 3 spades? OK, I'll bid 3 spades." Partner's made a limit raise, so if you have a hand that would clearly decline or clearly accept the invitation, you may do so. However, if you have a borderline hand, you now have to think about the consequences of the UI. Partner obviously has a minimum limit raise, and thus the UI suggests passing, rather than accepting the invitation. The Laws say that, therefore, YOU MAY NOT PASS, i.e. passing is illegal. Note that passing is not an "unusual action". People pass limit raises with borderline hands all the time.(*) But you still can't do it, and the score should be adjusted if you pass 3S. Read what the Law actually says: 16A. Extraneous Information from Partner After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ been suggested over another by the extraneous information. Note that the law says you may not choose a LOGICAL alternative that was suggested by the unauthorized info. It doesn't say that only UNUSUAL alternatives are prohibited. Thus, on the actual hand, even if you consider 5D to be "bidding your hand", 5D is disallowed by Law 16A if passing is considered a logical alternative. That's the only issue to be debated. Your previous post indicated you thought "no one would pass", and the committee agreed with you. If you're correct, then passing is *not* a logical alternative and Law 16A doesn't apply. Roger thought passing was logical, and I think he has a point if x xxx KQJxxxx xx would be considered a typical 3D bid after the limit raise. My own feeling is that it's close and I'll accept whatever the committee says. Steve hasn't actually said what he thinks about that. But the point is, if we *were* allowed to take the hesitation into account, no one would say "I was going to bid 5D, but partner's hesitation makes me think pass will work better." Thus, the hesitation suggests that pulling the double will work better than passing, just as partner's mumbling in my example clearly suggests that passing the limit raise will work better. That's the only point that Steve was trying to make. -- Adam (*) Well, *I* don't, but that's just because I like to overbid. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 07:10:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:10:56 +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 HAA10992 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:10:51 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990128201045.SHCK6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:10:45 -0800 Message-ID: <36B0C52B.2FE2B92F@home.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:14:35 -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: LA's after a bad bid References: <199901272142.QAA09992@csb.bu.edu> <36AFBD9C.D15A2E8C@freewwweb.com> <36B026EB.DA4DC32A@home.com> <36B06361.6F656E6A@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: > For a player to enter a contest without understanding the importance > of the four aces and four kings, no matter what they are called, is an > indication of their skill level. To ignore their value does not seem > to be in one's best interest. Since I find BLML the wrong forum for bridge-lessons and arguments abt hand-evaluation in isolation, I will continue this part on RGB (if at all). I will just state in general that I find QTs to be just about the worst handevaluation-method available *in competitive fit-auctions*. There are just to many adjustments and exeptions needed (as also indicated by Roger's expose) to make it somewhat usable *in that context*. > Doubler knew responder's hand and thought that pass was a LA when he > doubled. The break in tempo suggested it. I'm scratching my left ear with my right hand from behind the neck while trying to decipher this. Doubler knew *nothing* abt partner's hand, only what bid it made. No way could doubler know that pard's bid was a gross misrepresentation of the hand. Only pard knew that, and only pard is to check LAs b4 making his bid in face of the slow double. The tempo-break suggests things *to responder*, not to doubler. PS: for the purposes of the BLML-part of this, let me just ask if the 3D bid is not consistent with: xx xxx QJxxx KJx and if pard's double (the AI part of it) is not, in light of the above, consistent with (amongst others): Kx AJxx Kxx Axxx where 4SX-2 seems likely (may be -1, may be -3) whereas with pard's actual hand 4SX= seems almost certain? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 07:49:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:49:53 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA11097 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:49:45 +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 PAA30682 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:49:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id PAA02741 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:49:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:49:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901282049.PAA02741@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Richard F Beye" > Steve, it seems that you are saying that once UI is made available to me I > can not bid my hand. This is neither the case nor the Law. This is not at all what I said, and I agree it isn't the law. It is, however, the law that you may not be allowed to do what you would have done absent the UI. (See related thread.) I didn't say that, but I agree with it. In L16 cases, there are generally two main issues: LA's and "suggested over another." I have not said what I think about LA's on this hand (although I have told David M. privately), but "suggested over another" seems 100% clear. The slow double suggests pulling. Therefore if pass is a LA, pulling the double is illegal. Do we really disagree about this? > And one more thing. To characterize this hand as one that ' . . .the double > will often be passed.' is a pretty deep position. Perhaps my wording was unclear on this point. Without looking at any hands, consider the auction 1S-x-2S-3D;4S-x-P . (Wasn't that it?) All I meant was that I expect the second double to be passed a significant fraction of the time this auction occurs, perhaps 50% or perhaps much more. In particular, when doubler makes his second double, he must consider it to be passable. This is a key point in the argument that the hesitation suggests pulling. It has nothing to do with the hand the 3D bidder actually holds. The "suggested over another" conclusion might be different if the second double were purely for takeout or would often be taken out, but neither is true in this auction. As for keeping the deposit (I don't think there is one at ACBL regionals.), do remember that the TD ruled against the player who bid 5D, and his side appealed. If anyone wants to find out about LA's, I suggest posting the problem hand on RGB as a bidding problem without mentioning the UI. (I hope someone does this. I think the results would be enlightening.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 08:18:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:18:24 +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 IAA11164 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:18:15 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA00236; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:17:12 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.54) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma000160; Thu Jan 28 15:16:12 1999 Received: by har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE4AD9.83EDA1E0@har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:16:09 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE4AD9.83EDA1E0@har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'Adam Beneschan'" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: LA's after a bad bid Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:49:48 -0500 Encoding: 105 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A portion of this thread was incorrectly attributed to me. More comment at bottom. ---------- From: Adam Beneschan[SMTP:adam@flash.irvine.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 2:59 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Willner > Subject: RE: LA's after a bad bid > > > >> From: Craig Senior > >> There was hesitation, but it is unclear whether that UI suggests > >> pass or pull. > > (STEVE)> >At least two people have said this now, but I can't understand what > >they are thinking. > > > >Partner has made a slow double in a position where the double will > >often be passed. How can the hesitation suggest anything other than > >pulling the double? > (RICHARD BEYE)> Steve, it seems that you are saying that once UI is made available to me I > can not bid my hand. This is neither the case nor the Law. > > Irrespective of partner's actions I am always entitled to bid my hand. > Should I take unusual action, based on the UI made available to me, it is > now time for the tournament director. (ADAM)No, that's a misunderstanding of the Law (my apologies I'm misunderstanding you). You seem to think that UI can lead to adjustment only if you do something unusual, but that's not the case. Say you open 1S. You're playing "Standard" with limit raises. Partner mumbles out loud, "Should I bid 2 spades, or am I good enough for 3 spades? OK, I'll bid 3 spades." Partner's made a limit raise, so if you have a hand that would clearly decline or clearly accept the invitation, you may do so. However, if you have a borderline hand, you now have to think about the consequences of the UI. Partner obviously has a minimum limit raise, and thus the UI suggests passing, rather than accepting the invitation. The Laws say that, therefore, YOU MAY NOT PASS, i.e. passing is illegal. Note that passing is not an "unusual action". People pass limit raises with borderline hands all the time.(*) But you still can't do it, and the score should be adjusted if you pass 3S. Read what the Law actually says: 16A. Extraneous Information from Partner After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ been suggested over another by the extraneous information. Note that the law says you may not choose a LOGICAL alternative that was suggested by the unauthorized info. It doesn't say that only UNUSUAL alternatives are prohibited. Thus, on the actual hand, even if you consider 5D to be "bidding your hand", 5D is disallowed by Law 16A if passing is considered a logical alternative. That's the only issue to be debated. Your previous post indicated you thought "no one would pass", and the committee agreed with you. If you're correct, then passing is *not* a logical alternative and Law 16A doesn't apply. Roger thought passing was logical, and I think he has a point if x xxx KQJxxxx xx would be considered a typical 3D bid after the limit raise. My own feeling is that it's close and I'll accept whatever the committee says. Steve hasn't actually said what he thinks about that. But the point is, if we *were* allowed to take the hesitation into account, no one would say "I was going to bid 5D, but partner's hesitation makes me think pass will work better." Thus, the hesitation suggests that pulling the double will work better than passing, just as partner's mumbling in my example clearly suggests that passing the limit raise will work better. That's the only point that Steve was trying to make. -- Adam (*) Well, *I* don't, but that's just because I like to overbid. (CRAIG) I don't think either Richard or I fail to understand the law. This case is by my judgement incontrovertibly not a violation because there is no logical alternative to pulling, even by ACBL standards. Steve and I disagreed that pull is demonstrably suggested by the slow double on this auction...I can see his point that it may have been suggested, but this was a flight C player with a strange partner. He could have just been indecisive. Under the '87 laws I agree with Steve...here I am less certain. But the point is moot, for there was absolutely no LA to the pull. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 08:26:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:26:16 +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 IAA11191 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:26:07 +1100 Received: from modem81.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.209] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 105ywr-0003qP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:26:01 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:22:58 -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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 28 January 1999 10:10 > > cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > > > > > But I keep looking at this case, and I really don't see it. ---------------- \x/ --------------- ++++ "He was obscure and ambiguous in the wording of his laws, on purpose to increase the honour of his courts - for since their differences could not be adjusted by the letter of the law, they would have to bring all their causes to the judges who were thus masters of the laws." - Plutarch (on Solon). ====================================== Nothing new under the sun. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 08:49:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:49:46 +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 IAA11229 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:49:40 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA09343 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:46:46 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199901282146.PAA09343@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:46:45 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 11:24 AM 1/27/99 -0600, Grant wrote: > > But I keep looking at this case, and I really don't see it. > >Please, someone, invent a different example or convince me of this one. > >You and your partner have 27 HCP between you. AI makes it look like you > >have only 21-23. There is only 1 logical alternative with only the > >AI--pass. You have [according to the statement of the problem] no long > >suits, nothing. You pass. > > UI suggests that passing will not work. It suggests what was not > >previously a LA--bid 3NT. And I will happily smack anyone who bids 3NT. > >It might also suggest bidding 2NT. {If 2NT means "bid 3 if at the top of > >your range", you know that partner, who is an ace above the top of his > >range, will bid 3NT.