From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 03:16:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 03:16:00 +1100 Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA12285 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 03:15:48 +1100 Received: from hlyxzurz (dialup-025.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.217]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA14465 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:15:40 GMT Message-ID: <001601be4d35$89a749c0$d9307dc2@hlyxzurz> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:19:52 -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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why am I allow to keep my good score when I open 1S and Pass my partner's 'Slow' raise to 3S when 3S makes on the nose but I can't keep my good score if I bid a wild 6NT in a similar UI situation? The 6NT bid is not suggested by the UI but is merely an attempt by me to avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to my side. Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 04:55:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 04:55:17 +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 EAA12530 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 04:55:08 +1100 Received: from pces13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.207] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10715J-00031h-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:55:01 +0000 Message-ID: <003d01be4d42$577de000$cf8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:48:26 -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 ------------------------------ \x/ ----------------------- > >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. > ++++ I am slightly puzzled. A forcing pass requires partner to make a decision choosing between alternative co(u)rses [:-))] of action, often to bid on or double, but can be a choice of colo(u)rs. When a forcing pass is slow, the uncertainty it shows is about whether to remit the election to partner or to make it now; this may say that the player is inclined one way or the other but for there to be UI it would be necessary to know which. So if a pass is truly forcing partner has freedom of choice (except perhaps in the presence of other UI about the player's past actions). I am puzzled because I did not think this position would be challenged. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 06:12:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 06:12:09 +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 GAA12666 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 06:12:03 +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 OAA06061 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:11:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:11:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901311911.OAA19768@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <001601be4d35$89a749c0$d9307dc2@hlyxzurz> (tsvecfob@iol.ie) Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle writes: > Why am I allow to keep my good score when I open 1S and Pass my partner's > 'Slow' raise to 3S when 3S makes on the nose but I can't keep my good score > if I bid a wild 6NT in a similar UI situation? Because the situations are not the same. Partner's slow 3S did not demonstrably suggest any bid over a logical alternative (unless you follow the EBU rule that it demonstrably suggests 4S over 3S.) The 6NT is an irrational bid, but it is demonstrably made more attractive over the logical alternatives of pass/2NT/3NT 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 Mon Feb 1 06:14:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 06:14:40 +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 GAA12681 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 06:14:34 +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 OAA06140; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:14:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:14:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901311914.OAA19839@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: gester@globalnet.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <003d01be4d42$577de000$cf8d93c3@pacific> (gester@globalnet.co.uk) Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes: > From: David Grabiner >> There are still some cases in which it is impossible to know what the UI >> suggests. For example, a slow forcing pass... > When a forcing pass is slow, the uncertainty it shows is about whether > to remit the election to partner or to make it now; this may say that the > player is inclined one way or the other but for there to be UI it would be > necessary to know which. So if a pass is truly forcing partner has freedom > of choice (except perhaps in the presence of other UI about the player's > past actions). I am puzzled because I did not think this position would > be challenged. I wasn't challenging it. My original post was referring to one case (a slow limit raise) in which there is an official interpretation of UI which would normally be considered non-informative. My point was that even if such cases do exist, there will still be some cases which are necessarily non-informative. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 06:15:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 06:15:27 +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 GAA12696 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 06:15:22 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA02713 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:15:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901311915.LAA02713@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:13:26 -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 ---------- > From: Fearghal O'Boyle > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: Sunday, January 31, 1999 8:19 AM > > Why am I allow to keep my good score when I open 1S and Pass my partner's > 'Slow' raise to 3S when 3S makes on the nose but I can't keep my good score > if I bid a wild 6NT in a similar UI situation? > > > The 6NT bid is not suggested by the UI but is merely an attempt by me to > avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to my side. > The word "suggested" has a number of meanings, one of which is "to serve as a motive or inspiration for." Could it not be said that your 6NT bid was motivated or inspired by the UI? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 06:58:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 06:58:12 +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 GAA12736 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 06:58:05 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.149] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10730H-0003pP-00; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:57:57 +0000 Message-ID: <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:57:49 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Unauthorised misinformation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is an attempt to separate out one of the points that has been raised= in the L73 v L16 thread. I will try to set the problem one step at a time. Suppose that you are asked to rule on the actions of South, whose hand is: A6543 2 A864 KJ6 At love all, the bidding proceeded: S W N E 1S 2H 4S 5H P P Dble P ? South's pass of 5H was not forcing according to system; North's double was= made after considerable agonising. South removed to 5S. This worked out= better than a pass would have done (for a reason which I will explain= later), and East-West asked for a ruling. Would you adjust the score on= the basis of what you have seen so far? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 09:52:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:52:04 +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 JAA12993 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:51:57 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-153.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.153]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA38953811 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:55:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36B4DCC4.27E050A7@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:44:20 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorised misinformation References: <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Analysis of the AI 4S is a call that was made with the purpose of not suggesting slam. Presumably it has a fairly wide range of honors. Opener's pass suggested that they do not have 5H beaten in their own hand. The double should have the values of approximately 1+ heart tricks and the expectation of at least one side suit trick to go with opener's expected one spade trick and at least one outside trick. Without the 1+ trump trick expectation, fast winners outside of hearts and spades are needed. Analysis of the UI The huddle [inclusive of the mannerisms] and then double suggests that double and 5S [see striped tail double] were considered. Also that 5Hx may not be good enough. A likely reason is a source of length tricks in a side suit. It also seems more likely that trump tricks may be a dubious expectation . It also seems likely that there is a doubt that even one spade trick will cash do to extreme length of spades. And one more thing, the double may be a striped tail ape double [a ploy to keep them from bidding 6H after partner pulls to 5S, this would account for the huddle as follows: will 5S go down more than 5H makes? Will the opponents be goaded into bidding a makeable slam if I push to 5S [ , after all, partner did not double 5H]? are the odds enough for me? ]. Analysis of opener's options Opener has little reason to expect that their two aces won't cash and the KJ of clubs is likely to help produce a trick. Together with the 2 to 2+ tricks partner has promised the expectation is that 5H will go down two tricks. Partner's failure to bid more slowly does not give a compelling reason to expect that 5S will make. Would you adjust the score on the basis of what you have seen so far? The AI suggests that the double should systemically be left in. The UI suggests doubt. Pass is a LA. The opponents were damaged as a result of the pull. These are the conditions for adjustment. Roger Pewick David Burn wrote: > > This is an attempt to separate out one of the points that has been raised in the L73 v L16 thread. I will try to set the problem one step at a time. > > Suppose that you are asked to rule on the actions of South, whose hand is: > > A6543 2 A864 KJ6 > > At love all, the bidding proceeded: > > S W N E > 1S 2H 4S 5H > P P Dble P > ? > > South's pass of 5H was not forcing according to system; North's double was made after considerable agonising. South removed to 5S. This worked out better than a pass would have done (for a reason which I will explain later), and East-West asked for a ruling. Would you adjust the score on the basis of what you have seen so far? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 10:10:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:10:00 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA13019 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:09:51 +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 SAA11665 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:09:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990131181220.007001e0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:12:20 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau 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, cfgcs wrote: [I had written] >> 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! Let me say that I entered this thread late because I'm really not on either side of the issue, but rather listening carefully to the arguments for both sides. It seems to me that there are two interpretations here, an "objective" standard under which a suggested bid must be preferable to its alternatives, and a "subjective" standard under which we only require that the person making the bid think it preferable. > 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} This is the question. Under the objective test you will not get an adjustment if your bid was less likely to succeed than any LA not suggested (which is what I assume Grant means by "irrational"), so you get to keep your top for making 6NT if we determine that 6NT was objectively less likely to succeed than passing 1NT. Under the subjective test, you will always have your score adjusted if we determine that you would not have made the same call without the UI, so we take the top away in the example case. > 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. That's the only easy one. If you take a suggested irrational action (which is possible only with a subjective test) and damage ensues, we adjust to the same score we would have adjusted to had the damage resulted from a suggested rational action, presumably the least successful of the non-suggested LAs. Whether "suggested" is taken subjectively or objectively, "logical alternative" calls for an objective judgment, so the TD/AC must determine the latter. I see no problem in mixing "suggested (to the player)" with "logical (to the TD/AC) alternative", but if the lack of consistency makes Grant (and, clearly, others as well) uncomfortable that's an argument on the side of the objective interpretation. > 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. Here Grant seems to be taking the subjective-standard position. I have been pointedly disregarding the issue raised by Jean-Pierre's suggestion that one might bid 6NT in an attempt to meet one's ethical responsibilities by taking an irrational action intended as a deliberate dive, but luck into an unfortunate make. That requires a degree of "mind-reading" that even I (who have argued often that some amount of mind-reading is salubrious) see no need for. If we determine that he bid an irrational 6NT only because he had UI, I am prepared to presume that he thought he would be better off after the smoke cleared bidding 6NT than by taking some non-suggested LA. > 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. :) The thread's subject line, and much of the discussion, suggests that the reason for the lack of a single consistent interpretation may be that L16A suggests an objective test, while L73C suggests a subjective test. L16 says that a player may not take advantage of UI; L73 says that a player may not attempt to take advantage of UI. The prescription for avoiding either of these offenses, however, is the same, suggesting, as does the fact that the subjective test seems to be a superset of the objective test, that they are not intended to differ in effect. So the real question remains: Which test should we, as working TDs or AC members, apply? > 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. We have a bit of a straw man here. If you've done the above analysis, and you're now trying to be ethical, and you have even a vague notion of what the law says is ethically appropriate here, you will, almost by definition, bid 3NT or 4S. Why would you do anything else? Should a TD or AC really assume that for some odd reason you thought you had to dump the board visibly and decisively to look good? >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_! On the other hand, if you bid 6S because you thought that that would get you your best possible expected result after the AC has ruled on your actions, then the bid which was contraindicated -- to the members of the AC -- was indeed suggested -- to you -- by the UI. The question still on the table is whether, given that the bid was contraindicated to the AC *and* suggested to you by the UI, was it legal and thus not subject to adjustment. 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 Feb 1 11:31:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:31:42 +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 LAA13155 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:31:36 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 1077Gz-00009E-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 00:31:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:18:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <001601be4d35$89a749c0$d9307dc2@hlyxzurz> In-Reply-To: <001601be4d35$89a749c0$d9307dc2@hlyxzurz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >Why am I allow to keep my good score when I open 1S and Pass my partner's >'Slow' raise to 3S when 3S makes on the nose but I can't keep my good score >if I bid a wild 6NT in a similar UI situation? > > >The 6NT bid is not suggested by the UI but is merely an attempt by me to >avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to my side. In my view it is an attempt to take advantage of the UI, not the reverse. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 700 days to go 31/1 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 11:31:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:31:37 +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 LAA13148 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:31:31 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 1077Gu-00008K-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 00:31:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:29:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Unauthorised misinformation References: <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >This is an attempt to separate out one of the points that has been raised in the >L73 v L16 thread. I will try to set the problem one step at a time. > >Suppose that you are asked to rule on the actions of South, whose hand is: > >A6543 2 A864 KJ6 > >At love all, the bidding proceeded: > >S W N E >1S 2H 4S 5H >P P Dble P >? > >South's pass of 5H was not forcing according to system; North's double was made >after considerable agonising. South removed to 5S. This worked out better than a >pass would have done (for a reason which I will explain later), and East-West >asked for a ruling. Would you adjust the score on the basis of what you have >seen so far? > My first instinct is not to. Slow penalty doubles show doubt, but so what? I am not minimum in defence but am in offence. Perhaps interesting is whether to adjust if I pass and proves to be better, but no, that cannot be a problem either: pass is automatic. Pass is an LA, but 5S is not suggested by the UI so I do not adjust. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 700 days to go 31/1 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 11:43:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:43:07 +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 LAA13186 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:43:01 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 1077S1-0002xJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 00:42:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 00:41:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Unauthorised misinformation References: <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com> <36B4DCC4.27E050A7@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: <36B4DCC4.27E050A7@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: >The huddle [inclusive of the mannerisms] and then double suggests that >double and 5S [see striped tail double] were considered. Also that 5Hx >may not be good enough. A likely reason is a source of length tricks in >a side suit. It also seems more likely that trump tricks may be a >dubious expectation . It also seems likely that there is a doubt that >And one >more thing, the double may be a striped tail ape double [a ploy to keep >them from bidding 6H after partner pulls to 5S, this would account for >the huddle as follows: will 5S go down more than 5H makes? Will the >opponents be goaded into bidding a makeable slam if I push to 5S [ , >after all, partner did not double 5H]? are the odds enough for me? Passing 5H out rather than doubling it seems a better method of keeping the oppos out of 6H. >> S W N E >> 1S 2H 4S 5H >> P P Dble P >> ? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 699 days to go 1/2 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 13:28:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:28:21 +1100 Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA13320 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:28:14 +1100 Received: from hlyxzurz (dialup-011.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.203]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.1) with SMTP id CAA04373 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 02:28:02 GMT Message-ID: <001e01be4d8b$146e04e0$cb307dc2@hlyxzurz> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Unauthorised Misinformation Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 02:32:12 -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 IMHO the 'slow' double suggests that '5S' may be more successful than '5H' Doubled. So we adjust under L16A. I see DWS has taken the opposite view...Help! Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 14:08:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA13408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:08:05 +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 OAA13403 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:07:53 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 1079iF-00052s-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 03:07:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 01:46:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Unauthorised misinformation In-Reply-To: <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com>, David Burn writes >This is an attempt to separate out one of the points that has been raised in the >L73 v L16 thread. I will try to set the problem one step at a time. > >Suppose that you are asked to rule on the actions of South, whose hand is: > >A6543 2 A864 KJ6 > >At love all, the bidding proceeded: > >S W N E >1S 2H 4S 5H >P P Dble P >? > >South's pass of 5H was not forcing according to system; North's double was made >after considerable agonising. South removed to 5S. This worked out better than a >pass would have done (for a reason which I will explain later), and East-West >asked for a ruling. Would you adjust the score on the basis of what you have >seen so far? > 7 losers and "would he have passed a fast happy double?" Yep. I adjust. -- 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 Mon Feb 1 15:11:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:11:04 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA13448 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:10:59 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 107AhI-00017Y-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 04:10:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 04:08:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid References: <01be4ad7$df67d2e0$a4394b0c@default> In-Reply-To: <01be4ad7$df67d2e0$a4394b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: >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. Sorry Rick! I asked RGB without mentioning any UI. Eight for pass, one for pull. I think pass is an LA! Several complaints about the conditions, of course. I am curious as to why the 3D bid is considered so awful by some - it does not seem too far off the mark to me. I regret that one of our posters fell from grace [name changed to protect the guilty] since the 4S bidder was not vulnerable: **************************************************************** enyaM .R nhoJ wrote >I pass. 1190 away. >Next hand, new partner for both of us. **************************************************************** ... and he was swiftly answered: **************************************************************** David desJardins wrote >If the opponents make six overtricks in 4S, I'd say partner's double is >unsound. **************************************************************** -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 699 days to go 1/2 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 18:55:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA13685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 18:55:10 +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 SAA13679 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 18:55:01 +1100 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-159-210.