} So I would whack anyone who tried that strategy. > > But in no sense does it suggest 6NT. Pass is an LA, and 6NT isn't > >an LA, even with the UI. 27 combined points with no suit to run will go > >down in 3NT much more often than it will make 6. Even if you warp the > >definition of LA's so badly as to make 6NT an LA, it is not an LA suggested > >over another [pass], and so bidding it is fine. > > Does the UI make bidding 6nt more attractive, relative to the LA of Pass, > than it would be without the UI? Yes it does. I will concede that 6nt is Okay, stop, hold it, this is vitally important. I am wondering now if we differ radically not merely on evaluation of this case but on interpretation of law, and since most people seem to agree with your judgement on this case I am now worried that I misunderstand the law. Yes, the UI certainly makes 6NT more attractive, relative to 'pass', than it was without the UI. But... > not the obvious spot, even with the UI. But is it more likely to be right > opposite a 20-count than opposite a 16-count? Clearly, yes. If your Yes, 6NT is more likely to be right opposite 20 than 16. > argument is that the probability of success in either case is virtually 0, > then I would reply that the example is moot: we won't get to this problem > because the opponents will cheerfully accept their plus score for defending > a silly slam. But I _don't_ think the probability of success is virtually 0, and even if I did I don't think the probability of success for each alternative is equally close to 0. I would say, off the top of my head, that with a combined 23 count and two flat hands [the terms of the example], 6NT will be the right bid almost exactly 0% of the time, and pass [leaving the contract in 1NT] will be right about 85-90% of the time. {Sometimes 3NT is a flukey make under those circumstances, and once in a while opponents will bid over 1NT-pass and find a good spot.} The UI that says that we have 26-27 points makes 6NT more likely to be right--I'd guess maybe 1%. That same UI makes pass less likely to be right. I'd say that 26-7 point combined hands with no long suits to run go down maybe 10% of the time. What does this mean: 1) It means that 6NT isn't a LA by any standards, and even pass may not be one anymore. 2) It means that, while 6NT has become _more_ likely to be right than it was, and pass _less_ likely to be right than it was, Pass is still much more likely to be right than 6NT. As _I_ understand it, a bid that has a 1% chance of being right given the UI is not 'suggested _over_' a bid that has a 10% chance of being right given the UI, regardless of what the probabilities were had there been no UI. A player who makes a 1% bid rather than a 10% bid is not 'taking advantage' of the UI, even if the UI increased the chance of it working from 0% to 1%. Now if the combined point total 'with UI' was different, let us say 28-29, then it's a different story. 3NT is still the bid most likely to succeed, but 6NT is now more likely to be right than Pass. _Now_ I would disallow 6NT, but not Pass. > I certainly agree that there is no definition, even in the ACBL, under > which 6nt is considered a LA. But the core issue presented in this thread > is whether the language of L16A2 requires that the chosen action itself be > a LA, or whether it is only the "road(s) not taken" which are subject to > the LA test. I prefer the latter reading, but for those who insist on the So do I. > former, there is the studied ambiguity of L73C to fall back on. In either > case, we can reasonably and fairly disallow the 6nt bid as one which seeks > to exploit the UI, albeit foolishly. There is no reasonable interpretation > of such a bid under which the bidder could truthfully claim to be striving > to avoid taking advantage of the UI. Yes, there is. I just made it. With the UI, I know that Pass might very well work. 6NT is more likely to work than without the UI, but still wildly improbable. If I wanted to take advantage of the UI, I'd make the _real_ bid of 3NT, or 2NT-knowing-it-will-be-converted-to-3NT. I think bidding 6NT here is the bridge equivalent of falling on one's sword. In the lucky event that falling on one's sword actually skewers the viper under one's shirt instead, I bow to the verdict of the bridge gods and allow it. > Mike Dennis > Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 08:59:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:59:40 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA11268 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:59:34 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.78.170]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990128215859.PBI7978@default> for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:58:59 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: LA's after a bad bid Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:57:23 -0600 Message-ID: <01be4b09$2f5d8700$7b2a4b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >-----Original Message----- >From: Steve Willner > > >>> From: "Richard F Beye" > >>> Steve, it seems that you are saying that once UI is made available to me >I >>> can not bid my hand. This is neither the case nor the Law. >> >>This is not at all what I said, and I agree it isn't the law. It is, >>however, the law that you may not be allowed to do what you would have >>done absent the UI. (See related thread.) I didn't say that, but I >>agree with it. >> >>In L16 cases, there are generally two main issues: LA's and "suggested >>over another." > >Here you must now consider *demonstably* > >>I have not said what I think about LA's on this hand (although I have >>told David M. privately), but "suggested over another" seems 100% >>clear. The slow double suggests pulling. Therefore if pass is a LA, >>pulling the double is illegal. >> >>Do we really disagree about this? > >I agree, we don't disagree (usually, you do have a phrase up there that >worries me though). My point was that pass with the hand in question is not >a LA. For a player to argue that the hesitation 'demonstably' suggested >pull over pass *with the hand in question* is a waste of breath. In a void >yes, but NOT with the hand being discussed. The hand that we are talking >about is not the sample hand shown by Jan in another post. With Jan's hand >it is another story altogether. from using all the colors and underlines that I want to add> > > >>> And one more thing. To characterize this hand as one that ' . . .the >double >>> will often be passed.' is a pretty deep position. >> >>Perhaps my wording was unclear on this point. Without looking at any >>hands, consider the auction 1S-x-2S-3D;4S-x-P . (Wasn't that it?) All >>I meant was that I expect the second double to be passed a significant >>fraction of the time this auction occurs, perhaps 50% or perhaps much >>more. In particular, when doubler makes his second double, he must >>consider it to be passable. This is a key point in the argument that >>the hesitation suggests pulling. It has nothing to do with the hand >>the 3D bidder actually holds. > > >But you must look at the hand. When making an informed ruling don't we have >to look at the hand that is bidding 5D? Isn't that the hand we must use to >form a rational ruling for the players? Isn't that why TDs provide hand >records to committee members? That is what I meant in the first posting I >made on this topic. *Applying* the laws. To change this score to 4Sx is >not, IMO, a proper application of law. > >>The "suggested over another" conclusion might be different if the >>second double were purely for takeout or would often be taken out, but >>neither is true in this auction. > >Not with the hand in question. There is no LA other than 5D with the hand >in question. > >>As for keeping the deposit (I don't think there is one at ACBL >>regionals.), do remember that the TD ruled against the player who bid >>5D, and his side appealed. > > >ON THIS THANK-YOU FOR SETTING ME STRAIGHT. I agree, the committee got it >right. I refund the deposit with interest. > >I remain firmly in Craig's camp, warm and toasty, > >Rick > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 09:02:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:02:22 +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 JAA11285 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:02:11 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11983 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:59:28 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199901282159.PAA11983@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:59:28 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > But I keep looking at this case, and I really don't see it. > > Please, someone, invent a different example or convince me of this one. > > You and your partner have 27 HCP between you. AI makes it look like you > > have only 21-23. There is only 1 logical alternative with only the > > AI--pass. You have [according to the statement of the problem] no long > > suits, nothing. You pass. > > UI suggests that passing will not work. It suggests what was not > > previously a LA--bid 3NT. And I will happily smack anyone who bids 3NT. > > It might also suggest bidding 2NT. {If 2NT means "bid 3 if at the top of > > your range", you know that partner, who is an ace above the top of his > > range, will bid 3NT.} So I would whack anyone who tried that strategy. > > But in no sense does it suggest 6NT. Pass is an LA, and 6NT isn't > > an LA, even with the UI. 27 combined points with no suit to run will go > > down in 3NT much more often than it will make 6. Even if you warp the > > definition of LA's so badly as to make 6NT an LA, it is not an LA suggested > > over another [pass], and so bidding it is fine. > > > > Since you know (by UI) that the only LA (your definition) is > pass, and that this will almost certainly produce a zero (at > matchpoints), and there are other alternatives (2NT, 3NT) > which you are not allowed to bid, since they will be ruled > against and produce the same zero, there remains only one > alternative : 6NT. This will produce an even worse score, > to all likelyhood (but zero = zero at matchpoints), but in a > small percentage of cases a top, which some directors will > not transform into the same zero. That means that the > alternative has at least some element of rationality to it, > and thus (by my definition at least) has become a Logical > alternative, which (by normal reasoning) was suggested by > the UI. If I agreed with your percentages, I would agree with your verdict. But since I think the chance of 1NT being an optimal contract is small-but-significant, and the chance of 6NT being optimal is too-small to be significant, I do not think 6NT is suggested over Pass. Again, if the point totals were different, so that the chance of 6NT working was anywhere close to Pass working, then you must pass. But I don't think choosing a 1% option over a 10% option is taking advantage of anything. > > UI may make a bid that was not previously a LA into a LA. I > > accept that. Or, if you prefer, it may mean that choosing an illogical > > alternative action suggested by the UI is illegal under L73. But one does > > not violate either L73 or L16 in any way if one makes a bid not suggested > > over another LA, _even if it works spectacularly_. Bidding 6NT with 27 > > HCP is not illegal. It is not unethical. [It is also not very bright.] > > Yes it is, if you believe all of the above, you may be > thinking it extremely clever ! I agree. _IF_ I thought Pass was a virtually-certain 0, then 6NT stands out. [Or I could try transferring into my 4-card suit hoping to strike gold, or something like that.] > > Is everyone except me really in agreement that we should roll back the > > score here if 6NT works? Will you roll back the score to 3NT-1 if it > > turns out that passing would have worked? Or maybe 6NT-4? How about this? If the UI really makes 6NT quasi-logical, then if we only make 2NT, don't we have to convert 1NT making 2 to 6NT down 4? [That's just a joke. :)] > Herman DE WAEL Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 13:20:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:20:42 +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 NAA11992 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:20:35 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 1063Xm-00012W-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 02:20:27 +0000 Message-ID: <+MmO$ZAaoRs2EwWw@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 02:16:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid In-Reply-To: <199901281855.NAA02577@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199901281855.NAA02577@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Craig Senior >> There was hesitation, but it is unclear whether that UI suggests >> pass or pull. > >At least two people have said this now, but I can't understand what >they are thinking. > >Partner has made a slow double in a position where the double will >often be passed. How can the hesitation suggest anything other than >pulling the double? I always ask myself the question "Would he have passed a fast happy double?". Then there is little left to think about :)) btw I had my game with DWS in the ACBL game at the YC today. We played in a 3NT off the 6card spade suit and an Ace with 4H stone cold for an overtrick. My fault :( Apart from that it went ok. I feel sorry for the pair who came 2nd by a tad less than 20%. We posted 75.32% So.... DWS now has 1.89 ACBL points (0.49 last time, 1.40 this) which gets him close to being a Junior Master?. On the strength of that I have released Quango, and the maddog is now looking for further mischief \|/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom paid |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. Quango |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) returned |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 15:10:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA12482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:10:35 +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 PAA12453 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:10:20 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 1065Fy-0005b8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:10:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:04:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199901282146.PAA09343@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199901282146.PAA09343@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: > But I _don't_ think the probability of success is virtually 0, and >even if I did I don't think the probability of success for each >alternative is equally close to 0. > I would say, off the top of my head, that with a combined 23 count >and two flat hands [the terms of the example], 6NT will be the right bid >almost exactly 0% of the time, and pass [leaving the contract in 1NT] will >be right about 85-90% of the time. {Sometimes 3NT is a flukey make under >those circumstances, and once in a while opponents will bid over 1NT-pass >and find a good spot.} The UI that says that we have 26-27 points makes >6NT more likely to be right--I'd guess maybe 1%. That same UI makes pass >less likely to be right. I'd say that 26-7 point combined hands with no >long suits to run go down maybe 10% of the time. > What does this mean: > 1) It means that 6NT isn't a LA by any standards, and even pass >may not be one anymore. > 2) It means that, while 6NT has become _more_ likely to be right >than it was, and pass _less_ likely to be right than it was, Pass is still >much more likely to be right than 6NT. > > As _I_ understand it, a bid that has a 1% chance of being right >given the UI is not 'suggested _over_' a bid that has a 10% chance of being >right given the UI, regardless of what the probabilities were had there >been no UI. A player who makes a 1% bid rather than a 10% bid is not >'taking advantage' of the UI, even if the UI increased the chance of it >working from 0% to 1%. I don't agree. If you would bid 6NT with a 1% chance as against 0% chance, despite a 10% chance as against a 15% chance, then your decision has taken advantage of UI. More importantly, this shows the whole fallacy of using percentages. Are they universally agreed? No, of course not. {In fact I believe that 6NT bid happily on every 26.5 count would have a higher success rate than you think.} Consider a player's thought processes. If he says to himself "I have UI: I shall teach partner a lesson he deserves: I'll bid 6NT and laugh when he goes down" then he has not used UI to his own advantage. Now, suppose his thought processes are "I think 1NT will get us a bottom: I think 3NT will be ruled back: I think 6NT will improve our score maybe one time in ten - but it isn't going to get worse" then he has used UI, and is trying to gain advantage of UI. But, you say, his figures are wrong - so what? The fact that *you* disagree with his figures is not important. It is the fact that the player concerned has taken a decision based on UI that he hopes will gain that is important - the fact that you disagree with his figures does not matter. After all, his figures may be right and yours wrong - who knows? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 15:10:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA12488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:10:36 +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 PAA12454 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:10:21 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 1065G1-0005b6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:10:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:04:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: new member References: <715dec99.36b0907c@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <715dec99.36b0907c@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >Please include me in your list of addressees. With more time now available >and with my dedicated interest in maintaining the universality of bridge, I'd >welcome the opportunity to be know what is being discussed. I might even be >able to contribute some gems on my own. Very pleased to see you. New members are always welcome, and we shall read anything you contribute with interest. -- 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 Jan 29 15:10:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA12486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:10:36 +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 PAA12451 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:10:20 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 1065Fy-0005b7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:10:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:03:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199901271724.LAA27473@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36AF81FC.6F6A0D59@freewwweb.com> <36B016EA.AF1B21C@home.com> <3.0.5.32.19990128105114.007a43a0@phedre.meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990128105114.007a43a0@phedre.meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > I think knowing that pard has UI is UI; This is interesting, but I have no position on it. > and I could further defend the >theory that knowing oneself has UI (and is in a position where one's bids >could be ruled against by TD) is UI. No, certainly not. The whole basis of L73C that many people have such difficulty with is that the Laws require a person in receipt of UI to adjust his actions. So he knows he has UI, and he knows it constrains his actions, and he attempts to the best of his ability not to take advantage. Knowing he himself has UI is AI to himself - it is legally part of a player's decision making process. > The first thing to clearly determine, at this point of the discussion, >could be the exact definition of UI: where does the "extraneous >information" of the header of L16 begin? How far can UI be recursive (I >hope this word exists in English and has the meaning I intend, something >like self-refering!)? That's right in the meaning in the English language, but knowing you yourself have UI is AI so the procedure is not recursive. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 15:10:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA12487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:10:36 +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 PAA12452 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:10:20 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 1065Fy-0005b6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:10:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:03:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <004b01be4a12$f3899760$d7307dc2@hlyxzurz> In-Reply-To: <004b01be4a12$f3899760$d7307dc2@hlyxzurz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >Are we any nearer a consensus? > >Some of us are allowing OS a chance at lucky break e.g. a shot in the dark >6NT, while others are saying that any call chosen is rational whether based >on UI or not and whether logical or not and can therefore be cancelled. I have seen no message that argues this. I have seen other messages as well as this that quote this as though someone has said it. Well, I don't believe that anyone has said it. I have been quoted as saying this. I have not said it. There is no suggestion from me or anyone else that we disallow a call that is not based on UI. If someone supports that strange idea, please could they say so. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 15:10:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA12483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:10:35 +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 PAA12455 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:10:21 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 1065G2-0005b9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:10:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:05:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid References: <199901272142.QAA09992@csb.bu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199901272142.QAA09992@csb.bu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Metcalf wrote: >My question: I think the problem is that the 3D bid was gross, and >is what led to the trouble. It is, of course, their right to make awful >bids. However, how do we judge LA's in a situation where ones own >prior bidding has backed one into a bad corner? We consider whether there is an LA in the actual auction for one of the player's peers. That is really not a difficult as all that. The example hand is a case in point - the commentator says 3D is a bad bid. Is it? It is not a bid that is guaranteed to fail by any means. But it certainly does not make it impossible to determine LAs later. I don't see anything special in the hand. A decision has to be made as to whether pass is an LA. Who is best to make that decision? An AC. Who did make that decision? An AC. What's the problem? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 18:19:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA12953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:19:58 +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 SAA12947 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:19:50 +1100 Received: from modem1.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.129] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 1068DM-0004Ue-00; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:19:40 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:57:47 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "He was obscure and ambiguous in the wording of his laws, on purpose to increase the honour of his courts - for since their differences could not be adjusted by the letter of the law , they would have to bring all their causes to the judges who were thus masters of the laws." - Plutarch (on Solon). ====================================== ---------- > From: Fearghal O'Boyle > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 27 January 1999 16:31 > > I'm thinking of the old chestnut from a DWS workshops along the lines of: > You open 1S holding a debatable minimum12 count at matchpoints Game All. > S. Q9765 H. Q76 D. K7 C. KQ6 > > Partner gives you a 'slow' raise to 3S (limit raise). > You Pass and just make 3S for a good board where others are going off in 4S. > Opponents call the TD but he allows the result to stand. > +++ Pairs? at matchpoints? bid 4S on that rubbish? no special need for a top? What sort of 'limit' raises? ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 19:30:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:30:07 +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 TAA13102 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:29:59 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.206] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 1069JH-0002yf-00; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:29:51 +0000 Message-ID: <199901290829410690.120A67BA@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: <004b01be4a12$f3899760$d7307dc2@hlyxzurz> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:29:41 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 29/01/99, at 04:03, David Stevenson wrote: >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > >>Are we any nearer a consensus? >> >>Some of us are allowing OS a chance at lucky break e.g. a shot in the= dark >>6NT, while others are saying that any call chosen is rational whether= based >>on UI or not and whether logical or not and can therefore be cancelled. > > I have seen no message that argues this. > > I have seen other messages as well as this that quote this as though >someone has said it. Well, I don't believe that anyone has said it. I >have been quoted as saying this. I have not said it. > > There is no suggestion from me or anyone else that we disallow a call >that is not based on UI. If someone supports that strange idea, please >could they say so. >From an earlier DWS post: >That is one way of looking at it. At least one correspondent has suggested that any action taken has become an LA thereby - and I am happy to use that as a basis for ruling. I think that the way in which Fearghal reads this statement (and the way in= which I read it also) is that: "any action taken by a player in receipt of= UI may be treated as a logical alternative within the meaning of L16 and= L73, and may be disallowed under those Laws". I cannot trace the identity= of any earlier correspondent who suggested this. If that is not what it means, perhaps it would be helpful if you could= clarify what it does mean, since I believe it to be the source of the= confusion. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 29 23:43:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:43:25 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA14479 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:43:16 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-202.uunet.be [194.7.9.202]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA13512 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:43:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36B1A394.46EB98EF@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:03:32 +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: L73C vs L16A References: <199901282146.PAA09343@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > (large snip) > > As _I_ understand it, a bid that has a 1% chance of being right > given the UI is not 'suggested _over_' a bid that has a 10% chance of being > right given the UI, regardless of what the probabilities were had there > been no UI. A player who makes a 1% bid rather than a 10% bid is not > 'taking advantage' of the UI, even if the UI increased the chance of it > working from 0% to 1%. > I agree with your mathematics, but don't forget that this was a constructed example, so it is hard for us to imagine what was going on in the head of a non-existant, imaginary, player. The point we were trying to make is that if a player (mistakingly or not) thinks that 6NT will yield a result of non-zero more often than 1NT, then to HIM, 6NT becomes a logical alternative. It should not matter whether his analysis was correct or not, he thought it would yield a better result, given all the circumstances. If that is the case, we should consider 6NT a LA and therefor not allowed. This situation has never arisen (or has it), but if it does, we should be prepared to deal with it. Or rather, by stating now that we shall not accept this type of reasoning, we should be able to prevent this from happening. > Now if the combined point total 'with UI' was different, let us > say 28-29, then it's a different story. 3NT is still the bid most likely > to succeed, but 6NT is now more likely to be right than Pass. _Now_ I > would disallow 6NT, but not Pass. > Well, you are only doing the same thing we are proposing, but against a player whose actions you agree with (on the logical front). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 00:05:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:05:45 +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 AAA14616 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:05:37 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 106Dbw-0001Vo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:05:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:29:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <004b01be4a12$f3899760$d7307dc2@hlyxzurz> <199901290829410690.120A67BA@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901290829410690.120A67BA@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >On 29/01/99, at 04:03, David Stevenson wrote: > >>Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >> >>>Are we any nearer a consensus? >>> >>>Some of us are allowing OS a chance at lucky break e.g. a shot in the dark >>>6NT, while others are saying that any call chosen is rational whether based >>>on UI or not and whether logical or not and can therefore be cancelled. >> >> I have seen no message that argues this. >> >> I have seen other messages as well as this that quote this as though >>someone has said it. Well, I don't believe that anyone has said it. I >>have been quoted as saying this. I have not said it. >> >> There is no suggestion from me or anyone else that we disallow a call >>that is not based on UI. If someone supports that strange idea, please >>could they say so. > >From an earlier DWS post: > >>That is one way of looking at it. At least one correspondent has >suggested that any action taken has become an LA thereby - and I am >happy to use that as a basis for ruling. > >I think that the way in which Fearghal reads this statement (and the way in >which I read it also) is that: "any action taken by a player in receipt of UI >may be treated as a logical alternative within the meaning of L16 and L73, and >may be disallowed under those Laws". I cannot trace the identity of any earlier >correspondent who suggested this. I agree with this meaning, but it does not read the same as what is being quoted. What is being quoted is disallowing calls *not* based on UI. The bit in parentheses is a very accurate reading of what I said, and means that I am prepared to disallow actions taken based on UI. Fearghal has said that we can cancel any call >whether based >>>on UI or not and that is certainly not the same. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 00:07:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:07:10 +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 AAA14637 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:07:03 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.18] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 106DdR-0005jE-00; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:06:57 +0000 Message-ID: <199901291307000100.00C2EDDC@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: <199901282146.PAA09343@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:07:00 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A variation on a theme: Game all. Matchpoint scoring. John Smith opens 1NT, systemically 15-17.= Then, he says: "Oops - I shouldn't have done that - sorry, partner!" His= partner William Brown has a balanced 8-count: J65 Q102 A1087 J98. [I do not want to get into a debate about whether this hand is or is not a= marginal game try, a clear pass, a clear 3NT bid or whatever - if you= think there is a clear action on this hand, please modify it according to= your own view. Judging by the number of BLML people who condemned as= "awful" a 3D bid that 100% of 7 current English internationals so far= polled (myself included) regard as automatic, questions of bridge judgment= are not really the province of this list :) ] What actions may William Brown logically take now? How would you adjust the= score if: (a) he bid 3NT and partner had 19, so the game made. (b) he bid 2NT and partner, with 19, went on to game which made. (c) he passed and partner had 14, with 1NT the limit of the hand. (d) he passed and partner had 19, but the opponents cashed the first five= spade tricks. (e) he bid 6NT and partner had 22, but the contract made on a favourable= lie of cards. Would your decisions above be affected if you discovered during the hearing= that Smith-Brown play the variable no trump, and Smith has frequently= forgotten this while Brown never has? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 00:43:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:43:46 +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 AAA17251 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:43:36 +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 NAA21356 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:42:59 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 NAA28587 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:41:59 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990129144336.007b71a0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:43:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <36B0B807.F3B8F3BA@home.com> References: <199901271724.LAA27473@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36AF81FC.6F6A0D59@freewwweb.com> <3.0.5.32.19990128105114.007a43a0@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:18 28/01/99 -0800, Jan Kamras wrote: >Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >> I could further defend the >> theory that knowing oneself has UI (and is in a position where one's bids >> could be ruled against by TD) is UI. > >So the law, or at least knowing it, is UI? > >I really feel this position neccesitates a giant logical leap (but of >course I may be wrong). The laws specifically tells us how to act in the >face of UI. Applying this neccesitates that one *does* recognize that >one has UI in the first place. I think this makes the recognition >"authorized". If not, but using your argument, I could bid what I want >in the face of UI -i.e. not applying L16 - since I'm not authorized to >know that I have UI in the first place so L16 doesn't apply to me! > >(Btw, your reading would lend credence to all those who think one must >"bid what I was always going to bid" - something I thought we here on >BLML had long since dispelled with, and unanimously at that!) > OK, I agree deep thinking about L16 and L73 led BLML to this conclusion but everybody doesn't read BLML and UI cases induce, as we all know, very umpleasant disputes between players which, unfortunately, are not easily resolved by simply reading them the laws. L16 and L73 tell how players must behave when UI, and how TD or AC must judge; both are not the same but I don't see a problem with this: players do their best to be ethical but they could be ruled against because Laws don't (wisely) appreciate intentions. It's possible to explain a player we think his bid was sensible but we don't allow it because it was made too "easy" by UI. The adjudication of cases by TD is precisely defined: not to allow a bid suggested by UI if there are less successful LA. Alas the attitude ethically required from players is defined, with contradictions, in different places of L16 and L73. It would be simple with only the beginning of L16: not to base a call on extraneous information; but later, poor UI-receiving player is instructed to choose his call after accurate evaluation of LA, of what may be suggested by UI, what AC or his peers might think of it, which, finally a simple soul understands as meaning to base his call on UI! Furthermore recent discussions on BLML show that it is considered legal and ethically correct to try to maximize your score by taking account of consequences of UI, maybe by cynically choosing a stupid call after exclusion of calls which would lead to poor outcomes, either because they are deemed to be unsuccessful or because they are deemed to be ruled out. On the other side, a player who has tried not to base his call on UI, and ingenuously chosen a call which happens to be suggested over less successful LA by UI, has now (L73) commited a "Violation of Proprieties", nothing less! What a mess, and what a bargain for bridge-lawyers. Anybody volontary to write a user-guide on how to behave in presence of UI? JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 01:22:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:22:34 +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 BAA17524 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:22:26 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA18250 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:21:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990129092436.006fc7d0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:24:36 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199901282146.PAA09343@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:46 PM 1/28/99 -0600, cfgcs wrote: > But I _don't_ think the probability of success is virtually 0, and >even if I did I don't think the probability of success for each >alternative is equally close to 0. > I would say, off the top of my head, that with a combined 23 count >and two flat hands [the terms of the example], 6NT will be the right bid >almost exactly 0% of the time, and pass [leaving the contract in 1NT] will >be right about 85-90% of the time. {Sometimes 3NT is a flukey make under >those circumstances, and once in a while opponents will bid over 1NT-pass >and find a good spot.} The UI that says that we have 26-27 points makes >6NT more likely to be right--I'd guess maybe 1%. That same UI makes pass >less likely to be right. I'd say that 26-7 point combined hands with no >long suits to run go down maybe 10% of the time. > What does this mean: > 1) It means that 6NT isn't a LA by any standards, and even pass >may not be one anymore. > 2) It means that, while 6NT has become _more_ likely to be right >than it was, and pass _less_ likely to be right than it was, Pass is still >much more likely to be right than 6NT. > > As _I_ understand it, a bid that has a 1% chance of being right >given the UI is not 'suggested _over_' a bid that has a 10% chance of being >right given the UI, regardless of what the probabilities were had there >been no UI. A player who makes a 1% bid rather than a 10% bid is not >'taking advantage' of the UI, even if the UI increased the chance of it >working from 0% to 1%. The flaw in Grant's argument is that the word "suggested" isn't meaningful in isolation; we must ask "suggested" *to whom*. To an omniscient objective observer, 6NT cannot be suggested over pass when pass is more likely to be the winning call. But here we have a player who has bid 6NT, who clearly would not have considered doing so absent the UI, and who knew that he would not receive an adjusted score if he passed. His only possible reason for doing so is that he expected (in the probabilistic sense) a better result (after any prospective adjustment) for bidding 6NT than for passing. Which can only mean that the UI suggested 6NT over pass *to him*, regardless of how silly or foolish the evaluation that led him to make the bid. So the real issue is one of interpreting the words of L16. The TD/AC must determine whether the player's bid "could demonstrably have been suggested over another". But should that be taken to mean "suggested over another to the TD/AC" or "suggested over another to the player who made the bid"? This thread clearly demonstrates that the answer matters! 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 Jan 30 03:50:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 03:50:46 +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 DAA18822 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 03:50:36 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA03082 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:47:42 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199901291647.KAA03082@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:47:39 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > As _I_ understand it, a bid that has a 1% chance of being right > >given the UI is not 'suggested _over_' a bid that has a 10% chance of being > >right given the UI, regardless of what the probabilities were had there > >been no UI. A player who makes a 1% bid rather than a 10% bid is not > >'taking advantage' of the UI, even if the UI increased the chance of it > >working from 0% to 1%. > > The flaw in Grant's argument is that the word "suggested" isn't meaningful > in isolation; we must ask "suggested" *to whom*. To an omniscient > objective observer, 6NT cannot be suggested over pass when pass is more > likely to be the winning call. But here we have a player who has bid 6NT, > who clearly would not have considered doing so absent the UI, and who knew > that he would not receive an adjusted score if he passed. His only {Well, maybe he knew all of that. :)} > possible reason for doing so is that he expected (in the probabilistic > sense) a better result (after any prospective adjustment) for bidding 6NT > than for passing. Which can only mean that the UI suggested 6NT over pass > *to him*, regardless of how silly or foolish the evaluation that led him to > make the bid. > > So the real issue is one of interpreting the words of L16. The TD/AC must > determine whether the player's bid "could demonstrably have been suggested > over another". But should that be taken to mean "suggested over another to > the TD/AC" or "suggested over another to the player who made the bid"? > This thread clearly demonstrates that the answer matters! Others have given similar replies. The problem, as I see it, is then threefold: 1) If I make an irrational bid* that somehow works, doesn't this mean that I will _always_ have my score adjusted? Because, _by definition_, since I made the bid it must be the bid that was suggested _to me_ given the UI. {* when possessing UI} 2) To what score do we adjust? I am uncomfortable with the idea that in determining 'suggested over another' we do not take into account what the TD/AC judges, but in choosing the alternatives we do. Put it another way--ordinarily, we allow the TD/AC to figure out which bids were suggested over another, and which were LA's. But now it seems as though whatever the player bids is an LA _and_ Suggested Over Another, regardless of the hands. 3) I would agree that if we determine that the player really thought the 6NT bid was likely to work [or more likely than Pass], we have ground for a judgement against him. {But even then I think it is under L73C or even L90!