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.210]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA05859 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 02:54:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36B55DC5.8F37732E@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:54:45 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" Organization: I Can't Believe It's a Law Firm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorised misinformation References: <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > This is an attempt to separate out one of the points that has been raised in the L73 v L16 thread. I will try to set the problem one step at a time. > > Suppose that you are asked to rule on the actions of South, whose hand is: > > A6543 2 A864 KJ6 > > At love all, the bidding proceeded: > > S W N E > 1S 2H 4S 5H > P P Dble P > ? > > South's pass of 5H was not forcing according to system; North's double was made after considerable agonising. South removed to 5S. This worked out better than a pass would have done (for a reason which I will explain later), and East-West asked for a ruling. Would you adjust the score on the basis of what you have seen so far? Yes. The 4S bid implies no slam ambitions, but can be fair range of hands. The double simply shows extra values, but not necessarily a heart stack (but certainly not heart shortness.) Still, this is the classic whipsaw. S: P (Do what you want, pd.) N: X (I'm not only interested in defending, I'm relatively pleased to defend) S: 5S (Oh, well if you want to defend that much, let's play offense.) It can't be right to pull *now*. Why trust them when you can trust pd? Turning +300 into -100 makes partners grumpy. I'd pull this in heartbeat. I'd keep the deposit on appeal. This is easy. --JRM (MRJ?), working with a new abacus, and numbers below five. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 19:32:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:32:17 +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 TAA13759 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:32:10 +1100 Received: from modem111.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.239] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 107Em3-0005ZT-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:32:04 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:30:43 -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 "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 Grabiner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 31 January 1999 19:11 > > Fearghal O'Boyle writes: > > > Why am I allow to keep my good score when I open 1S and Pass my partner's > > 'Slow' raise to 3S when 3S makes on the nose but I can't keep my good score > > if I bid a wild 6NT in a similar UI situation? > > Because the situations are not the same. Partner's slow 3S did not > demonstrably suggest any bid over a logical alternative (unless you > follow the EBU rule that it demonstrably suggests 4S over 3S.) ++++ EBU rule? or EBU advice? as I understand the principle of this advice, it applies in situations where the partner can tell that hesitater had a choice between his actual action and a bid which hesitater's partner is still in a position to make. It would appear, moreover, that the one thing the hesitation does not suggest is adherence to a strict systemic valuation of opener's hand; perhaps, if I thought it through a little more, I could be saying this is a truism whenever our only problem is to settle our contract, not being impeded by any action of the enemy. ++++ > > The 6NT is an irrational bid, but it is demonstrably made more > attractive over the logical alternatives of pass/2NT/3NT by the UI ++++ Opener's motivation for this bid was concerned with probabilities of loss and gain, and he believed it to have better chances than other calls which were certain to be disallowed. Thinking that is surely rational (whether his judgement of the ratio of success is well based or not). And it only enters his mind because of the UI. I continue to think that the law was drafted in the belief that in the mind of the player with UI his chosen action must be a logical action; he is not to be thought to have lost his power of reason. As for Fearghal's comment that he is only seeking by a wild bid not to take advantage of the UI, the Director must apply the tests which the law prescribes; these do not show any interest in his reasons for the choice of bid but refer instead to objective standards and comparisons. This demand for *comparisons* of the extent to which calls are suggested by the UI is something the group has not totally taken on board - they talk too much of whether a call is suggested or not, when in fact even the most unlikely cases, if deemed 'logical', must be compared for *any* differentiation in the degree to which they are suggested. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 19:41:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:41:45 +1100 Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA13786 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:41:41 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME ([203.96.101.199]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990201084103.RAZN682101.mta1-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 21:41:03 +1300 Message-ID: <36B68FD2.69C9@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 21:40:34 -0800 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorised misinformation References: <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com> <36B68EE9.4A7A@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Burn wrote: > > > > This is an attempt to separate out one of the points that has been raised in the L73 v L16 thread. I will try to set the problem one step at a time. > > > > Suppose that you are asked to rule on the actions of South, whose hand is: > > > > A6543 2 A864 KJ6 > > > > At love all, the bidding proceeded: > > > > S W N E > > 1S 2H 4S 5H > > P P Dble P > > ? > > > > South's pass of 5H was not forcing according to system; North's double was made after considerable agonising. South removed to 5S. This worked out better than a pass would have done (for a reason which I will explain later), and East-West asked for a ruling. Would you adjust the score on the basis of what you have seen so far? > No. Bidding suggests S will do beter in 5S han double of 5H. S has 6 > loser hand opposite presumably a 7 loser if played in spades but no > guarantee of more than 4 tricks in defence. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 19:45:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:45:51 +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 TAA13802 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:45:44 +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 IAA17997 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:45:07 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 IAA01006 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:44:06 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990201094547.007c5d10@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 09:45:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort 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 00:06 30/01/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: >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 ~ ++++ > I will try to answer, but it's neither very clear for me, and it's why I only gave an opinion: South hesitates and he knows everybody has noticed this. He knows North's next bid will not be "the bid N would have chosen absent the UI", but the bid chosen by North after elimination of "LA suggested by hesitation" (and perhaps of other LA if not deemed to be successful enough). The new problem is with South's later bids: is the knowledge that North's bid was constrained by UI, UI for South? This last UI (South's) was created by his own hesitation, but also, in some part, by North's attitude: South knows North has noticed the hesitation and I think this is extraneous information, not an information made only available through North's calls. If we use the screen test: if there was a screen between both sides of the table, South should not be sure his partner had available the hesitation UI. Hoping to have made clearer my doubts about recursivity! JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 19:58:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:58:10 +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 TAA13831 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:58:03 +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 IAA18541 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:57:28 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 IAA01835 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:56:26 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990201095808.007c8150@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 09:58:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Two systems In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990130113427.008ed5f0@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:34 30/01/99 +1100, Reg Busch wrote: >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. > I see this as only one system, even if built by aggregation of two systems. In France, it would not be allowed in pairs competitions, where meanings of opening bids cannot vary according to position or vulnerability (except for strength of 1NT opening). JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 20:08:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:08:30 +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 UAA13846 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:08:24 +1100 Received: from modem21.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.149] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 107FL7-0006XL-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:08:18 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Unauthorised Misinformation Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:04:42 -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 "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: Unauthorised Misinformation > Date: 01 February 1999 02:32 > > IMHO the 'slow' double suggests that '5S' may be more successful than '5H' > Doubled. So we adjust under L16A. > > I see DWS has taken the opposite view...Help! > > Regards, > Fearghal. > ++++ And I am looking for a nice comfy bit of fence to sit on. The Director has little information yet - it may well be the other side's hand, or one that makes both ways. My thought about the double is that it ought to be saying "this is our hand" and made in tempo would leave partner free to judge - in which case two Aces and a singleton he might like in Spades. Cause of the long huddle and what information it gives may look different when Director asks a question or two. ++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 20:53:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:53:31 +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 UAA13898 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:53:23 +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 JAA21348 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:52:48 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 JAA06181 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:51:47 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990201105328.007ccdf0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 10:53:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <36B24736.F224BE7@home.com> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 15:41 29/01/99 -0800, Jan Kamras wrote: >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! Sorry, I don't understand in what we disagree. >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. I considered the "a posteriori success" in a attempt to be pragmatic: when the bid chosen is unsuccessful, NOS is not damaged and doesn't care; no need to study the case. >If you take an action not suggested by the UI, you are allowed to be successful. OK, so I wrote "... suggested by UI" . >Maybe you are confusing this with other recent issues discussed such as >what constitutes "damage", or maybe the matter of L70 adjudications? > > JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 22:42:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:42:57 +1100 Received: from woozle.isode.com (woozle.isode.com [193.133.227.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA14127 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:42:52 +1100 Message-Id: <199902011142.WAA14127@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from KANSAS.isode.com by woozle.isode.com (local) with ESMTP; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:41:37 +0000 Received: from isode.com (actually brian.isode.com.) by KANSAS.isode.com with Internet with ESMTP; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:43:35 +0000 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Herman De Wael cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Alert: Internet Worm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 11:42:21 +0000 From: Ian Reissmann Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A message apparently sent by Herman on Friday contains a uuencoded file Happy99.exe. Do not run this binary - it is an internet worm. See: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2195075,00.html Herman you seem to be infected. Read the URL to find out what to do next. (It requires you to replace your infected winsock32.dll). Ian Reissmann Tel (H) +44-1491-578249, (W) +44-181-332-9091 I.Reissmann@isode.com http://www.isode.com/ 80 Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon, England, RG9 2BN From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 1 23:48:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 23:48:21 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA14334 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 23:48:11 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-232.uunet.be [194.7.9.232]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA26659 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:47:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36B597FC.AE0DB9A0@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 13:03:08 +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: <3.0.1.32.19990131181220.007001e0@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > This is the question. Under the objective test you will not get an > adjustment if your bid was less likely to succeed than any LA not suggested > (which is what I assume Grant means by "irrational"), so you get to keep > your top for making 6NT if we determine that 6NT was objectively less > likely to succeed than passing 1NT. Under the subjective test, you will > always have your score adjusted if we determine that you would not have > made the same call without the UI, so we take the top away in the example > case. > Why make it so difficult ? In the eyes of the player, 6NT was a better alternative than 1NT. He was certain that 1NT making whatever would score a bottom, and 6NT going whatever down a bottom too. So 6NT making, if unchanged by the TD, is a marginal improvement over 1NT+5. That means "suggested" to me; and it is also a "logical" alternative. Adjust. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 00:05:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 00:05:17 +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 AAA14384 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 00:05:10 +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 IAA20321 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:04:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990201080745.00701f84@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 08:07:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Unauthorised misinformation In-Reply-To: <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:57 PM 1/31/99 +0000, dburn wrote: >Suppose that you are asked to rule on the actions of South, whose hand is: > >A6543 2 A864 KJ6 > >At love all, the bidding proceeded: > >S W N E >1S 2H 4S 5H >P P Dble P >? > >South's pass of 5H was not forcing according to system; North's double was made after considerable agonising. South removed to 5S. This worked out better than a pass would have done (for a reason which I will explain later), and East-West asked for a ruling. Would you adjust the score on the basis of what you have seen so far? I'd give myself a flunking grade as a TD or AC member if I made any decision about an adjustment solely on the basis of what I've seen so far. That said, S seems to have an easy pass, so it's not unlikely that I will eventually determine that an adjustment is in order. My first piece of business would be to try to determine what systemic agreements, if any, N-S has about N's double. 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 Feb 2 01:27:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 01:27:40 +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 BAA16743 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 01:27:32 +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 JAA23109 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:26:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990201093008.00703414@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 09:30:08 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <36B597FC.AE0DB9A0@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19990131181220.007001e0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:03 PM 2/1/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >Why make it so difficult ? > >In the eyes of the player, 6NT was a better alternative than >1NT. >He was certain that 1NT making whatever would score a >bottom, and 6NT going whatever down a bottom too. >So 6NT making, if unchanged by the TD, is a marginal >improvement over 1NT+5. >That means "suggested" to me; and it is also a "logical" >alternative. >Adjust. This, of course, is the perfectly correct analysis if one takes the "subjective standard" interpretation. I don't think that the analysis under the objective test is that much more difficult, although it does require us to determine whether 6NT was a priori significantly less likely to achieve a good score than passing. Let's take the numbers someone proposed earlier: 10% chance that pass is the winning call, 1% chance that 6NT is, 89% chance that 2NT or 3NT will be the winning call at the table with the result taken away on adjustment. Now one could (as I read the arguments I'm becoming less inclined to do so, although I remain open-minded and hope to hear more) argue that the object here is to restore equity to the non-offending side, and that equity was indeed restored by the 6NT bidder's decision (possibly the result of a well-meaning attempt to "bend over backwards" to protect the opponents, possibly a misguided attempt to improve his score over what he expects for passing, but it doesn't matter) to take the 1% shot at a good result instead of the 10% shot the law would allow. This argument has some vague similarity to the rationale for the Kaplan doctrine. Kaplan argues that equity is restored when the opponents are in a position to get a good score barring an egregious error. One could argue similarly that equity is restored when the opponents are in a position to get a good score barring an egregious stroke of bad luck. In other words, the opponents have already been fully compensated for the infraction by being given a 99% chance (a priori) at a good score rather than the 90% chance they'd have had absent the infraction, so that, if their 100-to-1-for shot fails (they get a bad result when 6NT makes), the resulting damage is merely subsequent, not consequent, to the infraction. This does sound fair on the face of it. Suppose that (under some hypothetical set of laws very different from the real ones) the NOs, privy to the knowledge that the 1NT bidder has 19-21 HCP and responder has 6 HCP, with the understanding that due to the UI the offenders will not be allowed to play 3NT, were given the choice of defending 1NT or 6NT. Would we then take the position that fairness requires that we let them see how the hand plays out before making their decision? 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 Feb 2 02:01:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 02:01:16 +1100 Received: from orr.pwgsc.gc.ca (orr.pwgsc.gc.ca [198.103.167.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA16957 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 02:01:04 +1100 Received: id JAA12392; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:44:34 -0500 Received: by gateway id <1A044BR6>; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:55:35 -0500 Message-ID: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F621945A4@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca> From: Dave Kent To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Two systems Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:54:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain 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. >> >I see this as only one system, even if built by aggregation of two systems. >In France, it would not be allowed in pairs competitions, where meanings of >opening bids cannot vary according to position or vulnerability (except for >strength of 1NT opening). > >JP Rocafort Surely you do not mean this. If I open a weak 2S in 3rd seat NV vs V (this could be VERY weak - QJxxx x Qxxx xxx would be more than enough), the same bid in 4th seat V vs NV should be allowed to have a different meaning. Many preemptive bids have different meanings based on the vulnerability and seat position. As another example, if you play that an opening bid of 3NT shows a solid 7 card minor with no outside A or K in 1st or 2nd seat, making the same bid in 4th seat may not have the same upside (since an opening bid of 3 of the minor should show something like this). Even opening bids at the one level in 3rd seat are often much lighter than those in 1st or 2nd seat. Regulating bidding judgement should not be under the NCBO's jurisdiction (although the ACBL has done so on occasion - e.g. rule of 5 and 5). Dave Kent david@magi.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 03:06:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 03:06:12 +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 DAA17064 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 03:06:01 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA07797 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:03:11 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199902011603.KAA07797@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:03:11 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I thought we were now playing with the thermonukes--Herman's answer makes that obvious. > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > > This is the question. Under the objective test you will not get an > > adjustment if your bid was less likely to succeed than any LA not suggested > > (which is what I assume Grant means by "irrational"), so you get to keep > > your top for making 6NT if we determine that 6NT was objectively less > > likely to succeed than passing 1NT. Under the subjective test, you will > > always have your score adjusted if we determine that you would not have > > made the same call without the UI, so we take the top away in the example > > case. > > > > Why make it so difficult ? > > In the eyes of the player, 6NT was a better alternative than > 1NT. I said earlier that this means that whenever an illogical bid in the presence of UI works, it will automatically be ruled back. I now realize I added an unnecessary qualification: Whenever _any_ bid made in the presence of UI works, it should be ruled back. What am I missing here? Your argument has been reduced to "He wouldn't have bid X unless he thought that X was likely to give a good score. Hence, X is automatically a LA. [I have no real quarrel so far.] And, by the same token, it is automatically suggested over the alternative bids, because _the player made it_!" So it no longer makes any difference whether the bid was illogical or not! If I make a logical bid _that works_, it is only necessary to show that I had an LA [or even a semi-LA, like a 10% Pass] and we automatically have 'suggested over', even if objective analysis says that the working logical bid was much less likely to work than the alternative. The mere fact that I bid something proves that it was suggested _to me_. I certainly agree, Herman, that this approach avoids making these cases 'too difficult'! > He was certain that 1NT making whatever would score a > bottom, and 6NT going whatever down a bottom too. And we don't need to do anything complicated to find out about these mental calculations, because the bid speaks for itself! > So 6NT making, if unchanged by the TD, is a marginal > improvement over 1NT+5. > That means "suggested" to me; and it is also a "logical" > alternative. > Adjust. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 03:19:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 03:19:39 +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 DAA17097 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 03:19:28 +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 QAA06396 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:18:52 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.7.1) id QAA06363 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:17:50 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990201171935.007b4100@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 17:19:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Two systems In-Reply-To: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F621945A4@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgs c.gc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:54 01/02/99 -0500, Dave Kent wrote: >>>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. >>> >>I see this as only one system, even if built by aggregation of two systems. >>In France, it would not be allowed in pairs competitions, where meanings of >>opening bids cannot vary according to position or vulnerability (except for >>strength of 1NT opening). >> >>JP Rocafort > >Surely you do not mean this. If I open a weak 2S in 3rd seat NV vs V (this >could be VERY weak - QJxxx x Qxxx xxx would be more than enough), the same >bid in 4th seat V vs NV should be allowed to have a different meaning. Many >preemptive bids have different meanings based on the vulnerability and seat >position. As another example, if you play that an opening bid of 3NT shows >a solid 7 card minor with no outside A or K in 1st or 2nd seat, making the >same bid in 4th seat may not have the same upside (since an opening bid of 3 >of the minor should show something like this). Even opening bids at the one >level in 3rd seat are often much lighter than those in 1st or 2nd seat. >Regulating bidding judgement should not be under the NCBO's jurisdiction >(although the ACBL has done so on occasion - e.g. rule of 5 and 5). I mean nothing. System regulations are very precisely defined (unfortunately no very accurately) by French federation. These regulations can be seen at: http://web.aurecvideo.fr/haffner/arbitre (Reglement - Annexe V). Regulations are very intricate: there are 4 categories of competitions with different systems allowed or disallowed; SHA is the French name for HUM, but with definitions very different from WBF; CI is the same for Brown Sticker Convention... I admit to have only given an abstract connected with varying openings. In the definition of CI (forbidden in pairs) varying requirements for openings are only allowed for the range of 1NT and the strength of preemptive bids. In the definition of SHA, a minimum strength for one-level openings is defined: at least 18 (adding HCP and the length of the 2 longer suits!), except in 3rd seat: at least 16. There should be a new release of these regulations for next year. For example, today an opening bid of 1NT which allows for a singleton and less than 17 HCP, makes the whole system SHA! JP Rocafort > >Dave Kent >david@magi.com > > ________________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 2 03:28:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 03:28:28 +1100 Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA17118 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 03:28:20 +1100 Received: from hlyxzurz (dialup-026.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.218]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA29438 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:28:09 GMT Message-ID: <006e01be4e00$77da14e0$da307dc2@hlyxzurz> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Unauthorised Misinformation Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:32:25 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From Eric I'd give myself a flunking grade as a TD or AC member if I made any decision about an adjustment solely on the basis of what I've seen so far. That said, S seems to have an easy pass, so it's not unlikely that I will eventually determine that an adjustment is in order. My first piece of business would be to try to determine what systemic agreements, if any, N-S has about N's double. 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 Grattan there's your comfy bit of fence! Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 03:31:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 03:31:34 +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 DAA17133 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 03:31:27 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA14334 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:28:39 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199902011628.KAA14334@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:28:39 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > 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} > > This is the question. Under the objective test you will not get an > adjustment if your bid was less likely to succeed than any LA not suggested > (which is what I assume Grant means by "irrational"), so you get to keep I would have said something like 'significantly' or 'demonstrably' less likely, but this is basically my view, yes. > your top for making 6NT if we determine that 6NT was objectively less > likely to succeed than passing 1NT. Under the subjective test, you will > always have your score adjusted if we determine that you would not have > made the same call without the UI, so we take the top away in the example > case. [snip] > Whether "suggested" is taken subjectively or objectively, "logical > alternative" calls for an objective judgment, so the TD/AC must determine > the latter. I see no problem in mixing "suggested (to the player)" with > "logical (to the TD/AC) alternative", but if the lack of consistency makes > Grant (and, clearly, others as well) uncomfortable that's an argument on > the side of the objective interpretation. It does make me uncomfortable, yes. I don't like the idea that we can objectively evaluate a hand to say what alternatives are Logical [whether logical to _this player_ or not is irrelevant], but we don't objectively evaluate the hand to see what is 'suggested over'. > > 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. > > Here Grant seems to be taking the subjective-standard position. I have > been pointedly disregarding the issue raised by Jean-Pierre's suggestion > that one might bid 6NT in an attempt to meet one's ethical responsibilities > by taking an irrational action intended as a deliberate dive, but luck into > an unfortunate make. That requires a degree of "mind-reading" that even I > (who have argued often that some amount of mind-reading is salubrious) see > no need for. If we determine that he bid an irrational 6NT only because he > had UI, I am prepared to presume that he thought he would be better off > after the smoke cleared bidding 6NT than by taking some non-suggested LA. I think that one can make a case that L73C introduces a 'subjective' standard not present in L16 or L73F1 {although it's there in a different form in L73F2}. I said that if _we determine_ that a player was trying to take advantage of UI, then we can rule against him under L73C. I do not think the mere act of making the bid is sufficient for this determination. Nor do I think this means the bid was 'demonstrably suggested over' the other bid. > > 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. :) > > The thread's subject line, and much of the discussion, suggests that the > reason for the lack of a single consistent interpretation may be that L16A > suggests an objective test, while L73C suggests a subjective test. L16 > says that a player may not take advantage of UI; L73 says that a player may > not attempt to take advantage of UI. The prescription for avoiding either L16 says that a player may not choose from among LA's a call that could demonstrably have been suggested over another. L73F1 says the same thing. L73C says "he must carefully avoid taking advantage", which is {verbally, at least} a very different kettle of fish. > of these offenses, however, is the same, suggesting, as does the fact that > the subjective test seems to be a superset of the objective test, that they > are not intended to differ in effect. I agree that they probably weren't intended to be different. If anything, though, that strengthens the 'objective' case, since presumably it is more likely that the short, vague L73C was intended to mean the same thing as the more famous and more complex L16 and L73F1. :) > > 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. > > We have a bit of a straw man here. If you've done the above analysis, and > you're now trying to be ethical, and you have even a vague notion of what > the law says is ethically appropriate here, you will, almost by definition, > bid 3NT or 4S. Why would you do anything else? Should a TD or AC really > assume that for some odd reason you thought you had to dump the board > visibly and decisively to look good? > Well, that would be just as consistent with the physical evidence as the possibility that I really think the UI suggests bidding 6S! Obviously, I engage in some manner of odd thinking. :) But, in fact, I have done this at a table, although I do not think myself legally required to do it. [That is, I have made bids that I was _absolutely sure_ were not suggested by the UI, when there were alternative bids that I was _pretty sure_ weren't so suggested.] > >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_! > > On the other hand, if you bid 6S because you thought that that would get > you your best possible expected result after the AC has ruled on your > actions, then the bid which was contraindicated -- to the members of the AC > -- was indeed suggested -- to you -- by the UI. Yes, indeed. If. The consensus seems to be to assume that the bid I make is always by definition the one suggested to me by the UI, whenever I could have bid something else. My position is that we determine what bid was suggested by looking at the situation [or asking the player], not just by taking it for granted. > The question still on the table is whether, given that the bid was > contraindicated to the AC *and* suggested to you by the UI, was it legal > and thus not subject to adjustment. If we know it was suggested to me by the UI, it was illegal. If we don't know that, then we let the TD/AC judge what was "demonstrably suggested" as per the laws {other than L73C}. :) > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 03:47:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 03:47:51 +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 DAA17167 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 03:47:44 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA00789 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:47:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id LAA05434 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:47:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:47:39 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902011647.LAA05434@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Electronic Committee X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: burghard@prodigy.com (MR KENT V BURGHARD) > Any comments about the feasibility of such an arrangement? Just as a technical note, you may want to consider an audio telecon (conference call) as an alternative to an Internet chat room. I suspect any long distance provider can set it up for you. I know for sure AT&T can do it, and some corporate telephone systems have the capability of setting up conference calls internally. My experience is that telecons allow better interaction than Internet chat but are not as good as face to face conversations. You will have to trade off cost against improved interaction, but anyway it may be worth considering. I seem to spend a ridiculous fraction of my work hours in telecons, but they can work pretty well. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 04:02:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 04:02:37 +1100 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA17192 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 04:02:30 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA22260 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:59:31 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199902011659.KAA22260@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:59:31 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text 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). > ====================================== "Let not Sicily nor any city anywhere be subject to human masters--such is my doctrine--but to laws." -Plato [Letter VII] > ++++ Opener's motivation for this bid was concerned with > probabilities of loss and gain, and he believed it to have better > chances than other calls which were certain to be disallowed. > Thinking that is surely rational (whether his judgement of the > ratio of success is well based or not). And it only enters his mind > because of the UI. > I continue to think that the law was drafted in the belief > that in the mind of the player with UI his chosen action must be a > logical action; he is not to be thought to have lost his power of > reason. As for Fearghal's comment that he is only seeking by a > wild bid not to take advantage of the UI, the Director must > apply the tests which the law prescribes; these do not show any > interest in his reasons for the choice of bid but refer instead to > objective standards and comparisons. This demand for > *comparisons* of the extent to which calls are suggested by the UI > is something the group has not totally taken on board - they > talk too much of whether a call is suggested or not, when in fact > even the most unlikely cases, if deemed 'logical', must be > compared for *any* differentiation in the degree to which they > are suggested. > ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > Unfortunately, I fail to understand this. You say that the laws are not interested in his reasons for choosing his bid, but must use instead 'objective standards and comparisons'. Fine. Those objective standards include the phrase "demonstrably suggested over another". So we return to the case: if I can show that, given the UI, bid A is 10 times more likely to work than bid B, would you ever say that bid B was "demonstrably suggested over" bid A merely because it was slightly more likely to work than it would have been without the UI, and it happened to work? Put it another way: what function does the phrase "demonstrably suggested over" play? Some people on this list seem to interpret that phrase such that whatever bid I make [with UI] is ipso facto demonstrably suggested [to me] over any LA. Hence, it turns out to be logically impossible for a successful bid in the presence of UI not to be illegal, whenever there is any LA. This is my real worry, not illogical actions. I think "demonstrably suggested over" must mean that the UI clearly makes the bid chosen a better bid than the bid turned down. "Clearly", that is, in the judgement of the TD/AC. I am afraid that some people on this list have decided to castrate "suggested over" simply in order to nail a rare lucky irrational bid that happened to work, made by a bidder who may or may not have been trying to take advantage of UI. I've been wrong before, though. :) -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 04:06:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 04:06:01 +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 EAA17207 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 04:05:54 +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 MAA02111 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:05:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id MAA05499 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:05:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:05:49 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902011705.MAA05499@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: David Stevenson > Several complaints about the conditions, of course. I am curious as > to why the 3D bid is considered so awful by some - it does not seem too > far off the mark to me. Thanks, David, for taking the poll. Advancer's first bid is probably a matter of national style. An American takeout double will be off-shape much more rarely than what I understand would be the case for an English or European double. Thus many Americans would bid 4D or 5D as a preempt. Playing my own preferred style, where doubles are virtually never offshape, 5D would have been automatic. In a style where double can show any hand with 16 points or more, 3D is fine. I confess I'm astonished at the lopsidedness of the vote. I would have expected much closer to 50/50 for 5D and pass. This is a very good lesson to all of us! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 04:16:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 04:16:05 +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 EAA17268 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 04:15:55 +1100 Received: from p44s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.69] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 107Mw3-00059H-00; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:14:55 +0000 Message-ID: <002e01be4e05$e75a2440$458993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Past harmonies. Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:10:03 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 04:15:46 +1100 Received: from p44s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.69] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 107Mvz-00059H-00; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:14:52 +0000 Message-ID: <002c01be4e05$e4f643a0$458993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Unauthorised misinformation Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:02:28 -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: 01 February 1999 00:58 Subject: Re: Unauthorised misinformation >axeman wrote: >-------------------------------------------\x/-------------------------------- ---- >>The huddle [inclusive of the mannerisms] and then double suggests that >>double and 5S [see striped tail double] were considered. ---------------------\x/----------------- > David commented:- > Passing 5H out rather than doubling it seems a better method of >keeping the oppos out of 6H. > ++++ The sitting-on-the-fence position (see earlier note from home) is related to ignorance of the players' methods, and indeed their level of competence. The 4S bid is made in a situation where it is ambiguous weak or sound, maybe two suited (what fits have we?), and we do not yet know what mechanisms this partnership has to identify what it has of the various possibilities. South's non-forcing Pass should tell North he cannot see 5H beaten nor 5S making; North agonises, we do not know what about - he may even be uncertain of his own system and be unsure about the Pass. It could be that the main problem he has is in knowing system, rather than in judging his hand. ++++ ~Grattan~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 04:50:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 04:50:40 +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 EAA17363 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 04:50:32 +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 RAA09155 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:49:57 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 RAA10870 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:48:55 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990201185040.00795570@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 18:50:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199902011628.KAA14334@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:28 01/02/99 -0600, cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: >> >> Here Grant seems to be taking the subjective-standard position. I have >> been pointedly disregarding the issue raised by Jean-Pierre's suggestion >> that one might bid 6NT in an attempt to meet one's ethical responsibilities >> by taking an irrational action intended as a deliberate dive, but luck into >> an unfortunate make. I don't remember to have suggested this issue (over any logical other one). I only tried to show to what dead-ends the Laws led (I am glad to see how everyone has concurred to this demonstration for some days), and how it would be simpler if UI-possessor was only required to bid as if he didn't receive UI and to leave to TD/AC the task to decide about LA and bids which could have been suggested... > >> We have a bit of a straw man here. If you've done the above analysis, and >> you're now trying to be ethical, and you have even a vague notion of what >> the law says is ethically appropriate here, you will, almost by definition, >> bid 3NT or 4S. Why would you do anything else? Should a TD or AC really >> assume that for some odd reason you thought you had to dump the board >> visibly and decisively to look good? > > But, in fact, I have done this at a table, although I do not think >myself legally required to do it. [That is, I have made bids that I was >_absolutely sure_ were not suggested by the UI, when there were >alternative bids that I was _pretty sure_ weren't so suggested.] > >> >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_! >> We are in a totally irrealistic area here, Wonderland on bridge. This man whose only purpose is to be ethical, who is in the position to be nominated for the Fair-Play award of the Year, should be able to triumph over bad-luck by finding his way to losing 2 or 3 tricks in his nightmare 6S; at worst, a clever revoke at the 11th trick should accomplish the job. JP Rocafort > >> Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu ________________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 2 06:13:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 06:13:24 +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 GAA17479 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 06:13:19 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 107OmV-0004L2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:13:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 18:42:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199902011628.KAA14334@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.5.32.19990201185040.00795570@phedre.meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990201185040.00795570@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 don't remember to have suggested this issue (over any logical other one). >I only tried to show to what dead-ends the Laws led (I am glad to see how >everyone has concurred to this demonstration for some days), and how it >would be simpler if UI-possessor was only required to bid as if he didn't >receive UI and to leave to TD/AC the task to decide about LA and bids which >could have been suggested... What on earth do you mean by simpler? Currently, when ethical players play against each other, the Director is called to UI cases in the very rare occasion that someone thinks they have it wrong. Let's consider my case: when was the last time the Director was called to my table for a UI decision by me? Twelve years ago? Fifteen? By your suggestion, you wish me to make bids that look as though they use UI, so the TD will get called once a session, maybe? How is this simpler? It's an appalling method. Here on this mailing list we discuss very rare and tricky occurrences because we want to get them right, and we are interested. But there is no real difficulty in the majority of UI cases - in fact the vast majority are never seen by a TD. Just because tricky situations cause trouble is no reason to spoil the basic ethical approach which works in a vast number of cases. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 699 days to go 1/2 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 07:53:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 07:53:45 +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 HAA17685 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 07:53:37 +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 <19990201205331.FKUY6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:53:31 -0800 Message-ID: <36B61530.1BBC4F02@home.com> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 12:57:20 -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: Unauthorised misinformation References: <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com> <36B4DCC4.27E050A7@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: > The AI suggests that the double should systemically be left in. The UI > suggests doubt. Pass is a LA. The opponents were damaged as a result > of the pull. These are the conditions for adjustment. I must interject that you forget an essential part of the conditions, namely that the pull must have been suggested over pass by the UI. Only then do you check if there was a causal link between the infraction and the damage (there will never be a doubt as to whether or not there *was* damage - the NOS would not call the TD if the pull gave them a good result). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 08:00:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:00:52 +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 IAA17745 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:00:46 +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 <19990201210041.FMQF6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:00:41 -0800 Message-ID: <36B616DE.C30C1944@home.com> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 13:04:30 -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: Unauthorised misinformation References: <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com> <36B55DC5.8F37732E@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: > Still, this is the classic whipsaw. S: P (Do what you want, pd.) N: X > (I'm not only interested in defending, I'm relatively pleased to defend) > S: 5S (Oh, well if you want to defend that much, let's play offense.) It > can't be right to pull *now*. Why trust them when you can trust pd? > Turning +300 into -100 makes partners grumpy. You're forgetting that pass was *not* forcing. Your above analysis has relevance if pass *is* forcing. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 08:18:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:18:49 +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 IAA17829 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:18:44 +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 <19990201211839.FRBQ6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:18:39 -0800 Message-ID: <36B61B14.33413AAE@home.com> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 13:22:28 -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: Unauthorised misinformation References: <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > This is an attempt to separate out one of the points that has been > raised in the L73 v L16 thread. I will try to set the problem one step > at a time. > > Suppose that you are asked to rule on the actions of South, whose hand > is: > > A6543 2 A864 KJ6 > > At love all, the bidding proceeded: > > S W N E > 1S 2H 4S 5H > P P Dble P > ? > > South's pass of 5H was not forcing according to system; North's double > was made after considerable agonising. South removed to 5S. This > worked out better than a pass would have done (for a reason which I > will explain later), and East-West asked for a ruling. Would you > adjust the score on the basis of what you have seen so far? Very reluctant to rule without knowing more about the NS agreements. Are any patterns excluded by N's 4S bid? Do they play fit-jumps in competition so that hands with rather few hcp but a long sidesuit are excluded? What would 3H and 4H have meant? If I had to rule now, assuming 4S can encompass many different non-slammish hands, I lean twds adjusting to 5HX. Pass seems not only an LA but the "normal" bid, particularly if the system is 5cM. The connection to the old thread is presumably that pulling to 5S even after the UI seems to be an inferior, if not "irrational", bid. The key then is that the UI has improved it's chance of success relative to Pass, even if that chance is still very low. Just to put some numbers on it for illustration, say that absent UI the Pull to 5S is a 5% action, and that with UI it increases to 10%. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 08:37:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:37:12 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA17859 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:37:04 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-196.uunet.be [194.7.13.196]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA19864 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:36:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36B5D242.F78A91D1@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 17:11:46 +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: <3.0.1.32.19990131181220.007001e0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990201093008.00703414@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 01:03 PM 2/1/99 +0100, Herman wrote: > > >Why make it so difficult ? > > > > This, of course, is the perfectly correct analysis if one takes the > "subjective standard" interpretation. I don't think that the analysis > under the objective test is that much more difficult, although it does > require us to determine whether 6NT was a priori significantly less likely > to achieve a good score than passing. Let's take the numbers someone > proposed earlier: 10% chance that pass is the winning call, 1% chance that > 6NT is, 89% chance that 2NT or 3NT will be the winning call at the table > with the result taken away on adjustment. > OK, but I am certain that if the player thought 3NT might go down, that he would take his "perhaps bottom" and pass. Only if we assume that the player considered 3NT to be a 100% bid and make, is it in any way rational to bid 6NT. Since the player did bid it, I assume he considered it thus. Argument ends. Mind you, I agree with much of what you write afterwards, I just don't agree that the assumption (89%-10%-1%) your are making is consistent with the example David provided. Go back to (99%-00%-01%) and reconsider. Remember we are dealing with a bridge-lawyer who thinks he can outsmart L16. I don't like that, and I don't suppose you do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 09:37:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:37:44 +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 JAA17934 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:37:38 +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 <19990201223733.GKYX6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:37:33 -0800 Message-ID: <36B62D92.7F8FA9DD@home.com> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 14:41:22 -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: <01be4ad7$df67d2e0$a4394b0c@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I asked RGB without mentioning any UI. > Eight for pass, one for pull. > > I think pass is an LA! But David, in fairness, your description of the 3D bid was "what else?" (colored by your own opinion?)rather than the actual "a terrible bid" that the bidder himself used as a description. I find it somewhat relevant in the sense that someone who considers 3D descriptive will also find the later pass more attractive. > Several complaints about the conditions, of course. I am curious as > to why the 3D bid is considered so awful by some Maybe because in modern competitive bidding one tends to "give opponents the last guess" by bidding the full LOTT-value of one's hand immediately. Giving pard the hypothetical 1444 (or in view of one's own spade singleton 2434/43) there seem to be approx. 21 total tricks, making 5D rather obvious. This strategy is even more successful in practice than it theoretically should be since, on those occassions when both 5D and 4S go down one, opponents will sometimes misguess and continue to 5S. With only 1 HCP and so much pattern, it is a foregone conclusion that opponents will bid 4S if they can. It is selfdeception in the extreme to beleive that they will stop at 3S when making 4. Finally, why impose a D lead on a pard holding say DKxx? On balance, I'd rather try a tactical Pass, possibly followed by 5D over 4S, than 3D! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 09:43:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:43:36 +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 JAA17950 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:43:31 +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 <19990201224326.GMNV6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:43:26 -0800 Message-ID: <36B62EF3.B8A9D225@home.com> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 14:47:15 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid References: <199902011705.MAA05499@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > I confess I'm astonished at the lopsidedness of the vote. I would > have expected much closer to 50/50 for 5D and pass. This is a very > good lesson to all of us! Not so fast!:-) Quite apart from the size of the "poll", the result may equally well be interpreted to prove that *if one has started by bidding 3D*, and considering it as "what else", then there is some logic in not overruling oneself by bidding 5D later. As so often, one can prove a lot with statistics! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 09:51:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:51:05 +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 JAA17974 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:50:59 +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 RAA24999 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:50:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id RAA05832 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:50:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:50:56 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902012250.RAA05832@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Past harmonies. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > 1. WBFLC at Yokohama 7th October 1991. > "It is permissible to specify that where a 1NT > opening bid may include by agreement a singleton > or void this makes the bid conventional". Do you have a sense of whether this was superseded by the revised definition of 'convention' in the 1997 Laws? I would have assumed so in the absence of a specific pronouncement. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 10:10:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:10:34 +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 KAA18000 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:10:29 +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 <19990201231024.GTLO6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:10:24 -0800 Message-ID: <36B63545.CC2B2BAA@home.com> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 15:14:13 -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: <3.0.5.32.19990201185040.00795570@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >...it would be simpler if UI-possessor was only required to bid as if > he didn't > receive UI and to leave to TD/AC the task to decide about LA and bids > which could have been suggested... I agree that such a change of L16 would make it "simpler" *for the "UI-possessor"*, however it would make it impossible for TD/AC since they would be required to enter a players mind (or accept self-serving statements at face value) in order to adjudicate. I'm surprised that, at least within BLML, there is not unanimity in accepting the principle that the laws should be based on as objective criteria as possible to determine "what would likely have happened...". From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 14:48:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:48:37 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA18621 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:48:30 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 107Wp0-0003c9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 03:48:19 +0000 Message-ID: <14yk$qAJFmt2EwMU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 02:22:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid References: <01be4ad7$df67d2e0$a4394b0c@default> <36B62D92.7F8FA9DD@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36B62D92.7F8FA9DD@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: > >> I asked RGB without mentioning any UI. > >> Eight for pass, one for pull. >> >> I think pass is an LA! > >But David, in fairness, your description of the 3D bid was "what else?" >(colored by your own opinion?)rather than the actual "a terrible bid" >that the bidder himself used as a description. I find it somewhat >relevant in the sense that someone who considers 3D descriptive will >also find the later pass more attractive. No, my approach is right. You want to know what people are going to do on a later round after a bid that they would have made: I much prefer to listen to people who think that 3D is a good bid on the subject. Suggesting 3D is a terrible bid makes it more difficult to get a helpful response. Anyway, it was surely the story-teller rather than the bidder who said it was a terrible bid, and I think he has less support for that view on BLML than he thinks. It still seems the only possible bid to me. >> Several complaints about the conditions, of course. I am curious as >> to why the 3D bid is considered so awful by some > >Maybe because in modern competitive bidding one tends to "give opponents >the last guess" by bidding the full LOTT-value of one's hand >immediately. Giving pard the hypothetical 1444 (or in view of one's own >spade singleton 2434/43) there seem to be approx. 21 total tricks, >making 5D rather obvious. This strategy is even more successful in >practice than it theoretically should be since, on those occassions when >both 5D and 4S go down one, opponents will sometimes misguess and >continue to 5S. I don't think that LoTT is too bad an idea, but when you have seven diamonds and a singleton spade basing any calculations on partner being 1444 comes from cloud-cuckoo land. >With only 1 HCP and so much pattern, it is a foregone conclusion that >opponents will bid 4S if they can. It is selfdeception in the extreme to >beleive that they will stop at 3S when making 4. Finally, why impose a D >lead on a pard holding say DKxx? On balance, I'd rather try a tactical >Pass, possibly followed by 5D over 4S, than 3D! Obviously if you do not wish to play a partnership game then Pass then 5D, or 5D direct is a good idea. Since 3D cannot be any hand but the one I hold in reality, I would prefer to bid 3D and let partner decide. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 698 days to go 2/2 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 15:58:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA18792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:58:44 +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 PAA18787 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:58:35 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-39.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.39]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA40544906 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 00:01:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36B68604.9744239F@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 22:58:44 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Unauthorised misinformation References: <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com> <36B4DCC4.27E050A7@freewwweb.com> <36B61530.1BBC4F02@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SEE INSERT Does this clarify? Roger Pewick Jan Kamras wrote: > > axeman wrote: > > > The AI suggests that the double should systemically be left in. The UI > > suggests doubt. Doubt suggests that it may be prudent to pull even if you have what you have promised. The double was pulled. Pass is a LA. The opponents were damaged as a result > > of the pull. These are the conditions for adjustment. > > I must interject that you forget an essential part of the conditions, > namely that the pull must have been suggested over pass by the UI. Only > then do you check if there was a causal link between the infraction and > the damage (there will never be a doubt as to whether or not there *was* > damage - the NOS would not call the TD if the pull gave them a good > result). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 18:53:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA19019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 18:53:39 +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 SAA19008 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 18:53:32 +1100 Received: from modem102.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.230] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 107aeB-0002rx-00; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 07:53:23 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Past harmonies. Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 06:19:30 -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 "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: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Past harmonies. > Date: 01 February 1999 22:50 > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > 1. WBFLC at Yokohama 7th October 1991. > > "It is permissible to specify that where a 1NT > > opening bid may include by agreement a singleton > > or void this makes the bid conventional". > > Do you have a sense of whether this was superseded by the revised > definition of 'convention' in the 1997 Laws? I would have assumed > so in the absence of a specific pronouncement. +++ Question not addressed. Did not even think about it. My guess is that since the Committee went out of its way to provide the route for such agreements to be regulated, and in the spirit of the new harmony, the committee would not stand in the way of any Regulating Authority that acted upon it - and if directly asked would probably confirm the Yokohama decision. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 18:53:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA19018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 18:53:39 +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 SAA19007 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 18:53:32 +1100 Received: from modem102.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.230] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2) id 107aeD-0002rx-00; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 07:53:25 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridgelaws" , Cc: "David W Stevenson" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 07:47:36 -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 "I see no alternative but the lunatic asylum or the gallows." [Tolstoy] ================================= > From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu > To: Bridgelaws > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 01 February 1999 16:59 > > ------------------ \x/ ------------------------ > This is my real worry, not illogical actions. I think > "demonstrably suggested over" must mean that the UI clearly makes the bid > chosen a better bid than the bid turned down. "Clearly", that is, in the > judgement of the TD/AC. I am afraid that some people on this list have > decided to castrate "suggested over" simply in order to nail a rare lucky > irrational bid that happened to work, made by a bidder who may or may not > have been trying to take advantage of UI. > +++ My underlying point was that the test of the matter lies in the hands of third parties - Director, AC, national authority - who are concerned only to compare alternatives and decide which is suggested over which. Frankly the Fearghal argument ("I made a wild irrational bid in order not to take advantage") does not wash: it rationalises; what the player has actually done is to look for a way out of a dilemma that will give him a better chance than staying put, and on occasions when it works it is not luck but a successful ploy. And the action is logical, founded on a reasoned approach by a sane mind. The clock is still ticking. I am still weighing up whether to go for the view that the least suggested alternative is always the action dictated by system and judgement of the cards held when considered in isolation from influemces other than the AI. If I could be sure this is what I really believe, then maybe this is what the law, or our interpretation of the law, should say. It certainly fits with a theme expressed recently by Jose Damiani in a fax. My hesitation springs from the vast range of situations and anxiety lest it overlooks some of them. [Something like this: "When in possession of unauthorized information a player is to be judged not to have taken advantage of it if, in isolation from other factors, the player's action is deemed to be consistent with the disclosed methods of the partnership, the authorized information available to him, and his holding of cards."] ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 19:19:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 19:19:50 +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 TAA19061 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 19:19:43 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA16631 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:18:52 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 2 Feb 99 08:18 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: <199901301818.FAA07996@octavia.anu.edu.au> Pete Haglich wrote: > 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? The reason I wouldn't allow it at pairs is that the offenders are then risking 10% to get (my estimate) a 50/50 shot at 50%/0%. This means that their "expectation" is a net gain. Thus the UI itself suggests bidding. For the Imps player the expectation is (again my estimate) a net 0. I suppose, when the net gain is 0, one could say that the player is taking advantage of UI to exploit his high variance strategy and rule against it but this feels a bit tortuous for my liking. I regard L73C as "instructions to players" on what to do if UI is present - ie carefully avoid taking advantage whereas L16 is aimed at the TD. If a player chooses any bid which has a lower (or equal) net expectation than all non-suggested LAs (and can convince me that he had calculated his expectation correctly) then I feel he has fulfilled his duties under 73C and I would not adjust. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 19:30:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 19:30:00 +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 TAA19101 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 19:29:55 +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 <19990202082949.LZPD6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 00:29:49 -0800 Message-ID: <36B6B862.8FAA490B@home.com> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 00:33:38 -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: LA's after a bad bid References: <01be4ad7$df67d2e0$a4394b0c@default> <36B62D92.7F8FA9DD@home.com> <14yk$qAJFmt2EwMU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Obviously if you do not wish to play a partnership game then Pass > then > 5D, or 5D direct is a good idea. Since 3D cannot be any hand but the > one I hold in reality, I would prefer to bid 3D and let partner > decide. I see - so you wouldn't bid 3D on: xx xxx KJxxx QTx or similar? Do you really seriously maintain that "3D cannot be any hand but": x xx Jxxxxxx xxx or was that an overstatement in the heat of the battle? If serious, maybe we should stop discussing expert bidding-theory here on BLML, and go back to arguing the laws only? :-) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 19:47:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 19:47:22 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA19161 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 19:47:17 +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 <19990202084711.MCCI6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 00:47:11 -0800 Message-ID: <36B6BC75.A2051CAA@home.com> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 00:51:01 -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: Unauthorised misinformation References: <199901311957490230.0AE316AA@mail.btinternet.com> <36B55DC5.8F37732E@mindspring.com> <36B616DE.C30C1944@home.com> <36B65AE5.F848910E@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: > Jan appears to be suggesting inverting the meanings of pass and double; > I don't believe that to be correct. Can't it be all right to beat them > to death every once in a great while? I'm not suggesting anything but what I said, which was in essence: The poster's condition was that Pass was *not* forcing! (I still find it weird that pass is NF unless the 4S bid is clearly "non-constructive", but I guess we'll see in the next installment). Your suggestion that the message of pass was "Do what you want, pard" seemed to imply a forcing meaning, but it seems I misread your intent. Sorry. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 20:22:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:22:53 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA19319 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:22:44 +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 <19990202092239.MGFX6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 01:22:39 -0800 Message-ID: <36B6C4C4.AE730238@home.com> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 01:26:28 -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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > [Something like this: "When in possession of unauthorized > information a player is to be judged not to have taken advantage > of it if, in isolation from other factors, the player's action is deemed > to be consistent with the disclosed methods of the partnership, the > authorized information available to him, and his holding of cards."] > ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ > I am probably missing something, but what is the difference between the above and: "Bid what you were always going to bid absent the UI" ? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 21:14:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:14:25 +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 VAA19468 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:14:18 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA26557 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:13:29 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 2 Feb 99 10:13 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: LA's after a bad 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: David Stevenson wrote: > Richard F Beye wrote: > > >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. > > Sorry Rick! > > I asked RGB without mentioning any UI. > > Eight for pass, one for pull. > > I think pass is an LA! > When I counted I made it Those who thought 3D showed this hand - pass 100% (3 cases) Those who thought that the hand should bid 4/5 diamonds but accepted it as showing this hand - pass 100% (4 cases) Those who thought 3D should promise values but accepted they had bid it - pull 100% (1 case). If TD accepts "terrible bid" as fact (and there is no reason why he should) then pass still seems not to be an LA. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 21:14:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:14:36 +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 VAA19474 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:14:30 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA26627 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:13:40 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 2 Feb 99 10:13 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 Stevenson wrote: > Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > >I don't remember to have suggested this issue (over any logical other > one). > >I only tried to show to what dead-ends the Laws led (I am glad to see > how > >everyone has concurred to this demonstration for some days), and how it > >would be simpler if UI-possessor was only required to bid as if he > didn't > >receive UI and to leave to TD/AC the task to decide about LA and bids > which > >could have been suggested... > > What on earth do you mean by simpler? Currently, when ethical players > play against each other, the Director is called to UI cases in the very > rare occasion that someone thinks they have it wrong. Let's consider my > case: when was the last time the Director was called to my table for a > UI decision by me? Twelve years ago? Fifteen? Perhaps your reputation has an effect. I know that I am far less likely to call the TD when I believe a player to be ethical and well-informed than in a borderline situation involving a stranger. > > By your suggestion, you wish me to make bids that look as though they > use UI, so the TD will get called once a session, maybe? How is this > simpler? It's an appalling method. "Bid as you would based only on AI" and the current laws would produce the same result in the vast majority of UI cases. The problem arises where a player is unsure how he would bid without the AI. L16 and its accompanying regulations attempt, rather poorly IMO, to give guidance in this situation and leave room for improvement. Asking players to second guess "their peers" or a TD/AC is not what I think bridge should be about. I'm also not happy with the practice of not bidding as you think you would in order to avoid a possible adjustment. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 2 22:05:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:05:25 +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 WAA19591 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:05:18 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-236.uunet.be [194.7.9.236]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13387 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:05:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36B623FB.D0DD44B7@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 23:00:28 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199902011603.KAA07797@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: > > I thought we were now playing with the thermonukes--Herman's > answer makes that obvious. > I don't understand the reference. If I am being insulted, I prefer to understand the funny way in which it is done. However, I don't think Grant is trying to insult me, rather to understand something. > > I said earlier that this means that whenever an illogical bid in > the presence of UI works, it will automatically be ruled back. I now > realize I added an unnecessary qualification: > > Whenever _any_ bid made in the presence of UI works, it should be > ruled back. > I am not saying that. I was trying to say that the example David gave did not state that this player was acting rationally. Rather, I inferred that the player wanted to think so, and so I ruled against him. I was not inferring something as in "ruling", I was inferring something as in "extracting unstated data out of a blml example". Do you see the difference ? I understand this player. I think he is trying to be clever. I assume he is acting rationally, and telling me (as director) so. I rule accordingly. I am not stating that the evidence of an irrational bid is enough of a proof to make it rational. But when a player explains to me his reasons for bidding 6NT, and they are those that I have suspected they are all along, then I will rule against him. Which is not the same as ruling any irrational bid as rational just because a player has made it. > What am I missing here? Your argument has been reduced to "He > wouldn't have bid X unless he thought that X was likely to give a good > score. Hence, X is automatically a LA. [I have no real quarrel so far.] Mutadis mutandis, you are right, that is my reasoning. > And, by the same token, it is automatically suggested over the alternative > bids, because _the player made it_!" Well. Answer a few questions : - knowing what we know, is 6NT worse than 1NT (try and imagine the 99-1 example) : even if you don't agree, then assume the answer is NO - can it be better ? YES - why ? because player knows 3NT is lay-down, and the whole room will be there - how does he know ? Not from the bidding, but from UI. So doesn't the UI suggest 6NT over 1NT ? > So it no longer makes any difference > whether the bid was illogical or not! If I make a logical bid _that > works_, it is only necessary to show that I had an LA [or even a semi-LA, > like a 10% Pass] and we automatically have 'suggested over', even if > objective analysis says that the working logical bid was much less likely > to work than the alternative. The mere fact that I bid something proves > that it was suggested _to me_. > Unless you are a total lunatic, yes it does. > I certainly agree, Herman, that this approach avoids making these > cases 'too difficult'! > I agree that I am threading a fine line here, in trying to find good reasons why my ruling which seems right, _is_. But I don't think it is in the good of bridge to let this cat out of the bag, so to speak. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 00:24:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 00:24:41 +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 AAA22140 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 00:24:33 +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 NAA04705 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:23:50 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 NAA01531 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:22:42 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990202142428.00797980@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 14:24:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <36B6C4C4.AE730238@home.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:26 02/02/99 -0800, Jan Kamras wrote: >Grattan wrote: > >> [Something like this: "When in possession of unauthorized >> information a player is to be judged not to have taken advantage >> of it if, in isolation from other factors, the player's action is deemed >> to be consistent with the disclosed methods of the partnership, the >> authorized information available to him, and his holding of cards."] >> ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ >> > >I am probably missing something, but what is the difference between the >above and: >"Bid what you were always going to bid absent the UI" ? > > Why do you think there should be this difference? As I read it, G.E. dit not give the present interpretation of L16 and L73, but a possible future evolution. Do you think impossible for a wise man to dream this way, far away from Tolstoy's lunatic asylum? JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 00:32:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 00:32:54 +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 AAA22166 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 00:32:48 +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 IAA02270 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:31:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990202083530.00685a34@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 08:35:30 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <36B5D242.F78A91D1@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19990131181220.007001e0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990201093008.00703414@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:11 PM 2/1/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >OK, but I am certain that if the player thought 3NT might go >down, that he would take his "perhaps bottom" and pass. >Only if we assume that the player considered 3NT to be a >100% bid and make, is it in any way rational to bid 6NT. > >Since the player did bid it, I assume he considered it thus. > >Argument ends. Exactly. For the subjective standard to be workable, we need to accept the presumption that a player who makes an (objectively) irrational call that he would not have made without the UI is doing so in the hope of expected gain. Note the words "irrational call". Rational calls can be viewed objectively by the TD/AC, who can determine which are suggested by the UI (we adjust for these) and which are not (we do not adjust for these). It is only when the player with the UI makes an irrational call that the issue of "objectively suggested" vs. "subjectively suggested" arises. I had never intended to suggest that the presumption that the player with UI is acting in the hope of expected gain should be made for *any* call he makes, only irrational calls. He remains free to choose any non-suggested LA without fear of a subsequent adjustment, but if he chooses an illogical alternative the burden is on him to demonstrate that his decision to do so was not influenced by the UI. 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 Feb 3 02:16:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 02:16:08 +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 CAA22554 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 02:16:03 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 107hYP-0002Mi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:15:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:13:46 +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: >"Bid as you would based only on AI" and the current laws would produce the >same result in the vast majority of UI cases. The problem arises where a >player is unsure how he would bid without the AI. Not at all. If a player does not know what the effects of UI are then he is doing nothing wrong by bidding what he would anyway. But what is objectionable to me is when a player certainly *does* know. Partner makes a very slow [and therefore doubtful] penalty double. You know perfectly well that your current hand is a toss-up between leaving it in or pulling it. The current Laws make it mandatory to leave it in, and so it should be. If you can convince yourself that it is 55% to take it out then you would take it out if the Law said do as you would without the UI - and you score a goal when the oppos do not call the TD. Is that the way you really want the game to be played? If after a slow penalty double you think taking out is automatic, and do so, fine. Even if a TD/AC later disagree with you then you have done nothing wrong except make an improper bid in ignorance - disagreements over bidding judgement are just part of life. Where a player *knows* that an action is to his benefit because of UI I cannot conceive that it can possibly be good for the game to change the Law to legitimise it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 698 days to go 1/2 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 03:23:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 03:23:56 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA22686 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 03:23:46 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA14182 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 11:23:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id LAA06448 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 11:23:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 11:23:45 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902021623.LAA06448@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 > Well. Answer a few questions : > - knowing what we know, is 6NT worse than 1NT (try and > imagine the 99-1 example) : even if you don't agree, then > assume the answer is NO The whole point of the example is that 6NT is worse than 1NT. If you don't agree, then change the facts. (Perhaps you would like to give responder a two-count?) If 6NT indeed looks to give a more favorable result than passing 1NT, we have no problem declaring 6NT a logical alternative and adjusting. This is not interesting and shouldn't be controversial. The interesting and ambiguous legal question only arises if 6NT seems to be a bad bid (i.e. a bid having a lower expectation of success than pass) at the time it was made, but it happens to luck out. So please address the legal issues on the same basis everyone else is discussing them, not on your (possibly correct but different) bridge judgment. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 03:37:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 03:37:02 +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 DAA22707 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 03:36:55 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA08171 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:34:01 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199902021634.KAA08171@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:34:01 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > > > I thought we were now playing with the thermonukes--Herman's > > answer makes that obvious. > > > > I don't understand the reference. If I am being insulted, I > prefer to understand the funny way in which it is done. > However, I don't think Grant is trying to insult me, rather > to understand something. I meant only that we had reached the stage in the argument where it appeared to me that we had abandoned subtlety for the use of brute [legal] force. I certainly wasn't trying to insult you, although I am honored to see that you assume any insult I intended would have been funny. :) > > I said earlier that this means that whenever an illogical bid in > > the presence of UI works, it will automatically be ruled back. I now > > realize I added an unnecessary qualification: > > > > Whenever _any_ bid made in the presence of UI works, it should be > > ruled back. > > > > I am not saying that. I understand that, but I thought it was a direct consequence of the principles involved. If we say that a bid becomes suggested over another merely because it was in fact made, then we have legal grounds for ruling back any successful bid, logical or otherwise. > I was trying to say that the example David gave did not > state that this player was acting rationally. Rather, I > inferred that the player wanted to think so, and so I ruled > against him. > > I was not inferring something as in "ruling", I was > inferring something as in "extracting unstated data out of a > blml example". > > Do you see the difference ? > > I understand this player. I think he is trying to be > clever. > I assume he is acting rationally, and telling me (as > director) so. > I rule accordingly. > > I am not stating that the evidence of an irrational bid is > enough of a proof to make it rational. > But when a player explains to me his reasons for bidding > 6NT, and they are those that I have suspected they are all > along, then I will rule against him. > Which is not the same as ruling any irrational bid as > rational just because a player has made it. Clearly, I misunderstood your position. I agree that, under L73C, we have the authority to act against anyone who tries to use UI to his advantage. I am strongly against the idea that we should use the mechanism of 'choosing from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information' to rule in this case, though--it sets a dangerous predecent. It is, if you will, like solving a [minor] problem by using a nuclear weapon--there is a great likelihood of fallout. The fallout can be prevented if we adopt Eric L's "two interpretation" approach, but I find that unacceptable. Put it another way. I do not like the suggestion that the player who bids 6NT should be treated differently from the player who chooses a logical alternative bid that happens to work, merely because 6NT was, in our judgement, illogical. If the 6NT bidder explains his bid in such a way that we may judge him in violation of L73C, so much the worse for him--but I would also rule against someone who chose a logical alternative and made it clear to me that it was an attempt to get a good score out of the UI. > Well. Answer a few questions : > - knowing what we know, is 6NT worse than 1NT (try and > imagine the 99-1 example) : even if you don't agree, then > assume the answer is NO > - can it be better ? YES > - why ? because player knows 3NT is lay-down, and the whole > room will be there > - how does he know ? Not from the bidding, but from UI. > > So doesn't the UI suggest 6NT over 1NT ? The terms of the actual example lead us to believe that everyone or almost everyone will be in 3NT, but not that it will be cold. We agree, though, that in a different example [say, one where the combined HCPs are something like 29-30], then 6NT is clearly suggested by the UI, because it is now more likely than 1NT to work [or, at least, close enough to be 'suggested']. If you know that 3NT is a virtual certainty, then shooting 6NT is 'suggested' if 3NT would be ruled out. > > like a 10% Pass] and we automatically have 'suggested over', even if > > objective analysis says that the working logical bid was much less likely > > to work than the alternative. The mere fact that I bid something proves > > that it was suggested _to me_. > > > > Unless you are a total lunatic, yes it does. No, it doesn't. I myself very often bid contrary to what I think the UI suggests, or fail to notice some deduction the UI could have given me. But I am making a legal point. "Demonstrably suggested over another" is in the lawbook, and I do not think it is intended to be interpreted as a vacuous statement. > I agree that I am threading a fine line here, in trying to > find good reasons why my ruling which seems right, _is_. I think your ruling is right if the player reasoned as you said he did, and we can determine that. But I don't like this approach to getting there. > But I don't think it is in the good of bridge to let this > cat out of the bag, so to speak. Then let us work together to build a better bag. OTOH, out of respect for Quango and Nanki Poo and various other BLML s*bscribers, perhaps we should suppose that it is some other, more nefarious, animal we have confined. > Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 03:40:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 03:40:20 +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 DAA22722 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 03:40:09 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA08971 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:36:58 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199902021636.KAA08971@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:36:57 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I accidentally sent this incorrectly, so there is an unfortunate extra layer of >'s. I am >, Eric is >>, Herman is >>>. > > At 05:11 PM 2/1/99 +0100, Herman wrote: > > > > >OK, but I am certain that if the player thought 3NT might go > > >down, that he would take his "perhaps bottom" and pass. > > >Only if we assume that the player considered 3NT to be a > > >100% bid and make, is it in any way rational to bid 6NT. > > > > > >Since the player did bid it, I assume he considered it thus. > > > > > >Argument ends. > > > > Exactly. For the subjective standard to be workable, we need to accept the > > presumption that a player who makes an (objectively) irrational call that > > he would not have made without the UI is doing so in the hope of expected > > gain. > > > > Note the words "irrational call". Rational calls can be viewed objectively > > by the TD/AC, who can determine which are suggested by the UI (we adjust > > for these) and which are not (we do not adjust for these). It is only when > > the player with the UI makes an irrational call that the issue of > > "objectively suggested" vs. "subjectively suggested" arises. I had never > > intended to suggest that the presumption that the player with UI is acting > > in the hope of expected gain should be made for *any* call he makes, only > > irrational calls. He remains free to choose any non-suggested LA without > > fear of a subsequent adjustment, but if he chooses an illogical alternative > > the burden is on him to demonstrate that his decision to do so was not > > influenced by the UI. > > I understand this, but I don't _understand_ it. Perhaps this has > been my problem all along, since I constantly saw application of the > statements people were making about the 'illogical' case to the logical > ones. I do not understand why we would want, or need, two different > standards depending on whether the bid made was logical or illogical, and > especially standards that are much more strict against the illogical > bidder than the logical one! > As I said before, I'm not worried about protecting illogical > bidders. [Or, anyway, it doesn't concern me very much.] But I think the > principles and proceedures of a UI case shouldn't require us to decide if > the bid is logical or not first, before we know what to do next. > Are others comfortable with this double-standard? > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 04:58:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 04:58:20 +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 EAA22940 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 04:58:08 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA21354 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 11:57:28 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-26.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.58) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma021314; Tue Feb 2 11:57:10 1999 Received: by har-pa1-26.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE4EAB.826FED20@har-pa1-26.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:56:54 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE4EAB.826FED20@har-pa1-26.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: LA's after a bad bid Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:53:26 -0500 Encoding: 11 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 698 days to go 2/2 Do you really expect it to take so long to get your second masterpoint? (I know, it's really just a CORRECT countdown to the REAL millenium.) Hope the cats are just on vacation from the sig & not ill. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 05:10:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 05:10:44 +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 FAA22977 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 05:10:38 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-44.uunet.be [194.7.13.44]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA08489 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 19:10:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36B6E20D.BABDD619@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 12:31:25 +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: <01be4ad7$df67d2e0$a4394b0c@default> <36B62D92.7F8FA9DD@home.com> <14yk$qAJFmt2EwMU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > No, my approach is right. You want to know what people are going to > do on a later round after a bid that they would have made: I much prefer > to listen to people who think that 3D is a good bid on the subject. > Suggesting 3D is a terrible bid makes it more difficult to get a helpful > response. > No it isn't. Your decision as to whether or not to bid 5D is based on your perception of what partner has. If you consider the 3D bid normal, then you also know that partner knows you can have so little, and thus his hand must be very strong. But if by partnership agreement your 3D promises a lot more than what you actually have, then partner's double can be made on values far less, making pass a dangerous option. So the "a terrible bid" is important to the poll. I think you should have worded the poll reflecting something like "3D = sound overcall". Then I imagine more people would vote for 5D. However, I agree that pass remains a LA. > Anyway, it was surely the story-teller rather than the bidder who said > it was a terrible bid, and I think he has less support for that view on > BLML than he thinks. It still seems the only possible bid to me. > Another lesson learnt : ask the player (and partner) what he thinks of his 3D bid, and tell us his exact words. > >> Several complaints about the conditions, of course. I am curious as > >> to why the 3D bid is considered so awful by some > > Quite irrelevant on blml though. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 08:26:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 08:26:43 +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 IAA23249 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 08:26:37 +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 <19990202212624.RPIO6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:26:24 -0800 Message-ID: <36B76E65.4C09BC5C@home.com> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 13:30:13 -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: <3.0.5.32.19990202142428.00797980@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > At 01:26 02/02/99 -0800, Jan Kamras wrote: > >Grattan wrote: > > > >> [Something like this: "When in possession of unauthorized > >> information a player is to be judged not to have taken advantage > >> of it if, in isolation from other factors, the player's action is deemed > >> to be consistent with the disclosed methods of the partnership, the > >> authorized information available to him, and his holding of cards."] > >> ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ > >> > > > >I am probably missing something, but what is the difference between > > the above and: > >"Bid what you were always going to bid absent the UI" ? > > > > > Why do you think there should be this difference? As I read it, G.E. > dit not give the present interpretation of L16 and L73, but a possible > future evolution. Do you think impossible for a wise man to dream this > way, far away from Tolstoy's lunatic asylum? No, I don't think it impossible. I just wanted to make sure this is indeed what *this* wise man *did* dream, since it seems to conflict with my impressions of his prior position on this matter :-) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 09:28:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:28:45 +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 JAA23471 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:28:36 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.152]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA01848 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 00:28:27 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 00:28:57 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: IIF - case 1 - quick help Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: The bidding : N.......E.........S.........W...... 1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) all pass (1) a small hesitation (2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: Axx Qx AJ AKJxxx QUESTION 1 : Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . QUESTION 2 : What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which Law ??? Please your answers and comments as soon as possible Dany From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 09:44:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:44:06 +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 JAA23537 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:43:58 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.152]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA06174 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 00:43:47 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36B77FA6.2178BFF0@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 00:43:50 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: IIF - case 2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is case 2 ; I expect your answers and commentary ASAP : the bidding : N.........E........S..........W pass 1D 2S pass 3S 4D pass 5D....^^ pass (7NT) (dbl)....... ^^ at that moment East becomes more than nervous and takes the cartoon of 7NT and put in on the table smiling and boiling. South doubles. East tries to take the 7NT back but south insist to let it there. Now East says ok but "excuse me 10 sec..." and goes to the "holly place" . coming back to the table he finds the TD (who was summoned during those 20 sec) TD asks East if he intended to bid 7NT . east says "it was a bad joke but if South insists I want to play 7 Diam . The TD decides not to let East to change his bid (West didn't bid or call until this moment) and warns East about his non sporting behavior. QUESTION 1 : What action should be taken against East's non sporting behavior and according to which law ??????? QUESTION 2 : What should be done about TD's anti-ruling behavior , when he didn't let EAST change his bid according to law 25b ????? I expect your quick answers , in order to be the "best informed" for our discussions at the TDs' meeting thursday. Thank you all again Dany From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 09:46:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:46:10 +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 JAA23557 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:46:04 +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 <19990202224555.SJKX6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:45:55 -0800 Message-ID: <36B78108.FA46C107@home.com> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 14:49:44 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199902011659.KAA22260@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: > I think > "demonstrably suggested over" must mean that the UI clearly makes the > bid chosen a better bid than the bid turned down. "Clearly", that is, > in the judgement of the TD/AC. I am afraid that some people on this > list have decided to castrate "suggested over" simply in order to nail > a rare lucky > irrational bid that happened to work, made by a bidder who may or may > not have been trying to take advantage of UI. Without taking a position on the matter yet, I think Grant has hit the nail on it's head as it concerns nailing down (no pun intended) what the argument is all about. Does the phrase mean, or was it intended to mean, that a disallowed action must have been made *absolutely* better than the LA by the UI, or is it sufficient that it was made *relatively* better than without the UI? As an illustration only: Without UI, action A is 20% and B is 80%. With UI, A becomes 40% and B 60%. Is A demonstrably suggested over B by the UI, although one can argue that B is still demonstrably the suggested action?? Would it be reasonable to conclude that L16 and L73 are using different standards and that, in my example, a successful A would be allowed by L16, but could be taken away by L73C? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 10:32:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:32:19 +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 KAA23640 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:32:13 +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 <19990202233208.SVHS6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:32:08 -0800 Message-ID: <36B78BDD.5277CA22@home.com> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 15:35:57 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml CC: Dany Haimovici Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help References: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As usual we need to know what EW's agreements are vs a 1NT opening. Since E has 19 hcp and 6 cd clubs, but W bids 2C, something must be fishy! Only on the facts as presented it seems obvious that E didn't pass without hesitation and that W may have used UI when bidding 2C (although it would help to know W's, rather than E's, hand!! If the hands are switched and the 19 hcper was actually W, it seems equally obvious that Pass is not an LA, but again we need to know their agreements in order to judge if the action taken was suggested by, etc. In that case would also help to see the hesitator's hand to help determine if there likely was a hesitation in the first place. Please be more careful and complete if you want to get sensible opinions in what appears to be a virtually "live" ruling situation. PS: Any disciplinary action twds W depends on the rules of the SO, I assume the IBF. In a vacuum it seems appropriate to warn W that such behaviour is unacceptable and that a repetition will lead to disqualification from the event. A report to a C&E commitee or similar would also seem appropriate. Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: > > The bidding : > N.......E.........S.........W...... > 1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) > all pass > (1) a small hesitation > (2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation > before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just > want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. > > The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his > unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: > > Axx > Qx > AJ > AKJxxx > > QUESTION 1 : > Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . > > QUESTION 2 : > What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which > Law ??? > > Please your answers and comments as soon as possible > > Dany From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 10:36:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:36:19 +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 KAA23665 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:36:05 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.152]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA19935; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 01:35:48 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36B78BEF.16302894@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 01:36:15 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John R. Mayne" CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help References: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> <36B7895E.2B0795D6@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear friend John It is exactly what you put it very concise !!!!!!! Dany John R. Mayne wrote: > > Just to you, Dany: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > > Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: > > > > The bidding : > > N.......E.........S.........W...... > > 1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) > > all pass > > (1) a small hesitation > > Dany: Clarify for me (and the group, if you wish) > > 1. Did this go 1N-P-P-2C-P-P-P? > 2. Did *dummy* come down with the huge club hand? Really? > > thx- > > --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 10:44:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:44:07 +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 KAA23692 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:44:00 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.152]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA21869; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 01:43:50 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36B78DD2.A6322B31@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 01:44:18 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kamras CC: blml Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help References: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> <36B78BDD.5277CA22@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jan As I was informed there was no misarrangement !!!!! The person sitting after the 1NT opener had that huge hand ..... There was no alert for west's 2Cl, but after the hand was over ....west shouted on East that he forgot their convention (didn't) ask if it was Cappelleti or DONT ), but Idon't think it is important for my question 1.. Dany Jan Kamras wrote: > > As usual we need to know what EW's agreements are vs a 1NT opening. > Since E has 19 hcp and 6 cd clubs, but W bids 2C, something must be > fishy! > > Only on the facts as presented it seems obvious that E didn't pass > without hesitation and that W may have used UI when bidding 2C (although > it would help to know W's, rather than E's, hand!! > > If the hands are switched and the 19 hcper was actually W, it seems > equally obvious that Pass is not an LA, but again we need to know their > agreements in order to judge if the action taken was suggested by, etc. > In that case would also help to see the hesitator's hand to help > determine if there likely was a hesitation in the first place. > > Please be more careful and complete if you want to get sensible opinions > in what appears to be a virtually "live" ruling situation. > > PS: Any disciplinary action twds W depends on the rules of the SO, I > assume the IBF. In a vacuum it seems appropriate to warn W that such > behaviour is unacceptable and that a repetition will lead to > disqualification from the event. A report to a C&E commitee or similar > would also seem appropriate. > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > > Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: > > > > The bidding : > > N.......E.........S.........W...... > > 1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) > > all pass > > (1) a small hesitation > > (2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation > > before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just > > want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. > > > > The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his > > unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: > > > > Axx > > Qx > > AJ > > AKJxxx > > > > QUESTION 1 : > > Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . > > > > QUESTION 2 : > > What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which > > Law ??? > > > > Please your answers and comments as soon as possible > > > > Dany From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 11:06:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:06:38 +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 LAA23776 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:06:33 +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 <19990203000627.TEQQ6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 16:06:27 -0800 Message-ID: <36B793E8.117CA2BB@home.com> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 16:10:16 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dany Haimovici CC: blml Subject: Re: IIF - case 2 References: <36B77FA6.2178BFF0@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Here is case 2 ; I expect your answers and commentary ASAP : > > the bidding : > N.........E........S..........W > pass 1D 2S pass > 3S 4D pass 5D....^^ > pass (7NT) (dbl)....... > > ^^ at that moment East becomes more than nervous and takes the cartoon > of 7NT and put in on the table smiling and boiling. South doubles. > East tries to take the 7NT back but south insist to let it there. > Now East says ok but "excuse me 10 sec..." and goes to the "holly > place" . coming back to the table he finds the TD (who was summoned > during those 20 sec) TD asks East if he intended to bid 7NT . east says > "it was a bad joke but if South insists I want to play 7 Diam . > The TD decides not to let East to change his bid (West didn't bid or > call until this moment) and warns East about his non sporting behavior. > > QUESTION 1 : > > What action should be taken against East's non sporting behavior and > according to which law ??????? Again, the specific action depends on the CoC for the IIF but I suggest L74A should cover this (and btw also case 1). I beleive a PP can also be dished out. > QUESTION 2 : > > What should be done about TD's anti-ruling behavior , when he didn't > let EAST change his bid according to law 25b ????? Well, EW can appeal the ruling, and the AC should allow the change to 7D but also allow S to change his call. The fact that S could double 7NT is AI to N, who can use it both in bidding and play. L25B and L16C. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 11:24:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:24:42 +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 LAA23812 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:24:34 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by spartacus with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 107q7I-00023m-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 01:24:28 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990203012444.00a6be00@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 01:24:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help In-Reply-To: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:28 03-02-99 +0200, you wrote: >Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: > >The bidding : >N.......E.........S.........W...... >1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) >all pass >(1) a small hesitation >(2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation >before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just >want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. > >The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his >unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: > >Axx >Qx >AJ >AKJxxx > can we see the west hand please??????? you dont expect us to rule without this information i hope. >QUESTION 1 : >Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . > Well, I for certain would hesitate a few seconds before i would take any action. Nothing weird about that. >QUESTION 2 : >What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which >Law ??? > show all hands please!!!!!!!! >Please your answers and comments as soon as possible > >Dany > done i guess Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 11:28:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:28:41 +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 LAA23828 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:28:35 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by spartacus with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 107qBC-0002C1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 01:28:30 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990203012847.00a6c8b0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 01:28:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: IIF - case 2 In-Reply-To: <36B77FA6.2178BFF0@internet-zahav.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:43 03-02-99 +0200, you wrote: >Here is case 2 ; I expect your answers and commentary ASAP : > >the bidding : >N.........E........S..........W >pass 1D 2S pass >3S 4D pass 5D....^^ >pass (7NT) (dbl)....... > >^^ at that moment East becomes more than nervous and takes the cartoon >of 7NT and put in on the table smiling and boiling. is this a joke????????? is this a tournament or beginnersclub??????? South doubles. >East tries to take the 7NT back but south insist to let it there. >Now East says ok but "excuse me 10 sec..." and goes to the "holly >place" . coming back to the table he finds the TD (who was summoned >during those 20 sec) TD asks East if he intended to bid 7NT . east says >"it was a bad joke but if South insists I want to play 7 Diam . >The TD decides not to let East to change his bid (West didn't bid or >call until this moment) and warns East about his non sporting behavior. > >QUESTION 1 : > >What action should be taken against East's non sporting behavior and >according to which law ??????? forbid alcohol on this table for the next three months and forbid east to go to the loo for the next three months too. Thats the best i can think of without becoming really rude > >QUESTION 2 : > >What should be done about TD's anti-ruling behavior , when he didn't >let EAST change his bid according to law 25b ????? > >I expect your quick answers , in order to be the "best informed" >for our discussions at the TDs' meeting thursday. > >Thank you all again >Dany > more silly things over there (sorry, only joking) anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 11:52:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:52:23 +1100 Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA23877 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:52:16 +1100 Received: from hlyxzurz (dialup-025.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.217]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.1) with SMTP id AAA31247 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 00:52:10 GMT Message-ID: <002401be4f10$05dd1ac0$d9307dc2@hlyxzurz> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 00:56:20 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Q1 It's hard to imagine that East could Pass the 1NT opening on his right without some sort of hesitation so I believe North. I would prefer if N/S had reserved their rights as soon as they noticed the hesitation L16A1. Q2 A warning under L74A2 might suffice but further episodes would lead to penalty or even suspension under L91. Regards, Fearghal. >> Dany Haimovici wrote: >> > >> > Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: >> > >> > The bidding : >> > N.......E.........S.........W...... >> > 1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) >> > all pass >> > (1) a small hesitation >> > (2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation >> > before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just >> > want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. >> > >> > The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his >> > unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: >> > >> > Axx >> > Qx >> > AJ >> > AKJxxx >> > >> > QUESTION 1 : >> > Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . >> > >> > QUESTION 2 : >> > What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which >> > Law ??? >> > >> > Please your answers and comments as soon as possible >> > >> > Dany > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 12:22:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:22:21 +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 MAA23976 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:22:14 +1100 Received: from p20s11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.33] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 107r15-0002Ky-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 01:22:08 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: IIF - case 2 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 01:26:18 -0000 Message-ID: <01be4f14$32cd2d00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Dany Haimovici To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 11:16 PM Subject: IIF - case 2 >Here is case 2 ; I expect your answers and commentary ASAP : > >the bidding : >N.........E........S..........W >pass 1D 2S pass >3S 4D pass 5D....^^ >pass (7NT) (dbl)....... > >^^ at that moment East becomes more than nervous and takes the cartoon >of 7NT and put in on the table smiling and boiling. South doubles. >East tries to take the 7NT back but south insist to let it there. >Now East says ok but "excuse me 10 sec..." and goes to the "holly >place" . coming back to the table he finds the TD (who was summoned >during those 20 sec) TD asks East if he intended to bid 7NT . east says >"it was a bad joke but if South insists I want to play 7 Diam . >The TD decides not to let East to change his bid (West didn't bid or >call until this moment) and warns East about his non sporting behavior. > >QUESTION 1 : > >What action should be taken against East's non sporting behavior and >according to which law ??????? East has demonstrated that he has for this moment lost interest in the competition. This is in breach of the proprieties, and is in this dramatic instance worthy of a PP. Law 74. > >QUESTION 2 : > >What should be done about TD's anti-ruling behavior , when he didn't >let EAST change his bid according to law 25b ????? The TD has ruled correctly (IMO) in accordance with the guidelines issued by the WBFLC Lille 1998. This 7NT bid does not compare with the passing of a Cue bid, as the definition of a "stupid"bid. This was a bid made in a tantrum by a player who has ceased to play bridge but who wishes to punish his partner. I may be mindful of the fact that he left the table,Law74C8 (what is the "holly" place?) In Israel it could be to the "Wall" for prayer, or to the gentleman's room. Either way 20 seconds is insufficient time for either!:-)) E/W get to play in 7D* with a PP to boot. > >I expect your quick answers , in order to be the "best informed" >for our discussions at the TDs' meeting thursday. It strikes me that the attitude of players in this event is pretty awful, and I suspect that TDs need to show their authority more than usual. The Laws give them that authority(L81C4). Anne > >Thank you all again >Dany > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 12:24:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:24:10 +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 MAA23992 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:24:03 +1100 Received: from p20s11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.33] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 107r2r-0002LS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 01:23:58 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 01:28:41 -0000 Message-ID: <01be4f14$88370540$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am ruling that there was a hesitation. I do not know whether the West bid is valid. I have not seen his hand. I do not know if there was damage to N/S I do not know the result. I find that the outburst from West was in contravention of Law 74B5, West has addressed the TD in a manner discourteous to his opponents. West is also in contravention of Law 74A1/2/3. If bla.bla.bla. means he did apologise profoundly, I would give a warning and let the matter rest. If he was not reticent, I would issue a PP of about two tops. If he insisted in his discourtesy, I would ask him to leave. I am mindful of the fact that his opponents have been correct in their calling of the TD to rule on this matter. Anne -----Original Message----- From: Dany Haimovici To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 10:54 PM Subject: IIF - case 1 - quick help >Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: > >The bidding : >N.......E.........S.........W...... >1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) >all pass >(1) a small hesitation >(2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation >before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just >want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. > >The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his >unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: > >Axx >Qx >AJ >AKJxxx > >QUESTION 1 : >Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . > >QUESTION 2 : >What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which >Law ??? > >Please your answers and comments as soon as possible > >Dany > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 13:36:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:36:21 +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 NAA24133 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:36:14 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka9jn.