} But your argument here seems to suggest that we don't need to know what the player was thinking--the very fact of making the bid shows that _ipso facto_ he is in violation of L16/73. BTW, I think your position is stronger if you use L73C instead of L16. You will find it much harder to convince me that a 1% bid is "demonstrably suggested over" a 10% bid, than you will to convince me that the 1% bid was not "carefully avoid[ing] taking advantage". Personally, I think passing up a 10% bid to make a 1% bid will definately prevent me from taking any advantage at all most of the time, but I'll be more easily persuaded. :) One last example case, and I'll shut up. Take the example case where you opened 1S with a ratty 12-count. This time, instead of a limit raise partner says "2NT...oops". You used to play that 2NT was 11-12 balanced with only 2-card support for the major, but you just changed to 2NT being 12-14 with 3-card support. Without the UI, you could choose between 3NT, 4S, 3S, or Pass. The UI clearly suggests that partner forgot the new agreement, and so you should Pass or at most bid 3S. Trying to be ethical you avoid those bids, and to make sure you don't look bad you jump to 6S. Bad luck for you--opponents defend poorly, the cards are magical, and 6S makes. Bad luck, because obviously 6S was suggested _to you_ by the UI, and you had alternatives [the worst scoring of which are, of course, Pass and 3S], and so the score is ruled back. So making a bid which is _contraindicated_ by the UI is an infraction, to be ruled back to the score for the bid which the UI suggested [!], on the grounds that obviously the UI suggested the contraindicated bid _to you_! Now DWS seems to suggest that we must try to determine _why_ the irrational bidder made his bid. So perhaps if I convince him I jumped to 6S for this reason, he'll let me have my score. But so far most people responding to this thread have suggested that such results will always be rolled back if they work, and the argument you give above seems to lead to this conclusion. Oh, well, I didn't start this. I think it was David Burn, although he just wanted to jump to 6H instead of 4H! > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 03:58:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 03:58:51 +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 DAA18851 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 03:58:44 +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 QAA20013 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:58:32 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 QAA27665 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:58:28 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA14726 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:58:26 GMT Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:58:26 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199901291658.QAA14726@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort > What a mess, and what a bargain for bridge-lawyers. Anybody volontary to > write a user-guide on how to behave in presence of UI? > > JP Rocafort I'm game. 1) Do you (the player) have UI? If not, make any call. 2) Do you know what the UI suggests? If not, make any call. 3) Do you have a choice of sensible calls? If not, make the only sensible call. * 4) Does the UI suggest one sensible call will be more successful than another sensible call? If not, make any sensible call. * 5) Disregard those sensible calls which the UI suggests will be more successful than another sensible call and make any of the remaining sensible calls. * ---- * Instead of a sensible call, you may make any other call unless the UI suggests that the not-sensible call will be more successful than a sensible call. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 04:01:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 04:01:36 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18932 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 04:01:23 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-165.uunet.be [194.7.13.165]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA00612 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:01:09 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:01:09 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <199901291701.SAA00612@carbon.uunet.be> From: Herman De Wael Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A X-Spanska: Yes To: undisclosed-recipients:; Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk begin 644 Happy99.exe M35I0``(````$``\`__\``+@`````````0``:```````````````````````` M``````````````````````$``+H0``X?M`G-(;@!3,TAD)!4:&ES('!R;V=R M86T@;75S="!B92!R=6X@=6YD97(@5VEN,S(-"B0W```````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M`````````````````````````````````````````%!%``!,`00`GR77C@`` M````````X`".@0L!`AD`"@```!8```````````$````!`````@```$`````! M```"```!``````````,`"@`````````%```$`````````@``````$```(``` M```0```0````````$``````````````````#`$`#```````````````````` M``````````````````0`:`$````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````````0T]$10``````$``````!```*````!@`````````````````` M(```8$1!5$$``````!```````@``$````!```````````````````$```,`N M:61A=&$````0``````,```0````@``````````````````!```#`+G)E;&]C M````$``````$```"````)```````````````````0```4``````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````:`!X``!J0.C6"```A<`/A!T&``!0O^L.0@"K!6!M``"K!<@```"K M6%!04%^XE````*OHMP@``%Z#QA"M@_@`#X3L!0``OLD-0@!67[F5````K/;0 MJN+Z:,@```#_->\.0@#HC0@``(7`#X2W!0``H_<.0@!HR````/\U\PY"`&H` MZ%8(``"%P`^$F`4``(LU\PY"``/P@^X%K"3?/$%U"L<%B@]"`/____^^(PY" M`(L][PY"``,]]PY"`+D)````\Z1J`?\U[PY"`/\U\PY"`.CO!P``O@``0@"+ M/>L.0@"M/45.1"!T%3U:15)/=`7WT*OK[*V+R#/`\ZOKXXO/*PWK#D(`B0W[ M#D(`OAH.0@"+/>\.0@`#/?<.0@"Y"0```/.D,\!0:(````!J`E!0:````$#_ M->\.0@#HNP<``$`/A.L$``!(H_\.0@!J`&C[#D(`_S7[#D(`_S7K#D(`_S7_ M#D(`Z$('``"%P`^$M`0``+X-#D(`BSWO#D(``SWW#D(`N0T```#SI(LU[PY" M`(L]\PY"`(L-]PY"`(/!"?.DN'-K80"K:@'_-?,.0@#_->\.0@#H"@<``#/` M4&B`````:@-04&@```#`_S7O#D(`Z"0'``!`=5(SP/\UZPY"`&@'#T(`4&@_ M`!\`4%!0:"P.0@!H`@``@.@@!P``N`@```!0N",.0@!`4&H!:@!0_S4'#T(` MZ/T&``#_-0#D(`,\!04%!J!%#_-5X.0@#HI`8` M`(7`#X3/`P``HV8.0@`SP%!04&H&_S5F#D(`Z*D&``"%P`^$I0,``*-J#D(` MB_!F@3Y-6@^%DP,``(!^$GH/A(D#``#&1A)Z`W8\9H$^4$4/A7<#``")-7(. M0@!FBT8&9J-V#D(`,\EFBPUV#D(`9HM&%&:C>`Y"`(O>@\,8,\!F`P5X#D(` M`]B+`STN=&5X=",]+F5D870//2YD871T68/#*$EUX^M>BT,,*T,4HWH.0@#K MY/=#)"```&`/A"P#``"!2R0```"`B1V>#D(`BT,0BWL(*\<]R@````^"#`,` M`(M##(M3%"O"HWX.0@`#UXD5D@Y"`.N9BT,,*T,4HX(.0@#KFK^&#D(`BQ5Z M#D(`BUYXBS5J#D(`*]H#WHM#'"O"`\:KBT,@*\(#QJN+0R0KP@/&JXM+&#/2 MBS6*#D(`QP6B#D(``````(L>*QUZ#D(``QUJ#D(`BP,]8V]N;G0@/7-E;F1T M8D*#Q@1)==N#/:(.0@`"#X5Q`@``Z9(```"#PP2+`SUE8W0`==M25HL=C@Y" M`-'B`]HSP&:+`XLUA@Y"`,'@`@/PBP:CE@Y"`*&2#D(``P5^#D(`@\``B0;_ M!:(.0@!>6NN>@\,$B@,\`'654E:+'8X.0@#1X@/:,\!FBP.+-88.0@#!X`(# M\(L&HYH.0@"AD@Y"``,%?@Y"`(/`1XD&_P6B#D(`7EKI5?___XLUG@Y"`(%& M",H```!HJ@Y"`.A0!```A<`/A)H!``"CI@Y"`&BW#D(`_S6F#D(`Z#\$``"% MP`^$?0$``*/?#D(`:,0.0@#_-:8.0@#H(@0``(7`#X1@`0``H^,.0@!HT`Y" M`/\UI@Y"`.@%!```A<`/A$,!``"CYPY"`(L]D@Y"``,]:@Y"`.C*````G&#H M`````%^!Q[T```"+7"0LBD,#/!EU"(M$)"BJ1^L*/'=U&T>+1"0HJN@(```` M4VMA+F1L;`"X_______0JV&=Z0````"<8.@`````7H/&=F:MBUPD*#KC=!`Z MPW0"ZUOH#P```&UA:6P`Z`4```!N97=S`*U0N/______T(7`=#K_T#P!=#1F MD^@`````7H/&-%9?,\"`^TYU"D>JK#P`=1E&ZPV`^TUU$:I'1JP\`'4)K5"X M_______089WI`````````````%ZYR@```/.DH=\.0@")AV____^AYPY"`(E' MKZ'C#D(`B4?MBQ5^#D(`H9(.0@`#PH/`1BL%E@Y"`/?0B8=Y____H9(.0@`# MP@7#````*P6:#D(`]]")1_;_-6H.0@#HH@(``/\U9@Y"`.CE`@``_S5>#D(` MZ-H"``#_->L.0@#HU0(``(,]B@]"``!T!VK_Z(\"``!H``("`&I`Z)4"``"C MZPY"`&H`Z&4"``"C?@]"`*,;#T(`N.<'00"C#P]"`,<%+P]"`&L.0@!15E^#QQ2+1@BKBT8,JX$&`!```*T!1@2M M`48$K<'X$(O0K<'X$(O8K8/X`'4%@\8(ZTF`;OP!K<'X$(O0K<'X$%9J`%)0_S5C M#T(`Z-L!``!>@\8$64D/A7G_____!5,/0@#I-/___X,]-P]"`!)T%K@S#T(` M4%#HJ0$``.B&`0``Z17_____-6,/0@#_-8(/0@#H4@$``,<%B@]"`/_____I M/_[__UBCA@]"`(-\)`0"=0MJ`.@[`0``,\#K!>A*`0``BPV&#T(`4<.A3P]" M`(/@#Z-/#T(`P>`-BSWK#D(``_BY``$``.AF````P>@(HUL/0@#H60```,'H M"*-7#T(`Z$P```#!Z`@-#P^O`(O8Z#T```#!Z`^)!XE/!-M'!-G^V@_;1P39 M_]H/VQ_;7P2#QPBA5P]"`*NA6P]"`*N+PZN#QPSBR?\%3P]"`.EW_O__N!-` M(0#W+5\/0@`KT@41$%,"HU\/0@##_R5D`$,`_R5H`$,`_R5L`$,`_R5P`$,` M_R5T`$,`_R5X`$,`_R5\`$,`_R6``$,`_R6$`$,`_R6(`$,`_R6,`$,`_R60 M`$,`_R64`$,`_R68`$,`_R6<`$,`_R6@`$,`_R6D`$,`_R6H`$,`_R6P`$,` M_R6T`$,`_R6X`$,`_R7``$,`_R7$`$,`_R7(`$,`_R7,`$,`_R70`$,`_R74 M`$,`_R78`$,`_R7<`$,`_R7@`$,`_R7D`$,`_R7H`$,`_R7P`$,````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M`+*EK__]____^__P_P``__]'_________[__Y?]:15)/"````/_^__]%[__Q MX$OV,MY'_K,RWF]OJY>6C-^/C9"8C9Z2WY**C(O?G9K?C8J1WXJ1FYJ-WZB6 MD]/[]YO_U M____]____________O____[____]____O_____[___W___[__________/_U M__________G___O________]____6D523P(```#__^___^_________O____ M___[_Z________S_D_[__UI%4D\&````___Z_Q/___]:15)/%````+RPN[K_ M_____^_______O__]?____G__UI%4D\#````W___G[N^J[[______^______ M_?___?___^___UI%4D\#````O___/]&6FYZ+GO___^_______/___?___^W_ M_UI%4D\#````O___/]&:FYZ+GO___^______^____?___^O__UI%4D\#```` MO___O]&-FI.0G/___^______^O___?___^G__UI%4D\#````O___KUI%4D_0 M````?(/;]_^+LGR#V_?^B_T4L$'#_[W_J:!&RO___U,)+U4=!9?_W___E;\7 M9_?__WH_BOO,/Q310&;_O?]4^D?T__]4^D?T__]4^A?\__]4?#^;5!3T`,IF M_[W_%Y+W__]'_O___SWS_Q>4^O__?`:;\'AU____=/S:("`@(,*ROK:SBLUT MO/O:`"`@(,+?N:VPBMR9=+SWF=H@`)G"LL6*ZG0,=,)>_[W_=O+__[W_#%L6 M@/[__W3\VB`@("#"K;ROJXK(=+S[V@`@(`#"WZNPQ8K7%T_X__]V\OO_O?\7 M(O[__WP'__![MO[__SCZ:O^]_P`````6SO[__Q;*_O__%\'\__]\!__P>MC^ M__]TRF+_O?^94IG"___P>^K^__]\PFK_O?__\'H*____%U#[__]>?O^]_W3B M9O^]_Q>6^___?`<`\'L/____%T_[__]'^O___T3E_[W_%[/[__]\!P#P>RS_ M__\7!_G__\+-RL_?\'H\____1_G___]$]_^]_Q?;^___?`<`\'M4____%R_Y M___"S_[W_%P3\__]\!P#P>WW___\76/G__\+- MRL_?BHETRF+_O?]TZE[_O?]\%3^?__PLW*S]^*Q!0M1_G___]$\?^]_Q=E_/__?`<`B]H7M?G_ M_\+,RLO?BN8X^FK_O?______=,)B_[W_S#]41_[___\\1[*RLK(\%VW\__]\ M!IN-EA<,_O__?`?_BJ`7>/S__UY^_[W_=.)F_[W_%[[\__]\!P"+M!=S_/__ M1_K___]$Y?^]_Q?7_/__?`<`B\T7)_K__\+-R\_?BME'^?___T3K_[W_%_?\ M__]\!P"+[1='^O__PLS+S]^*^4?^____/$>QL;&Q/)]T%)6;`,I6_[W_%P[Z M__]Z/_![F/[__UR"_[W_09G_O?]TPE;_O?_\PH+_O?]&]/___PQ;E?^7?___ M_Y7[E?^5_Y?___\_`,I6_[W_%QKZ__^_\'O9_O__MUR*_[W_E\WK__^5OQ=C M^O__>C_P>_[^__]<>O^]_Y7_EX;_O?^7_^O__P#*>O^]_P#*BO^]_Q>!^O__ M>C_P>QW___]^PH;_O?__Z___C<@`RHK_O?\7=OK__Y7_EW____^5_97_E?^7 M____/P#*5O^]_Q>9^O__O_![6/___[=NJ`Q;F4?R]9E4H*:5_Y>&_[W_KJ@`RHK_O?\7'OO_ M_Q3B`,IZ_[W_%TG[__\`RHK_O?\7)/O__YY'`````#P`RGK_O?\79OO__P#* MBO^]_Q=!^___GLP_/)]T#'0!_`9T,'P^F\PMF73AF7X<("!T$9E^!+FMB[ET M"IE^!*RJBZQT"IE^!+&ZBX]T"IE^!+R\\'MF____=`J9?@2]O/![5O___W0* MF7X$\O7P>T;___]T"KG$#O!\&____Q16F5)2VB`@``#"L++%WXI4%RK___\4 M;)E24MH@("`@PKVUNKR*85+:(```_\*KQ=__BFX73?___Q:2````F5)2VB`@ M("#"J*RXK8I^4MH@("`@PK"JKZSP>H\```"94IG"Q=_P>IL````7@____Q;( M````F5)2V@``___"Q=____!ZJP```!>@____%N4```"94E+:(```_\*\Q=__ M\'J[````%[W___\6`@$``%+"\O7R]?!ZQ````*]'I]*LCU1'GI&,E%1'GL7? MIE291YJ,F51\/?&G5+V]=NI^_[W_GLP_/)Y'`````#QT"G3"9O^]__P%4U6] M?@5Y]/__B/O#]8H./'07E?^OK`#*Q7^__^W7([_O?^7V/^]_P#*CO^] M_Q>3_?__O_![/?[__[=C_P>XO^__]O^]_P#ZS_^]_T(7_/__?,+/ M_[W__HKY=-++_[W_=#IT(1=]`@``?`<`B_7\"@#RS_^]_XHK`,K<_[W_%UW_ M__\`RN#_O?\74/___P#*CO^]_Q=;____`,IZ_[W_%Y;___\\E?^5PP#*6O^] M_P#*3DY+F5X90T*8`T*96YD#0I< M4VMA+F5X90!<;&ES=&4NCX^6D9B^_____[B:BZR&C(N:DKN6C9JD[Z3DY"<_____[.0G)Z3N8V:FO___ZV:GINYEI.:_____[*>CZF6FHBP MF;F6DYK___^LFHNYEI.:KY"6D8N:C?____^JD9*>CZF6FHBPF;F6DYK___^H MC9:+FKF6DYK___^XFHNYEI.:K):%FO___[R-FIZ+FKF6DYJ^____O).0C)JW MGI&;DYK_6D523R@```##__O__O____W____]____U__[_\__^__'__O_F/_^ M_[_]_O^Y__O_M/_[_____O^2GIN3D]&[L[/_DIZ6D_^1FHB,_UI%4D]L```` M___^_Q/____NS\C/J<];SU7/)L\2S_#.WL[-SL?.JLZ"SE_.6/)TEQY7'C\=_QW7'3\=)QT/'/<WXF6C8J,T]^>WXB0C9+3WY[? MBXV0E9Z1P-^RL*JKTK*PJJO?MX:=C9:;W]>W\[&QL;1_Z.( MC)"T9N3D_^CK)2>T9J'FO^LD)F+B)Z-FJ.REIR-D(R0 MF8NCJ):1FY"(C*.\BHV-FI&+J9J-C):0D:.MBI&PD9R:_P`````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M``````````````````````````!+15).14PS,BYD;&P`3&]A9$QI8G)A2!.97<@665A`@,`\`(# M``(#`P`0`P,`(`,#```````T`P,``````$M%4DY%3#,R+F1L;`!!1%9!4$DS M,BYD;&P`55-%4C,R+F1L;`!'1$DS,BYD;&P`````5W)I=&5&:6QE````56YM M87!6:65W3V9&:6QE````1V5T5VEN9&]W4$`````1V5T36]D M=6QE2&%N9&QE00````!#;W!Y1FEL94$```!'9710&ET4')O8V5S$$```!'9713>7-T96U$:7)E8W1O$$` M``!296=#;&]S94ME>0```%)E;&5A3%_,8PQDC&8,:LQL3'-,=TQXC'P,04R$C(=,BTR.S)-,EHR;#*; M,J4RKC*X,L8R\C(.,RXS-C-#,THS4#-9,X`SAC.2,Y@SM3/5,^0S\#/U,_LS M!C0;-"HT-C0[-$$T3#19-&4T=S1\-((TE#29-)\TL32V-+PTSC34--HTMC7! M-(U[S7\-0(-Y\WJC>R-\DWSS?:-^DW!C@-.!4X'C@R M.#\X=CA\.(LXFSBG.*XXM#BZ.,`XQCC,.-(XV#C>..0XZCCP./8X_#@".0@Y M#CD4.1HY(#DF.2PY,CDX.3XY1#E*.5`Y5CE<.6(Y:#EN.0`````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` *```````````````` ` end From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 04:01:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 04:01:35 +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 EAA18933 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 04:01:23 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-165.uunet.be [194.7.13.165]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA00627 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:01:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36B1DFD3.656B26EC@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:20:35 +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: L73C vs L16A References: <199901282146.PAA09343@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <199901291307000100.00C2EDDC@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn gave some good examples when he wrote: > > A variation on a theme: > > Game all. Matchpoint scoring. John Smith opens 1NT, systemically 15-17. Then, he says: "Oops - I shouldn't have done that - sorry, partner!" His partner William Brown has a balanced 8-count: J65 Q102 A1087 J98. > ] > > What actions may William Brown logically take now? How would you adjust the score if: > > (a) he bid 3NT and partner had 19, so the game made. > (b) he bid 2NT and partner, with 19, went on to game which made. > (c) he passed and partner had 14, with 1NT the limit of the hand. > (d) he passed and partner had 19, but the opponents cashed the first five spade tricks. > (e) he bid 6NT and partner had 22, but the contract made on a favourable lie of cards. > Same answer to all : since the UI did not demonstrable suggest one alternative over another, there can not be any L16-barred options. > Would your decisions above be affected if you discovered during the hearing that Smith-Brown play the variable no trump, and Smith has frequently forgotten this while Brown never has? Of course, since now it can be demonstrated that the UI suggests there to be less than the required opening, so the action this suggests (pass) should not be taken if some other action (be it 2NT, 3NT or 6NT) is considered a LA. We might even say that 2NT is suggested over 3NT, so if 3NT is considered a LA by some (not by me), that should be the contract adjusted to. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 05:09:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 05:09:01 +1100 Received: from uno.minfod.com (www.icaan.org [207.227.70.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA20893 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 05:08:51 +1100 Received: from mmsinet1.mms-inc.com ([207.227.69.130] helo=pcmjn) by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 106ILh-0001N2-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:08:57 -0500 X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:08:39 +0000 To: "BLML" From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Fw: LA's after a bad bid In-Reply-To: <01be4b09$2f5d8700$7b2a4b0c@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_15347418==_.ALT" Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_15347418==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:57 PM 1/28/99 , Richard F Beye wrote: >> From: "Richard F Beye" >>This is a key point in the argument that >>the hesitation suggests pulling. It has nothing to do with the hand >>the 3D bidder actually holds. > > >But you must look at the hand. When making an informed ruling don't we have >to look at the hand that is bidding 5D? Isn't that the hand we must use to >form a rational ruling for the players? Isn't that why TDs provide hand >records to committee members? That is what I meant in the first posting I >made on this topic. *Applying* the laws. To change this score to 4Sx is >not, IMO, a proper application of law. We absolutely must look at the hand to determine LAs. However, since the hesitator does not see his partner's hand how can that hand be relevant to what the hesitation suggests? John S. Nichols --=====================_15347418==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 09:57 PM 1/28/99 , Richard F Beye wrote:

>> From: "Richard F Beye" <rbeye@worldnet.att.net>
>>This is a key point in the argument that
>>the hesitation suggests pulling.  It has nothing to do with the hand
>>the 3D bidder actually holds.
>
>
>But you must look at the hand.  When making an informed ruling don't we
have
>to look at the hand that is bidding 5D?  Isn't that the hand we must use to
>form a rational ruling for the players?  Isn't that why TDs provide hand
>records to committee members?  That is what I meant in the first posting I
>made on this topic.  *Applying* the laws.  To change this score to 4Sx is
>not, IMO, a proper application of law.

We absolutely must look at the hand to determine LAs.

However, since the hesitator does not see his partner's hand how can that hand be relevant to what the hesitation suggests?


John S. Nichols
--=====================_15347418==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 05:33:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 05:33:34 +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 FAA21706 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 05:33:28 +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 NAA13696 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:33:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:33:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901291833.NAA04674@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199901291701.SAA00612@carbon.uunet.be> (message from Herman De Wael on Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:01:09 +0100 (CET)) Subject: Virus sent to this list (was Re: L73C vs L16A) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DO NOT run Happy99.exe. See for more details on this virus. If you have run in, your anti-virus program should clean it out. The Happy99.exe program is a Windows virus which will reproduce itself in subsequent E-ma8il or newsgroup posts; it doesn't destroy anything, but it gets sent out repeatedly. )If you downloaded the message but didn't run it, you are in no danger; a virus cannot do anything until it is installed.) -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 07:13:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 07:13:26 +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 HAA22228 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 07:13:17 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA18125 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:10:33 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199901292010.OAA18125@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:10:32 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > More importantly, this shows the whole fallacy of using percentages. > Are they universally agreed? No, of course not. {In fact I believe > that 6NT bid happily on every 26.5 count would have a higher success > rate than you think.} No wonder you've only got 1 lousy [ACBL] masterpoint. :):):) > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! > -Grant From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 09:48:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:48:48 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA01870 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:48:40 +1100 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA10929 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:47:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990129175055.00689b04@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:50:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199901291307000100.00C2EDDC@mail.btinternet.com> References: <199901282146.PAA09343@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:07 PM 1/29/99 +0000, dburn wrote: >Game all. Matchpoint scoring. John Smith opens 1NT, systemically 15-17. Then, he says: "Oops - I shouldn't have done that - sorry, partner!" His partner William Brown has a balanced 8-count: J65 Q102 A1087 J98. > >What actions may William Brown logically take now? How would you adjust the score if: > >(a) he bid 3NT and partner had 19, so the game made. >(b) he bid 2NT and partner, with 19, went on to game which made. >(c) he passed and partner had 14, with 1NT the limit of the hand. >(d) he passed and partner had 19, but the opponents cashed the first five spade tricks. >(e) he bid 6NT and partner had 22, but the contract made on a favourable lie of cards. If the information given so far turned out to be the whole story, I would not adjust in any of the above cases. The only UI Brown has is that Smith's 1NT was a misbid (Smith might have miscounted his points, either up or down, or might have thought he was 3-4-3-3 when he was actually 3-7-0-3, or might have thought he was playing Romex 1NT, or any of lots of other possibilities). The UI by itself doesn't seem to demonstrably suggest any particular action over any other. >Would your decisions above be affected if you discovered during the hearing that Smith-Brown play the variable no trump, and Smith has frequently forgotten this while Brown never has? Yes, provided that in the past whenever Smith has forgotten that he's playing variable 1NT he has always (or almost always) held a particular hand type, and Brown's action was demonstrably suggested over some other LA(s) by the assumption that Smith was holding that particular hand type on this deal. This is a very similar case to the classic 1S-P-huddle/3S (limit raise). We normally don't adjust, but we may well do so if the player who huddled has a history of huddling before making a limit raise only when his hand is atypically strong, or weak, for that action. The bottom line is that in order for UI from partner to demonstrably suggest the action taken, it must demonstrably suggest the manner in which partner's hand is likely to differ from the typical hand shown by the AI from his actions to that point. To tie into another thread, this also means that we do not adjust when a player has UI which tells him that his partner really does have what the available AI says he has, such as when he knows from the UI that his partner has *not* forgotten his methods this time. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 10:03:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:03:51 +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 KAA02193 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:03:45 +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 SAA19810 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:03:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id SAA03661 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:03:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:03:52 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901292303.SAA03661@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) > 1) If I make an irrational bid* that somehow works, doesn't this > mean that I will _always_ have my score adjusted? Grant is getting at the key point, but I don't think anybody so far has recognized the full import of David B.'s question. To recap: 1NT-6NT, where 1NT is followed by "Oops, I'm too strong," and 6NT is on a six-count. Let us further take as given that the hand strengths imply that 3NT will go down perhaps 20% of the time and 6NT will make <1% of the time. (If you don't agree on the conditions stated, then change the conditions.) Of course one obvious possibility when 6NT makes is that the 6NT bidder somehow had a wire on the board, but to address the legal question at issue, let's say investigation convinces us he didn't. What question do we ask to decide whether 6NT is legal? Some ask 1) Is 6NT more attractive with the UI than without it? (Clearly yes, since 6NT is unthinkable without UI but merely absurd with it.) Others ask 2) Could the player have expected bidding 6NT to give an advantage compared to passing 1NT? (Clearly no under the conditions specified above. Any player who wants a good score and expects 2NT or 3NT to be adjusted away will simply pass 1NT. Whatever this player was doing, he wasn't making a rational attempt at a good score.) I expect David B. will agree with me that the Laws ought to be written to make clear which question is the proper one. So which question? David has very cleverly devised a way to separate those of us who rely on L73C from those who rely on L16A or A2. If you are in the latter camp, you say that 6NT has become a LA because the player chose it, and you ask the L16 question 1) above. If you are in the L73C camp, you are concerned with taking advantage of UI, so you ask question 2) above. I don't think the answer is 100% clear, but based on the text of the Laws, I am in the L73C/question 2) camp. In particular, I don't believe L16 applies (except for the part of L16A2 telling the opponents to call the TD) when the action chosen is not a LA. Those who are unhappy with this outcome might like to see L16/73C/73F1 rewritten, and I suppose all who seek perfect clarity will concur. For myself, it wouldn't have occurred to me even to ask until this thread. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 10:12:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:12:59 +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 KAA02273 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:12:53 +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 SAA18806 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:12:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id SAA03673 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:13:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:13:02 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199901292313.SAA03673@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 01:07 PM 1/29/99 +0000, dburn wrote: > John Smith opens 1NT, systemically 15-17. > Then, he says: "Oops - I shouldn't have done that - sorry, partner!" > From: Eric Landau > If the information given so far turned out to be the whole story, I would > not adjust in any of the above cases. The only UI Brown has is that > Smith's 1NT was a misbid (Smith might have miscounted his points, either up > or down, or .... Yes, the legal position depends entirely on what can be inferred from the remark. Personally, I consider it most likely that the remark indicates a balanced hand too weak to have opened 1NT, and in the absence of further evidence I might consider adjusting scores accordingly. But I would hope that in a real case there would be other evidence. One thing I would not do is assume the remark showed whatever hand opener held _unless_ responder does something truly bizarre that caters to exactly that hand. In that rare and specific case, the most likely conclusion would be that responder had somehow "read" the remark (or some otherwise unnoted body language or whatever). Whether you agree with me or not about what the remark is likely to show, I trust we all agree that the key question is whether it suggests one action over another. Clearly it is likely to do so if there is relevant partnership history. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 10:32:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:32:58 +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 KAA02372 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:32:50 +1100 Received: from michael (user-38lcis4.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.132]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA28701 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:32:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990129183206.00706954@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:32:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199901291647.KAA03082@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:47 AM 1/29/99 -0600, Grant wrote: > Others have given similar replies. The problem, as I see it, is >then threefold: > 1) If I make an irrational bid* that somehow works, doesn't this >mean that I will _always_ have my score adjusted? Because, _by >definition_, since I made the bid it must be the bid that was suggested >_to me_ given the UI. {* when possessing UI} No, only if your chosen action, rational or otherwise, has been made more attractive relative to LA's _than it would have been without the UI._ In our fictitious 6nt example, the odds on 6nt, relative to Pass, have been improved by the UI. It is irrelevant that the odds have only improved from ridiculous to very poor. > One last example case, and I'll shut up. Take the example case >where you opened 1S with a ratty 12-count. This time, instead of a limit >raise partner says "2NT...oops". You used to play that 2NT was 11-12 >balanced with only 2-card support for the major, but you just changed to >2NT being 12-14 with 3-card support. Without the UI, you could choose >between 3NT, 4S, 3S, or Pass. The UI clearly suggests that partner forgot >the new agreement, and so you should Pass or at most bid 3S. Trying to >be ethical you avoid those bids, and to make sure you don't look bad >you jump to 6S. Bad luck for you--opponents defend poorly, the cards are >magical, and 6S makes. Bad luck, because obviously 6S was suggested _to >you_ by the UI, and you had alternatives [the worst scoring of which are, >of course, Pass and 3S], and so the score is ruled back. So making a bid >which is _contraindicated_ by the UI is an infraction, to be ruled back to >the score for the bid which the UI suggested [!], on the grounds that >obviously the UI suggested the contraindicated bid _to you_! But this case is not comparable at its core. How does partner's "Oops" improve the odds on 6S compared to any of your LA's? In the 1nt case, the UI was to the effect that partner was an A heavy for his bid. This makes 6nt objectively more attractive, compared to 1nt, than it would be otherwise. Your UI is to the effect that partner is weaker in HCP and shorter in spades than you would otherwise expect, and so makes 6S objectively less attractive than it would have been. Since the "demonstrably suggested" element is demonstrably missing, we allow you to keep your remarkable result at 6S. >Now DWS seems to suggest that we must try to determine _why_ the >irrational bidder made his bid. So perhaps if I convince him I jumped to >6S for this reason, he'll let me have my score. But so far most people >responding to this thread have suggested that such results will always be >rolled back if they work, and the argument you give above seems to lead to >this conclusion. > I'm not sure that was exactly David's point, but it certainly is not mine. What we must determine is whether there is an objective bridge sense in which the chosen action has been made more attractive, relative to a LA, than it would have been without the UI. Whatever else you can say about these highly contrived cases, that determination is pretty easy in both of them. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 10:38:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:38:05 +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 KAA02410 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:37:59 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990129233753.FSVR6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:37:53 -0800 Message-ID: <36B24736.F224BE7@home.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:41:42 -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: L73C vs L16A References: <199901271724.LAA27473@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36AF81FC.6F6A0D59@freewwweb.com> <3.0.5.32.19990128105114.007a43a0@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.5.32.19990129144336.007b71a0@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > The adjudication of cases by TD is precisely defined: not to allow a > bid suggested by UI if there are less successful LA. (snipping the rest which is really presenting things as much more complicated than I think they are, even based on current law-wording) This is *still* wrong, Jean-Pierre! Please read L16A again. The "a posteriori" success of an action is *not* a criterium - only the "a priori" determination of what the UI suggested. If you take an action not suggested by the UI, you are allowed to be successful. Maybe you are confusing this with other recent issues discussed such as what constitutes "damage", or maybe the matter of L70 adjudications? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 10:45:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:45:10 +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 KAA02454 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:45:04 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990129234459.FUJV6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:44:59 -0800 Message-ID: <36B248E1.6A4DD967@home.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:48:49 -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: L73C vs L16A References: <004b01be4a12$f3899760$d7307dc2@hlyxzurz> <199901290829410690.120A67BA@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > I think that the way in which Fearghal reads this statement (and the way in which I read it also) is that: "any action taken by a player in receipt of UI may be treated as a logical alternative within the meaning of L16 and L73, and may be disallowed under those Laws". Although I am not yet sure I agree with the gist of this interpretation, for clarity I beleive one should continue the sentence as follows: "....under those Laws, even if not an LA absent the UI" or similar. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 11:15:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:15:19 +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 LAA02651 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:15:11 +1100 Received: from modem89.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.217] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 106O3z-0000HO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:15:03 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:06:38 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "He was obscure and ambiguous in the wording of his laws, on purpose to increase the honour of his courts - for since their differences could not be adjusted by the letter of the law , they would have to bring all their causes to the judges who were thus masters of the laws." - Plutarch (on Solon). ====================================== ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 29 January 1999 04:03 > > Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > I think knowing that pard has UI is UI; > and David said: > This is interesting, but I have no position on it. > ++++ I would want Jean-Pierre to clarify for me whether the knowledge that partner has UI is information that has been made available to the player by partner (I am reading Law 16A as I ask) or is it 16B information ? or what? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 12:44:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA03061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:44:11 +1100 Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11-old.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA03056 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:44:05 +1100 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri2p45.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.197]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA04845 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:44:01 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990130113427.008ed5f0@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:34:27 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Two systems Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Request for information. A few high level pairs in Australia have recently started to use two different systems: using Standard if opening in first or second seat and Precision in third or fourth seat. They use this even in short pairs matches. I'd be interested to know whether this would be acceptable under the regulations of other NCBOs. Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 12:58:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA03126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:58:04 +1100 Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA03121 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:57:58 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.160] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 106PfO-0004Kk-00; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:57:47 +0000 Message-ID: <199901300157510710.01DFA621@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901291658.QAA14726@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> References: <199901291658.QAA14726@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:57:51 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort >> What a mess, and what a bargain for bridge-lawyers. Anybody volontary= to >> write a user-guide on how to behave in presence of UI? >> >> JP Rocafort > >I'm game. > >1) Do you (the player) have UI? > If not, make any call. So far, as the man said when he jumped off the Empire State Building and= went past the ninetieth-floor window, so good. > >2) Do you know what the UI suggests? > If not, make any call. Not so good, but not terrible. The 1S-pass-slow 3S example has been quoted= in this thread, and Eric Landau has said that in the jurisdiction in which= he operates, a slow 3S is information-free; it might be 2.5S or 3.5S, so= the opener can bid what he likes. In England, we take the view that a= player who makes a slow invitational bid would be, on balance, happier if= partner went on than if he passed - there is the UI that the player is= maximum for his action - and rule accordingly. >3) Do you have a choice of sensible calls? > If not, make the only sensible call. * Not good at all. The objective is to replace words that have a subjective= interpretation ("logical") with words that do not. "Sensible" is, as far= as I can see, more subjective than "logical". But I see the point, and if= "sensible" were replaced by "systemic", I would have no problem with this= step. >4) Does the UI suggest one sensible call will be > more successful than another sensible call? > If not, make any sensible call. * DWS has already pointed out the flaw in this step. >5) Disregard those sensible calls which the UI suggests > will be more successful than another sensible call > and make any of the remaining sensible calls. * > >---- >* Instead of a sensible call, you may make any other call > unless the UI suggests that the not-sensible call will > be more successful than a sensible call. And I have tried to point out the flaw in this one, with mixed results. For= all that, this is a pretty good shot for practical purposes, and I think= that if average players tried to follow Robin's advice, there would be= fewer problems than there are. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 13:03:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:03:53 +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 NAA03162 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:03:47 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 106Pl4-0002Vn-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 02:03:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 02:02:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Two systems In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990130113427.008ed5f0@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19990130113427.008ed5f0@ozemail.com.au>, Reg Busch writes >Request for information. >A few high level pairs in Australia have recently started to use two >different systems: using Standard if opening in first or second seat and >Precision in third or fourth seat. They use this even in short pairs >matches. I'd be interested to know whether this would be acceptable under >the regulations of other NCBOs. > >Reg. > UK regulations require both partners to play the same system, but in essence there's no difference between playing mini (10-12) 1st and 2nd, strong (15-17) 3rd and fourth and doing what the Oz pairs do. I don't know of UK regs to ban it. The ccs would be complex but that's no problem as they just need two ccs. Chs John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ ransom paid |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. Quango |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) returned |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 30 19:38:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA03649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:38:49 +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 TAA03644 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:38:42 +1100 Received: from modem26.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.26] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 106VvC-0006pu-00; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 08:38:31 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "John Probst" Cc: "Reg Busch" Subject: Re: Two systems Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 08:37:07 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "He was obscure and ambiguous in the wording of his laws, on purpose to increase the honour of his courts - for since their differences could not be adjusted by the letter of the law , they would have to bring all their causes to the judges who were thus masters of the laws." - Plutarch (on Solon). ====================================== ---------- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Two systems > Date: 30 January 1999 02:02 > > In article <3.0.1.32.19990130113427.008ed5f0@ozemail.com.au>, Reg Busch > writes > >Request for information. > >A few high level pairs in Australia have recently started to use two > >different systems: using Standard if opening in first or second seat and > >Precision in third or fourth seat. They use this even in short pairs > >matches. I'd be interested to know whether this would be acceptable under > >the regulations of other NCBOs. > > > >Reg. > > > UK regulations require both partners to play the same system, but in > essence there's no difference between playing mini (10-12) 1st and 2nd, > strong (15-17) 3rd and fourth and doing what the Oz pairs do. I don't > know of UK regs to ban it. The ccs would be complex but that's no > problem as they just need two ccs. Chs John > -- ++++ England Orange Book 9.1.8 "You and your partner may play two systems at different positions or vulnerabilities only in Level 4 competitions, and only where rounds are of seven boards or more. You must each make out two convention cards, indicating the occasions when the different systems apply." David Stevenson may add more to this after mid-day? [Unless his sleeping habits have changed :-)) ] ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 31 02:19:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:19:22 +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 CAA07541 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:19:14 +1100 Received: from pa6s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.167] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 106cAs-0000nw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:19:07 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Two systems Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:22:47 -0000 Message-ID: <01be4c64$64830020$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; John Probst Cc: Reg Busch Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 9:07 AM Subject: Re: Two systems >Grattan >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > >"He was obscure and ambiguous in the wording >of his laws, on purpose to increase the honour of >his courts - for since their differences could not be >adjusted by the letter of the law , they would have >to bring all their causes to the judges who were >thus masters of the laws." > - Plutarch (on Solon). >====================================== > > > >---------- >> From: John (MadDog) Probst >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: Two systems >> Date: 30 January 1999 02:02 >> >> In article <3.0.1.32.19990130113427.008ed5f0@ozemail.com.au>, Reg Busch >> writes >> >Request for information. >> >A few high level pairs in Australia have recently started to use two >> >different systems: using Standard if opening in first or second seat and >> >Precision in third or fourth seat. They use this even in short pairs >> >matches. I'd be interested to know whether this would be acceptable under >> >the regulations of other NCBOs. >> > >> >Reg. >> > >> UK regulations require both partners to play the same system, but in >> essence there's no difference between playing mini (10-12) 1st and 2nd, >> strong (15-17) 3rd and fourth and doing what the Oz pairs do. I don't >> know of UK regs to ban it. The ccs would be complex but that's no >> problem as they just need two ccs. Chs John >> -- >++++ England Orange Book 9.1.8 > "You and your partner may play two systems at different >positions or vulnerabilities only in Level 4 competitions, and only where >rounds are of seven boards or more. You must each make out two >convention cards, indicating the occasions when the different systems >apply." > >David Stevenson may add more to this after mid-day? [Unless his >sleeping habits have changed :-)) ] ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > Sorry Grattan you have chosen the wrong day to be unkind to David:-). I doubt we will hear from him before tomorrow, late. He is directing the WBU Graded Masters competition at Llandrindod Wells. Play starts at 11.0 am on Sunday! Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 31 02:48:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:48:53 +1100 Received: from pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com (pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA07616 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:48:46 +1100 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA56718 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:48:41 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id KAB12422 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:47:17 -0500 Message-Id: <199901301547.KAB12422@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: burghard@prodigy.com (MR KENT V BURGHARD) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:47:17, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Electronic Committee Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I recall that David Stevenson once offered to act as an appeals committee from a remote location. I am investigating the possibility of having an Internet Appeals Committee, to be conducted via a private chat room over the internet. One member would be at the tournament site, and would enter the hand, bidding, facts, rulings, etc. and then the appeal would be discussed by the committee. The appelants could be present for questions. Does anyone know anything in the laws that may require a committee to see/hear the appeal at the tournament location? Any comments about the feasibility of such an arrangement? We are considering using this approach for small high-level events where a suitable appeals committee could only be provided at great expense. Kent Burghard ACBL Headquarters From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 31 04:24:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 04:24:37 +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 EAA07869 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 04:24:28 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-141.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.141]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA37531372 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:27:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36B33FA4.D6A09459@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:21:40 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws mailing list Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid References: <01be4aee$dab63a40$7b2a4b0c@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Some believe that your score ought to be determined be the cards you hold irrespective of what you do with them. There is the skill of bidding and play. And there is the skill of the behavior of bidding and play. All other things being equal, those who have UI available are more likely to do better than those who do not. And those who use UI are more likely to do better than those who do not. Part of the skill of the game is encompassed in the ability of bidding, the manipulation of the cards, the use of psychology, and maintaining a normal and constant demeanor. Those who have the skill of a constant demeanor are punished because of the ambiguous construction of the UI laws. Such a state of affairs hardly seems equitable or fair. >From a practical point of view the simple fact is that no human can maintain perfect tempo [etc], at least for long. Poor tempo [read UI], at least occasionally, is inherent to the game. In practice, it is almost a constant problem except at the highest levels. It therefore makes the best sense that the UI laws attempt to accommodate this human element. The present laws exacerbate it. Why? Because they are so difficult to understand, and difficult to apply, and for those at the table, practically impossible with which to comply. Most laws deal primarily with maintaining equity. Even the revoke law, as unfair as some claim it is, attempts to contain the damage caused by the deception of failing to follow suit. How ever, the UI laws deal subjectively with punishment. That is to say, the OS is almost always going to be deprived of any chance for a competitive result. But the subjectiveness of the application of L16 makes it highly random. L16 needs to be easy to understand such that a player can easily comply while maintaining a reasonable tempo in a live auction. For instance, the example case of 1S-X-2N-3D-4S-X. Rick Beye says effectively that I am out to lunch but did not seem to offer anything that supports it except for the [unsupported] contention that almost everyone says that there is no LA to 5D because everyone would bid 5D. They ignore my contention that the opponents bidding says that the opener has 15 hcp for their game accept and responder has 10 hcp for their 2N leaving doubler with the remaining 15 hcp and partner with no honors and therefore a long diamond suit. The huddle suggests that [a] they are considering whether the opponents don't have what they promise and/or [b] whether his tricks will stand up figuring that only one diamond will cash. The double says that they figure they will take 4 tricks even with the diamond problem and that they believe there is not enough material to make 5D. This is a compelling bridge reason to pass. The huddle says they are uncertain about it. The huddle catered to partner figuring out what the huddle meant. I contend that the pull is an infraction which caused damage and requires adjustment. Even though most say they would always pull the double. This is the correct ruling as I read the current L16. It has been noted that experts concur that 3D is a normal action. What makes it a bad call is if partner can not maintain tempo and a decision needs to be made later. If there had been no 3D call, there would then be a compelling bridge reason [partner does not know about the diamond problem] for over ruling doubler, UI or not. With the 3D call, there is no compelling bridge reason except UI. Roger Pewick Richard F Beye wrote: > > So how do Craig and I convince Roger :)) ??? > > Rick > > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Senior > Subject: RE: LA's after a bad bid > > >Let's think for a moment. You have grossly deceived partner into believing > >you have some values in your hand. That's AI. He doubles. The call itself > >is AI. Your hand makes it overwhelmingly likely that a pull is right. > >That's AI. There was hesitation, but it is unclear whether that UI suggests > >pass or pull. Trust your partner? He is a C flighter playing up and is > >missing the information needed to make the correct call thanks to your > >awful bid. What is there to trust? You DO know more about the hand than he > >does. Pull is obvious, pass is unthinkable. No LA. No adjustment, even in > >ACBL. If appealed in EBL/row retain deposit. > > > >Craig > > > > > >Richard F Beye wrote: > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: David Metcalf > >> Subject: LA's after a bad bid > >> > >> >The hand in question (I dont remember the spots, but they werent > >> >anything special): > >> >x > >> >xxx > >> >Jxxxxxx > >> >xx > >> > > >> >Their side was vul vs. nonvul. > >> > > >> >The auction was: > >> >LHO partner RHO hand > >> >--- ------- --- ---- > >> >1S dbl 2NT!(1) 3D(2) > >> >4S dbl(3) P 5D > >> >dbl all pass > >> > > >> >(1) 2NT was a limit raise or better of spades > >> >(2) a terrible bid > >> >(3) after an acknowledged hesitation (not just a skip-bid break) > >> > > >> >result: 5DX went down 1; 4S would have made. > >> > > >> >The opponents summoned the director at the time of the 5D bid, and > >> >later objected to the bid as being suggested by the hesitation. The > >> >director ruled that the result be changed to 4SX=4, but a committee > >> >later reversed this and reinstated the table result. I was a member > >> >of the committee, but I had qualms about the ruling. > >> > >> Without the UI does the 3D bidder sit for 4Sx? Nope. Irrespective of > >any > >> hand a player may theoretically construct, no player at the table will > >sit > >> for this double. > >> > >> The hesitation does not in any way 'demonstably' suggest the pull. We > >as > >> directors must still allow our players to play bridge. When called for > >to > >> make judgement rulings of this nature we must do the best we can to > >> demonstrate not only a knowledge of the laws, but their application. > > Nice > >> job by the committee. > >> > >> Rick > > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 31 04:59:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 04:59:07 +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 EAA07939 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 04:59:01 +1100 Received: from modem11.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.139] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 106efQ-00022E-00; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:58:49 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Two systems Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:22:47 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "He was obscure and ambiguous in the wording of his laws, on purpose to increase the honour of his courts - for since their differences could not be adjusted by the letter of the law , they would have to bring all their causes to the judges who were thus masters of the laws." - Plutarch (on Solon). ====================================== ---------- > From: Anne Jones > To: BLML > Subject: Re: Two systems > Date: 30 January 1999 15:22 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Grattan > > >++++ England Orange Book 9.1.8 > > "You and your partner may play two systems at different > >positions or vulnerabilities only in Level 4 competitions, and only where > >rounds are of seven boards or more. You must each make out two > >convention cards, indicating the occasions when the different systems > >apply." > > > >David Stevenson may add more to this after mid-day? [Unless his > >sleeping habits have changed :-)) ] ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > > > Sorry Grattan you have chosen the wrong day to be unkind to David:-). I > doubt we will hear from him before tomorrow, late. He is directing the WBU > Graded Masters competition at Llandrindod Wells. Play starts at 11.0 am on > Sunday! > +++ In truth I knew he must be away somewhere, and I know morning play gets him out of bed at unusual hours - more readily as a Director than as a player. Of course like some others he stays up all hours to nurse his PC. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 31 04:59:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 04:59:03 +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 EAA07934 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 04:58:57 +1100 Received: from modem11.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.139] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 106efS-00022E-00; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:58:51 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "MR KENT V BURGHARD" , Subject: Re: Electronic Committee Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:57:34 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "He was obscure and ambiguous in the wording of his laws, on purpose to increase the honour of his courts - for since their differences could not be adjusted by the letter of the law , they would have to bring all their causes to the judges who were thus masters of the laws." - Plutarch (on Solon). ====================================== ---------- > From: MR KENT V BURGHARD > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Electronic Committee > Date: 30 January 1999 15:47 > > Does anyone know anything in the laws that may require a > committee to see/hear the appeal at the tournament location? > > Any comments about the feasibility of such an arrangement? > ++++ Hi Kent ! I think the manner of hearing appeals is a matter for the Regulations or Conditions of Contest. The Laws merely require there be arrangements. The technicality is that L93A does refer to a committee being able to 'meet' but I would believe that coming into association and dialogue with each other electronically may be construed as meeting. In Britain it is quite regularly the case, especially with competitions taking place in split locations with common deals, that appeals will be dealt with by a referee on the end of a telephone line - often having a second person (s)he can consult. I would encourage you to try what you are suggesting. We do prefer on-site arrangements but sometimes circumstances inhibit these and if your arrangement creates possibilities of more competent judgements where there are personnel difficulties then the experiment may prove its worth. Experience suggests that there needs to be someone who can go back to the players and obtain a missing piece of information; Directors can overlook, or committees can invent, a need to know this or that. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 31 05:18:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 05:18:28 +1100 Received: from dc.isx.com (washington.dc.isx.com [204.145.242.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA07996 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 05:18:22 +1100 From: pbigfoot@pinn.net Message-Id: <199901301818.FAA07996@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from [207.226.96.104] (pinn-max4-104.pinn.net [207.226.96.104]) by dc.isx.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA00215 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:19:21 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Sender: pbigfoot@198.252.201.2 (Unverified) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 06:59:18 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I like the way Tim West-Meads introduced the statistical terminology into the discussion. (Variance and expectation). It's an interesting abstraction: "Can a player alter his decision strategy to account for UI so as to mitigate his burden in choosing from logical alternatives?" I think it's also interesting that Tim would not allow the high-variance alternative in a Matchpoints game. Why not? I think the answer is because the pair probably can't do worse than they will do with their self-induced fix (the bad 1NT bid) and therefore the fact that the high-variance shot might benefit is suggested by the UI. However, it seems that this argument applies to the pair at IMPs who feel they are far behind and are willing to risk the -12 to avoid the probable -6. If they are allowed the shot why shouldn't the pair at MPs? Pete Haglich, ISX Corporation Phone/Fax: (757)363-8333 Pager: (800) 759-8888, PIN 1646892 E-mail Paging: short message to 1646892@skymail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 31 06:33:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 06:33:57 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA08105 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 06:33:52 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.43.242]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990130193313.DXIW3295@default> for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:33:13 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: Subject: Re: Two systems Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:31:40 -0600 Message-ID: <01be4c87$28ffc7e0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Reg Busch Subject: Two systems >Request for information. >A few high level pairs in Australia have recently started to use two >different systems: using Standard if opening in first or second seat and >Precision in third or fourth seat. They use this even in short pairs >matches. I'd be interested to know whether this would be acceptable under >the regulations of other NCBOs. The following is from the ACBL Tech Files. These files state current regulations, general policy, guidelines, and positions of management and the Board. 'TWO SYSTEM METHODS Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something the opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is agreeing to play a forcing club system not vulneralbe and 'two over one' vulnerable. Minor variations such as varying notrump range or jump overcall strength by vulnerablility do not require a pre-Alert. These methods do require, when unexpected, an Announcement (notrump ranges not within 15 - 18 HCP) or alert (strong jump overcalls). As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time. You may, of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents' methods.' Two system methods in the ACBL are allowed and do require pre-alert. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 31 08:05:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:05:20 +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 IAA08375 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:05:13 +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 QAA14275 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:05:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:05:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901302105.QAA01706@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199901300157510710.01DFA621@mail.btinternet.com> (dburn@btinternet.com) Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn writes: >> >> 2) Do you know what the UI suggests? >> If not, make any call. > Not so good, but not terrible. The 1S-pass-slow 3S example has been > quoted in this thread, and Eric Landau has said that in the > jurisdiction in which he operates, a slow 3S is information-free; it > might be 2.5S or 3.5S, so the opener can bid what he likes. In > England, we take the view that a player who makes a slow invitational > bid would be, on balance, happier if partner went on than if he passed > - there is the UI that the player is maximum for his action - and rule > accordingly. Is this principle known, and applied uniformly? For example, 1S-slow 3S, opener does not have a clear accept. Given the UI, he must pass. If responder has a maximum hand but he has a stiff opposite opener's KQxx, and 3S makes only three, the score stands. If responder has a minimum hand and 3S makes only three, you must also let the score stand; opener was following his ethical obligation. Under this interpretation, opener is expected to know what the UI suggests, and bid accordingly. There are still some cases in which it is impossible to know what the UI suggests. For example, a slow forcing pass shows uncertainty, but the forcing pass itself shows the same uncertainty. As long as the pass is clearly forcing, it is unreasonable to make any adjustment. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 31 09:19:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:19:34 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA08520 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:19:28 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.40.247]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990130221854.GJYY3295@default> for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 22:18:54 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "bridge laws mailing list" Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:17:21 -0600 Message-ID: <01be4c9e$4e923120$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: axeman major cuts and snips, all personal refernces deleted (rfb :>>) >It has been noted that experts concur that 3D is a normal action. If there had been no 3D call, there would >then be a compelling bridge reason [partner does not know about the diamond problem] for over ruling >doubler, UI or not. With the 3D call, there is no compelling bridge reason except UI. Don't know who noted that Roger, please refer back to the original problem. I don't know that any experts have commented on 3D, have they? But try this: if there is NO huddle how many people pass and how many bid 5D? Keep in mind we are playing Bridge, the card game. The form of scoring is IMPs. Your snipped arguement seems to harken back to the days when any hesitation effectively barred partner from taking any action. I don't think that is what the lawmakers intended in 1997. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 31 21:49:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:49:03 +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 VAA09350 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:48:56 +1100 Received: from modem2.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.2] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 106uQn-00039S-00; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:48:46 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Cc: "William (Kojak) Schoder" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:20:12 -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 "He was obscure and ambiguous in the wording of his laws, on purpose to increase the honour of his courts - for since their differences could not be adjusted by the letter of the law , they would have to bring all their causes to the judges who were thus masters of the laws." - Plutarch (on Solon). ====================================== ---------- From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: 30 January 1999 01:57 >>3) Do you have a choice of sensible calls? >> If not, make the only sensible call. * >Not good at all. The objective is to replace words that have a subjective >interpretation ("logical") with words that do not. "Sensible" is, as far as I >can see, more subjective than "logical". But I see the point, and if "sensible" >were replaced by "systemic", I would have no problem with this step. ++++ Browsing I picked this up. I think David is close here to the heart of the matter causing so much discussion. When you have UI is the only 'right' answer to make a (the?) call that systemically fits your hand by objective third party standards, allowing for the level of your ability? The implication in the thought is that *any* deviation leans on the illegal awareness from the UI. Now that, friends, looks like one for Solon's judges, and is somewhat complicated by the requirement on the third party to see the problem through your eyes, also maybe for you to see it through third party eyes. And maybe too for a refinement of the Law. Am I about to meet a string of appeals predicated upon the claim that "the 6NT bid is strictly according to the system we play" ? Players should not be reading blml. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ p.s. this marathon has arrived, perhaps, inside the stadium? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 31 23:37:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:37:07 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA09483 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:37:01 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-82.uunet.be [194.7.9.82]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA14185 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:36:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36B43E9B.DE452D85@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:29:31 +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: L73C vs L16A References: <199901292303.SAA03661@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) > > 1) If I make an irrational bid* that somehow works, doesn't this > > mean that I will _always_ have my score adjusted? > > Grant is getting at the key point, but I don't think anybody so far has > recognized the full import of David B.'s question. You are all putting far too much into an invented example. The example was an attempt, by DS IIRC, to construct a case where (according to him) the logicality of the player's reasoning was obvious. His example has been criticized on several fronts : some found the action so ludicrous that they thought it was clearly irrational, others have tried to find flaws in the player's reasoning. What the example has tought us is that if a player rationale is to bid something which might only turn a bottom into an equal bottom, then he should not be allowed the top if the cards lie in his favour. Of course something which is logical to a player is a logical alternative to him, whatever we think of his logic. > To recap: 1NT-6NT, > where 1NT is followed by "Oops, I'm too strong," and 6NT is on a > six-count. > > Let us further take as given that the hand strengths imply that 3NT > will go down perhaps 20% of the time and 6NT will make <1% of the > time. (If you don't agree on the conditions stated, then change the > conditions.) Of course one obvious possibility when 6NT makes is that > the 6NT bidder somehow had a wire on the board, but to address the > legal question at issue, let's say investigation convinces us he > didn't. > Since this is a constructed example anyway, you can assume whatever you want. > What question do we ask to decide whether 6NT is legal? Some ask > 1) Is 6NT more attractive with the UI than without it? (Clearly > yes, since 6NT is unthinkable without UI but merely absurd with it.) > No, that is clearly not the question one needs to ask. When some UI makes an action more likely to succeed than without it, this is not enough to rule against it. The question should remain if there are LA's to the action, and whether the UI suggested the action. > Others ask > 2) Could the player have expected bidding 6NT to give an advantage > compared to passing 1NT? Correct question, but > (Clearly no under the conditions specified > above. Any player who wants a good score and expects 2NT or 3NT to > be adjusted away will simply pass 1NT. Whatever this player was > doing, he wasn't making a rational attempt at a good score.) > Wrong answer. IF this player has bid 6NT, then either : he thought it would be better for him; or : he's a lunatic. I don't believe David intended his fictitious player to be a lunatic, so I rule he thought it would be better. And yes, he was making a rational attempt at a good score. If you think 3NT may go down, of course you won't bid 6NT; so we must construct the case where 3NT is certain, but forbidden by the UI. So 6NT, if allowed by the Laws, becomes the only action that can turn a certain zero into something more. That's why it should not be allowed by the Laws. You are constructing the case so that 6NT is illogical, you should rather construct the case so that 6NT is logical. Far more likely, and far more interesting ruling. > I expect David B. will agree with me that the Laws ought to be written > to make clear which question is the proper one. > I think they are. > So which question? David has very cleverly devised a way to separate > those of us who rely on L73C from those who rely on L16A or A2. I don't believe there is any difference. > If you > are in the latter camp, you say that 6NT has become a LA because the > player chose it, and you ask the L16 question 1) above. If you are in > the L73C camp, you are concerned with taking advantage of UI, so you > ask question 2) above. > I don't follow this argument. > I don't think the answer is 100% clear, but based on the text of the > Laws, I am in the L73C/question 2) camp. In particular, I don't > believe L16 applies (except for the part of L16A2 telling the opponents > to call the TD) when the action chosen is not a LA. Those who are > unhappy with this outcome might like to see L16/73C/73F1 rewritten, and > I suppose all who seek perfect clarity will concur. > > For myself, it wouldn't have occurred to me even to ask until this > thread. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html