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.38.119]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA08402 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:36:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990202213558.006fc39c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 21:35:58 -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 07:47 AM 2/2/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: cal, founded on a reasoned approach by a sane mind. > The clock is still ticking. I am still weighing up whether to go >for the view that the least suggested alternative is always the >action dictated by system and judgement of the cards held when >considered in isolation from influemces other than the AI. If I >could be sure this is what I really believe, then maybe this is what >the law, or our interpretation of the law, should say. It certainly fits >with a theme expressed recently by Jose Damiani in a fax. My >hesitation springs from the vast range of situations and anxiety lest >it overlooks some of them. > [Something like this: "When in possession of unauthorized >information a player is to be judged not to have taken advantage >of it if, in isolation from other factors, the player's action is deemed >to be consistent with the disclosed methods of the partnership, the >authorized information available to him, and his holding of cards."] > ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ > A very interesting idea, especially as it seems to suggest about a 160 degree turn from the present approach. It takes the frequently heard refrain "but I would have bid the same way even without the hesitation (or whatever)", and turns it into a principle of law. There may be good things about this approach, but it clearly affords a far lower degree of protection for the NOS than the current one. Few bidding situations are black and white. If I have a choice among two or more actions, each of which is "consistent with the disclosed methods...", then according to the proposed standard, I may choose any of them, even one which is quite demonstrably suggested by the UI. Or have I misunderstood your intent? For example, in our 1nt "Oops" case, where partner evidently is an Ace heavy for his opening, I might choose to pass with a 7 count and 5-card major, or I might elect to transfer and stop, or possibly transfer and rebid, if I held some attractive feature. All of these would be consistent with my methods and with the AI and the cards, but of course Pass is now obviously wrong in light of the UI. It seems fair to me that the Laws should restrict my options to Pass in this case, as they undoubtedly do at present. Mike Dennis Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 13:54:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:54:31 +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 NAA24165 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:54:25 +1100 Received: from modem62.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.190] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 107sSE-0002Ci-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 02:54:15 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 02:52:43 -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 see no alternative but the lunatic asylum or the gallows." [Tolstoy] ====================================== ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 02 February 1999 15:13 > > Tim West-meads wrote: > > >"Bid as you would based only on AI" and the current laws would produce the > >same result in the vast majority of UI cases. --------------------- \x/ --------------------------- > > Partner makes a very slow [and therefore doubtful] penalty double. > You know perfectly well that your current hand is a toss-up between > leaving it in or pulling it. The current Laws make it mandatory to > leave it in, and so it should be. If you can convince yourself that it > is 55% to take it out then you would take it out if the Law said do as > you would without the UI - and you score a goal when the oppos do not > call the TD. Is that the way you really want the game to be played? 1. ++ With the Law as it is, it is not clear to me what David is saying happens if the player takes it out and the opponents do not call the TD. ++ 2. ++++ I am not in the "Bid what you would always have bid" camp because players use this argument to 'justify' choices that do lean on the UI. What I am toying with is "Bid strictly to your system and values (and the Director/AC will be the arbiters as to whether you have)". But this certainly requires the 'margin of doubt' to go in favour of the other side. At least the thought breaks the mould of a debate that is now slightly extended. 3. +++ As to my 'dream' and my stance hitherto, it must be understood that I do not feel quite as free as some to dream out of doors because there is much accumulated 'wisdom' as to the application of the laws and it is expected of me that I will have some regard for it. But I am on the lookout for thoughts of real substance as to what would enhance the game. [Of course, it was DWS who famously said "There is a perfectly good UI law" :-)) ] +++ ~Grattan~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 14:07:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 14:07:04 +1100 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net ([195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA24204 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 14:06:57 +1100 Received: from modem9.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.137] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 107seR-0006AY-00; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 03:06:51 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Kent V Burghard" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 03:04:50 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Default Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "I see no alternative but the lunatic asylum or the gallows." [Tolstoy] ====================================== ---------- > From: Dany Haimovici > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: IIF - case 1 - quick help > Date: 02 February 1999 22:28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- \x/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Please your answers and comments as soon as possible > > Dany ++++ Hi Kent ! It looks like Dany has beaten you to an electronic committee - of about 240 members! ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 15:04:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:04:07 +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 PAA24270 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:04:03 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn29p11.ozemail.com.au [203.108.124.75]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA25212 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:03:31 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:03:31 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199902030403.PAA25212@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 11:00 PM 1/02/99 +0100, you wrote: >cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: >> >> I thought we were now playing with the thermonukes--Herman's >> answer makes that obvious. I wonder if it is time that TDs were asked to provide convention cards themselves. Something like: Basic system - Thermonuke, but with weak treatment of incomplete but otherwise rational claims. Strong accept of psyching when partner must pass, etc. Players could refer to the TD's CC before deciding what might constitute a LA under his jurisdiction. Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 15:05:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:05:11 +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 PAA24274 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:04:04 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-44.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.44]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA41685672 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 23:07:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36B7CAB9.1BEF2E01@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 22:04:09 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help References: <3.0.5.32.19990203012444.00a6be00@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What ever I did with the east cards, it would never include break tempo. Anton Witzen wrote: > > At 00:28 03-02-99 +0200, you wrote: > >Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: > > > >The bidding : > >N.......E.........S.........W...... > >1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) > >all pass > >(1) a small hesitation > >(2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation > >before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just > >want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. > > > >The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his > >unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: > > > >Axx > >Qx > >AJ > >AKJxxx > > > > can we see the west hand please??????? you dont expect us to rule without > this information i hope. > > >QUESTION 1 : > >Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . > > > Well, I for certain would hesitate a few seconds before i would take any > action. Nothing weird about that. Not the case with me. What ever I would do with the east cards, it would never include a tempo break. Can't afford to give partner a problem and I would never dream it a good idea to help the opponents if I could avoid it . On this hand the information is incomplete. The inference that I get from what was reported was that opposite a [unalerted and therefore natural] 2C overcall, pass is most out of the ordinary. I further infer that E was inclined to believe that partner did not have the values for their action. Further, the reason for such a belief was that they could have believed that partner was using UI to bid, and the such UI could have arisen from his own tempo break, however slight. This suggests that a tempo break did indeed happen, probably but not necessarily slight. [I have seen many players huddle for 10 seconds and both opponenets vociferously claim there was no tempo break.] Anyway, it seems that UI influenced if not the overcall, then east's pass. Whether or not damage occurred some sort of discipline/ lecture may be in order in addition to the behavior problem. ps I believe it was later reported as fact that W in fact did not correct MI before the opening lead that 2C was conventional. This lends credibility to my inference that E did break tempo and then based his pass on the belief that partner acted on the UI. What a mess. I hope everyone survived. Roger Pewick > >QUESTION 2 : > >What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which > >Law ??? > > > > show all hands please!!!!!!!! > > >Please your answers and comments as soon as possible > > > >Dany > > > done i guess > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) > Tel: 020 7763175 > ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 15:22:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:22:23 +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 PAA24334 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:22:16 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.132]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id GAA15998; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 06:22:02 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36B7CF07.9D27B87@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 06:22:32 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anton Witzen CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help References: <3.0.5.32.19990203012444.00a6be00@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry I thought West's hand not important , but see it please : xxxx xxxxx Qxx x Dany Anton Witzen wrote: > > At 00:28 03-02-99 +0200, you wrote: > >Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: > > > >The bidding : > >N.......E.........S.........W...... > >1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) > >all pass > >(1) a small hesitation > >(2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation > >before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just > >want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. > > > >The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his > >unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: > > > >Axx > >Qx > >AJ > >AKJxxx > > > > can we see the west hand please??????? you dont expect us to rule without > this information i hope. > > >QUESTION 1 : > >Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . > > > Well, I for certain would hesitate a few seconds before i would take any > action. Nothing weird about that. > > >QUESTION 2 : > >What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which > >Law ??? > > > > show all hands please!!!!!!!! > > >Please your answers and comments as soon as possible > > > >Dany > > > done i guess > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) > Tel: 020 7763175 > ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 15:38:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:38:28 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA24375 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:38:21 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 107u4o-0007f4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 04:38:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 03:58:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help References: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> In-Reply-To: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: > >The bidding : >N.......E.........S.........W...... >1NT....P(1)......pass......2Cl (2) >all pass >(1) a small hesitation >(2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation >before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just >want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. > >The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his >unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: > >Axx >Qx >AJ >AKJxxx > >QUESTION 1 : >Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . Obviously I believe North. Not just because of the hands, but the reaction: when West shouts "North is a liar and he just wants to offend us" I think it more likely there was a hesitation than that there wasn't. Anyway, a TD makes a judgement on all the facts. At the time there appeared to be a hesitation. Having later seen the hands there is further evidence to suggest this. It also makes the whole thing very ugly. >QUESTION 2 : >What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which >Law ??? Initially West has made comments that were unacceptable and in breach of Law 74A2. The EBU's Laws & Ethics Committee is strongly suggesting to its Directors that bad behaviour will be better controlled if they use the disciplinary powers available to them, and the ACBL's Zero Tolerance policy is effectively trying to do the same thing. I should fine West a standard amount [whatever that is defined as by your SO] as a DP based on L91A. However, when the nature of the hand becomes apparent, then there seems reasonable evidence to suggest that West was not just being rude because he believed that he had not hesitated [as many players tend to do] but additionally was trying to cover up a position where he hoped to take advantage of UI. I do not believe this to be too serious as a single occasion since I expect it was a spur-of-the-moment stupidity, but we must *of course* stop it happening. Blatant use of UI is generally dealt with by a small PP [pour encourager les autres!], but this moves further than that: this may be deliberately faking a non- hesitation to gain advantage from a UI position. Anyway, we certainly adjust the score, but we do not need a choice amongst LAs [phew!] because we are adjusting under L72B1. So if 1NT is better for the NOs we adjust to that. I think the actual action should also get a PP under L90A since it violates correct procedure - a standard fine should do. So, if a standard fine for your SO is 10% of a top I give: DP of 10% of a top plus PP of 10% of a top plus adjustment to 1NT if this benefits the NOs Feel free to quote me. -- David Stevenson laws@blakjak.demon.co.uk Chief Tournament Director, Liverpool, England, UK Welsh Bridge Union Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 15:38:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:38:33 +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 PAA24379 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:38:25 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 107u4o-0001J4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 04:38:13 +0000 Message-ID: <6iAHZ+CBv8t2Ewtb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 04:08:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: IIF - case 2 References: <36B77FA6.2178BFF0@internet-zahav.net> In-Reply-To: <36B77FA6.2178BFF0@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >Here is case 2 ; I expect your answers and commentary ASAP : > >the bidding : >N.........E........S..........W >pass 1D 2S pass >3S 4D pass 5D....^^ >pass (7NT) (dbl)....... > >^^ at that moment East becomes more than nervous and takes the cartoon >of 7NT and put in on the table smiling and boiling. South doubles. >East tries to take the 7NT back but south insist to let it there. >Now East says ok but "excuse me 10 sec..." and goes to the "holly >place" . coming back to the table he finds the TD (who was summoned >during those 20 sec) TD asks East if he intended to bid 7NT . east says >"it was a bad joke but if South insists I want to play 7 Diam . >The TD decides not to let East to change his bid (West didn't bid or >call until this moment) and warns East about his non sporting behavior. > >QUESTION 1 : > >What action should be taken against East's non sporting behavior and >according to which law ??????? It is expected that players will play to win rather than fool around and treat their opponents and partner with contempt. This may not be stated explicitly in the Laws but it is a reasonable interpretation based on Law 74A2. I would fine East double a standard amount as a PP for inconveniencing other contestants. >QUESTION 2 : > >What should be done about TD's anti-ruling behavior , when he didn't >let EAST change his bid according to law 25b ????? 7NT was doubled. The call of 7NT may not be changed under L25B once LHO has called. Item #6 of the Extracts from Lille says The Chairman drew attention to the effect of Law 25B. It was agreed that the intention of the Committee in drafting this Law was to permit the correction of a "stupid mistake" (e.g. passing a cue bid after thinking whether to bid game or slam). It is not the intention that the Law should be used to allow of rectification of the player's judgement. As the intention of the Committee this statement of intention constitutes an interpretation of the law. In my view, this particular action would not be correctable even if in time, but I do not believe it to be in time anyway. It was not a "stupid mistake". Feel free to quote me. -- David Stevenson laws@blakjak.demon.co.uk Chief Tournament Director, Liverpool, England, UK Welsh Bridge Union Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 15:38:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:38:33 +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 PAA24380 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:38:25 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 107u4o-0001J3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 04:38:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 03:28:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199902021623.LAA06448@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199902021623.LAA06448@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> Well. Answer a few questions : >> - knowing what we know, is 6NT worse than 1NT (try and >> imagine the 99-1 example) : even if you don't agree, then >> assume the answer is NO > >The whole point of the example is that 6NT is worse than 1NT. If >you don't agree, then change the facts. (Perhaps you would like >to give responder a two-count?) > >If 6NT indeed looks to give a more favorable result than passing 1NT, >we have no problem declaring 6NT a logical alternative and adjusting. >This is not interesting and shouldn't be controversial. Indeed. Them's fighting words, puhdner. I think people are getting bogged down in statistics. Now we have heard some fairly foolish figures on the effects of bidding 6NT in the example case. I shall restate the case. The case was a 1NT at pairs [several references to "bottoms" and the problem is very different at teams]. You hold 6HCP, partner opens a strong 1NT and makes a remark that makes it seem likely that he meant to bid 2NT. So you bid 6NT, and if it does not make there would be no story! Some people have said that 6NT making is less than a 1% chance. They should play more bridge and cut down their posting to BLML! I can assure you this type of contract makes more often than it should! *But* say these people, and then they talk about 10% of something, and how 1% is less than 10%, and I don't know what. I dunno what it is all about. The position was that the player concerned apparently thought that passing 1NT would get a bottom, bidding 6NT might do, but just might be a top, and that bidding 3NT would get ruled back so could not gain. People have basically said that as a matter of bridge judgement he is *wrong*, and therefore .... And therefore what? Has he used UI? Surely, he has produced a bid that he hopes will gain and based it on the UI. The argument that you disagree with his bridge judgement seems fairly feeble. Steve says >If 6NT indeed looks to give a more favorable result than passing 1NT, >we have no problem declaring 6NT a logical alternative and adjusting. >This is not interesting and shouldn't be controversial. Looks to whom? It looked such to me and the person who bid it, and basically everyone else has said that we are a couple of Wallys. It may not be interesting to you, Steve, but I still don't see why people are writing it off based on a judgement argument that is fairly poor. Whatever game you generally play at pairs, if you are going to succeed you will try to recover when a hand appears lost. If you are in 6NT, and it is a terrible contract, and clearly too high, you won't worry about how many undertricks you will get: you just try and make it. If you know 3NT will be ruled back, 1NT will get a bottom, why not bid 6NT and try for a top? And you would allow it despite it being a decision clearly and unambiguously trying to gain from a UI position *because* *your* figures suggest it is a losing action? >The interesting and ambiguous legal question only arises if 6NT seems >to be a bad bid (i.e. a bid having a lower expectation of success than >pass) at the time it was made, but it happens to luck out. Lower expectation to whom? Members of BLML? >So please address the legal issues on the same basis everyone else is >discussing them, not on your (possibly correct but different) bridge >judgment. It is the bridge judgement of the majority that worries me. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 699 days to go 1/2 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 15:55:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:55:00 +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 PAA24438 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:54:52 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 107uKq-00048f-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 04:54:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 04:43:50 +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 Grattan wrote: >++ With the Law as it is, it is not clear to me what David is saying >happens if the player takes it out and the opponents do not call >the TD. ++ Unethical players will always get some gains from their actions. I am worried about ethical players, who currently are bending over backwards to avoid gaining from UI, but would not be doing so under certain suggested alternative Laws. >[Of course, it was DWS who famously said "There >is a perfectly good UI law" :-)) ] +++ So why is it not in your sig? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 697 days to go 1/2 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 18:36:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA24630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:36:00 +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 SAA24625 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:35:53 +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 <19990203073548.XWRJ6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 23:35:48 -0800 Message-ID: <36B7FD39.233923BA@home.com> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 23:39:37 -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: IIF - case 1 - quick help References: <3.0.5.32.19990203012444.00a6be00@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <36B7CF07.9D27B87@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Sorry I thought West's hand not important , but see it please : > > xxxx > xxxxx > Qxx > x > Well, if we previously were'nt 100% sure there was a noticable hesitation by East, we now certainly are! Frankly, the combination of a balancing (incorrectly beleived to be artificial) 2C bid on the above pile of garbage, the pass (and non-alert) of 2C by the 19 hcp hand with CAKJxxx, and the later cover-up, stink pretty badly to me. Apart from the obvious score-adjustment if there was damage, I think W made very blatant use of UI in breach of both L16 and L73C, and E's actions might in the ACBL fall under the "coincidence" rule, or under Jean-Pierre's "knowledge of UI is UI" rule :-) Surely he is worth 2NT or something regardless of what W means by his 2C bid! How severely to punish EW would depend on a F2F interview, but they'd have to be very convincing to avoid serious disciplinary action, imo. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 19:17:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:17:23 +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 TAA24660 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:17:17 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA14889 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 08:16:27 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 3 Feb 99 08:16 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: David Stevenson wrote: > Partner makes a very slow [and therefore doubtful] penalty double. > You know perfectly well that your current hand is a toss-up between > leaving it in or pulling it. The current Laws make it mandatory to > leave it in, and so it should be. If you can convince yourself that it > is 55% to take it out then you would take it out if the Law said do as > you would without the UI - and you score a goal when the oppos do not > call the TD. Is that the way you really want the game to be played? If I pass a double that I know is 55% right to pull I also know that I'm only doing so to avoid a subsequent adjustment. Sometimes passing will turn out to be right after all and I end up with a good score I wouldn't have got without the UI - this is not the way I want the game to be played either. If I "convince myself" erroneously that it is 55% to pull and opps don't call the TD it works out the same as if they don't call the TD under the current laws - why on earth would I, or my peers, knowingly take a 45% action in the absence of UI. Ideally I want bridge to be played in a friendly atmosphere where UI is never made available and each player is free to apply their own judgement to each decision (oh yes and to be dealt a vulnerable slam every Chicago). The fact that this ideal appears unachievable doesn't lead me to believe that the current L16 is ideal. Perhaps we could construct a neat "step by step" flow chart to really help players understand what "equity" means and how to aspire to it. Include it in the lawbook and players could even consult it during the hand! > If after a slow penalty double you think taking out is automatic, and > do so, fine. Even if a TD/AC later disagree with you then you have done > nothing wrong except make an improper bid in ignorance - disagreements > over bidding judgement are just part of life. A subsequent adjustment doesn't imply an "improper" bid. It could be the TD/AC identifying a different peer group or a piece of AI you had forgotten. In another thread we agreed that pulling 2-level penalty doubles with a void was "just good bridge". Presumably neither of us would adjust if the other did so - some TDs would. As you say- disagreements over bidding judgement are just part of life. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 19:20:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:20:56 +1100 Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA24676 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:20:52 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME ([202.27.177.77]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990203082117.MAJA678125.mta2-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 21:21:17 +1300 Message-ID: <36B92DF3.5AB@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 21:19:47 -0800 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help References: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: > > The bidding : > N.......E.........S.........W...... > 1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) > all pass > (1) a small hesitation > (2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation > before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just > want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. > > The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his > unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: > > Axx > Qx > AJ > AKJxxx > > QUESTION 1 : > Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . > > QUESTION 2 : > What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which > Law ??? > > Please your answers and comments as soon as possible > > Dany 1.On such a hand I find it difficult to believe East could find a pass. Surely either double or 2C is logical and I hink double is most logical. West can't have a lot of points so must have long clubs but surely no more than five so his bid seems a triffle hard to believe. Therefore I tend to believe North. However based on E hand I suspect 2c making lots is a poor score for EW therefore would let score stand. 2. If SO is adherent of Zero tolerance warn ?penalize if not then warn under law74:1&2 Regards Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 19:38:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:38:14 +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 TAA24715 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:38:07 +1100 Received: from modem69.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.197] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 107xou-00024u-00; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 08:38:01 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Dany H Haimovici" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: IIF - case1. Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 08:35:05 -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 see no alternative but the lunatic asylum or the gallows." [Tolstoy] ====================================== +++ Have I got it right? West bid 2C on a singleton, and only had 2 points, opposite an East who had hesitated? Please note the West hand is important because it is West's bridge action that is under scrutiny, not East's. If I have got it right, then a question. Would 2C by East have been conventional? If yes, then it gives West an extra clue what East has hesitated about, and it gets to be more serious. In this case it begins to look like a deliberate attempt to use UI, not merely an unpremeditated stupidity. You might think maybe this pair could have been there before. If I happen to be tracking the right prey here I would draw your attention to the precedent of one European Bridge League disciplinary penalty for serious misconduct that I know of. The Director imposed a penalty of 25% of a top, which plus a PP per David Stevenson of 10% would mean total penalties of 35%. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 20:11:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:11:25 +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 UAA24760 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:11:18 +1100 Received: from modem18.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.146] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 107yL2-00043d-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:11:13 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:09:39 -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 "I see no alternative but the lunatic asylum or the gallows." [Tolstoy] =================================== ---------- > From: axeman > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help > Date: 03 February 1999 04:04 > > What ever I did with the east cards, it would never include break tempo> > +++ Nothing unique in the fact that when I am sorting my cards my thoughts are upon what action RHO can take that might embarrass me and what I would do about it. Of course an old stager like me has almost always been there before, done that, so reaction is usually blind repetition of previous years' mistakes. I certainly think about RHO's possible pre-empt or NT bids. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 20:11:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:11:23 +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 UAA24759 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:11:16 +1100 Received: from modem18.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.146] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 107yKz-00043d-00; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:11:10 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 08:45:22 -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 "I see no alternative but the lunatic asylum or the gallows." [Tolstoy] ===================================== > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 03 February 1999 04:43 > > > >[Of course, it was DWS who famously said "There > >is a perfectly good UI law" :-)) ] +++ > > So why is it not in your sig? ++ It was obviously wasted when I did use it ~ge~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 20:23:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:23:03 +1100 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA24812 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:22:52 +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 KAA09652 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:22:46 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199902030922.KAA09652@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, 3 Feb 1999 10:25:40 +0100 Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: > > The bidding : > N.......E.........S.........W...... > 1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) > all pass > (1) a small hesitation > (2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation > before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just > want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. > > The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his > unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: > > Axx > Qx > AJ > AKJxxx > > QUESTION 1 : > Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . Of COURSE there was a hesitation..... > QUESTION 2 : > What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which > Law ??? Where I come from, people like West are taken away and shot at dawn. Law 74. JP From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 20:33:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:33:43 +1100 Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA24845 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:33:38 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME ([203.96.101.235]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990203093305.INQY682101.mta1-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 22:33:05 +1300 Message-ID: <36B93EDA.41EE@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 22:31:54 -0800 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: IIF - case 2 References: <36B77FA6.2178BFF0@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Here is case 2 ; I expect your answers and commentary ASAP : > > the bidding : > N.........E........S..........W > pass 1D 2S pass > 3S 4D pass 5D....^^ > pass (7NT) (dbl)....... > > ^^ at that moment East becomes more than nervous and takes the cartoon > of 7NT and put in on the table smiling and boiling. South doubles. Does this sort of frivolous attitude occur frequently in Israel or is this a bad tournament?? > East tries to take the 7NT back but south insist to let it there. > Now East says ok but "excuse me 10 sec..." and goes to the "holly > place" . coming back to the table he finds the TD (who was summoned > during those 20 sec) TD asks East if he intended to bid 7NT . east says > "it was a bad joke but if South insists I want to play 7 Diam . > The TD decides not to let East to change his bid (West didn't bid or > call until this moment) and warns East about his non sporting behavior. > > QUESTION 1 : > > What action should be taken against East's non sporting behavior and > according to which law ??????? Law 74 (again). This is a tournament and while some fun can be had this is just plain silly. PP and let the contract stand (he hopefully won't do this again) > > QUESTION 2 : > > What should be done about TD's anti-ruling behavior , when he didn't > let EAST change his bid according to law 25b ????? Nothing. Doesn't look to me that this is inadvertant or attempted to be corrected without pause for thought. > > I expect your quick answers , in order to be the "best informed" > for our discussions at the TDs' meeting thursday. > > Thank you all again > Dany From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 21:53:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 21:53:05 +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 VAA25038 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 21:52:57 +1100 Received: from pbas13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.187] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 107zvN-0007dt-00; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:52:50 +0000 Message-ID: <000201be4f62$d9ac7560$bb8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: Unauthorised misinformation Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:23:41 -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 To: blml Date: 02 February 1999 09:10 Subject: Re: Unauthorised misinformation =================\x/-------------------------------------- >I'm not suggesting anything but what I said, which was in essence: >The poster's condition was that Pass was *not* forcing! (I still find it >weird that pass is NF unless the 4S bid is clearly "non-constructive", >but I guess we'll see in the next installment). --------------------------\X/------------------------------- ++++ You don't think it could be "any hand that wants to be in 4S and not in 6S?" A 'please clarify' pass by South is then within reason. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 21:53:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 21:53:06 +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 VAA25040 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 21:52:59 +1100 Received: from pbas13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.187] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 107zvP-0007dt-00; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:52:51 +0000 Message-ID: <000301be4f62$da651700$bb8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:54:28 -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: blml Date: 02 February 1999 10:00 Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A >Grattan wrote: > >> [Something like this: "When in possession of unauthorized >> information a player is to be judged not to have taken advantage >> of it if, in isolation from other factors, the player's action is deemed >> to be consistent with the disclosed methods of the partnership, the >> authorized information available to him, and his holding of cards."] >> ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ >> > >I am probably missing something, but what is the difference between the >above and: >"Bid what you were always going to bid absent the UI" ? > ++++ Perhaps I am not giving you enough to make the distinction clear. It will not be the player's judgment that determines the aptness of the chosen action to fit the stated criteria. The judgment will be that of the Director/AC who would be required to decide whether the player has succeeded in meeting the criteria. Perhaps it should be added that where there is reasonable doubt the Director/AC would rule against the player's chosen action.. So it is not what the player was always going to bid but what the rest of the world, give or take a few, considers to conform to the set criteria. It will be interesting to see whether other opinion formers on this list rise to the bait. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 22:56:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 22:56:52 +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 WAA25215 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 22:56:45 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-211.uunet.be [194.7.13.211]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA17871 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:56:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36B744F0.BB46778C@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 19:33:20 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199902021623.LAA06448@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > Well. Answer a few questions : > > - knowing what we know, is 6NT worse than 1NT (try and > > imagine the 99-1 example) : even if you don't agree, then > > assume the answer is NO > > The whole point of the example is that 6NT is worse than 1NT. If > you don't agree, then change the facts. (Perhaps you would like > to give responder a two-count?) > I don't agree. I thought the whole point of the example was that 1NT was a certain bottom, and at pairs, 6NT only an equal bottom. That makes 6NT, even if succesfull only 1% of the time, a better call than 1NT. But since we have obviously understood two different examples, no need to continue the discussion. I am talking about a rational player who should not get the (even small) benefit. You are talking about a lunatic. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 3 23:14:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 23:14:18 +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 XAA25288 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 23:14:12 +1100 Received: from hlyxzurz (dialup-304.cork.iol.ie [193.203.148.48]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA25474 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:14:05 GMT Message-ID: <000201be4f6f$48df23e0$3094cbc1@hlyxzurz> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:41:01 -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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I like the principle of equity embraced in the laws and also the idea that a player can select his options after having had all his options explained to him. Hence I am concerned that we are going to show no mercy to players in UI situations. If he gets a good score we will take it off him. The offender is in a 'no-win' situation. It appears that we will rule the offender used UI no matter what course of winning action he takes. I have no problem with this approach if it is the recommended approach but would prefer to have the laws clearly state this view. Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 00:26:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 00:26:09 +1100 Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA27706 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 00:26:03 +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 IAA03207 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 08:25:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990203082344.00833100@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 08:23:44 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help In-Reply-To: <36B92DF3.5AB@xtra.co.nz> References: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:19 PM 2/3/99 -0800, B A Small wrote: >2. If SO is adherent of Zero tolerance warn ?penalize if not then warn >under law74:1&2 Zero Tolerance is merely a restating of the Laws (think of the Laws as having recently hired a publicist), no need to rely upon it to warn or penalize. But, my understanding of Zero Tolerance is that a penalty is automatic -- no warning. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 01:01:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 01:01:21 +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 BAA27831 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 01:00:59 +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 JAA22666 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:00:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990203090345.006ea898@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 09:03:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199902021636.KAA08971@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:36 AM 2/2/99 -0600, cfgcs wrote: >> I understand this, but I don't _understand_ it. Perhaps this has >> been my problem all along, since I constantly saw application of the >> statements people were making about the 'illogical' case to the logical >> ones. I do not understand why we would want, or need, two different >> standards depending on whether the bid made was logical or illogical, and >> especially standards that are much more strict against the illogical >> bidder than the logical one! This takes us right back to the start of the thread. If the bid was logical, we already have a standard; L16A and L73F1 tell us what to do when a player chooses "from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested..." The question on the table is what to do when the player takes an illogical action, arguably rendering the phrase "from among logical alternative actions" inapplicable and the phrase "could demonstably have been suggested" meaningless. There seems to be a consensus that we deal with the first phrase by taking the view that we must compare the player's action to its "logical alternatives" even if we don't consider the action itself to have been logical. We have little choice, as we don't want the fact that the action was illogical to require us to compare it to its "illogical alternatives". That leaves us with the question of how to deal with the second phrase. The "objectivist" position is that we consider the action to have been "suggested" only if it is better (i.e. leads to a better expected outcome at the table). The subjectivist position is that the fact that the player took the action, when he would not have done so absent the UI, creates a presumption that the UI "suggested" it regardless of its merit. Grant is certainly correct that the latter is a stricter standard, as proven by the original example, in which we would reverse 6NT using a subjective test but let it stand using an objective test. >> As I said before, I'm not worried about protecting illogical >> bidders. [Or, anyway, it doesn't concern me very much.] But I think the >> principles and proceedures of a UI case shouldn't require us to decide if >> the bid is logical or not first, before we know what to do next. That's a good argument for the objective test, which saves us from having to make that decision by effectively stipulating it. Grant is also quite correct in suggesting that the subjective test creates a double standard, one for logical actions, one for illogical ones, thus forcing us to determine which of these the action taken was. >> Are others comfortable with this double-standard? The question isn't whether the double standard makes us comfortable, but rather whether it makes us more or less uncomfortable than evaluating illogical actions using a test designed to evaluate logical actions. 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 Feb 4 02:13:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:13:15 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA28128 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:13:08 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-113.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.113]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA42370810 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:16:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36B86792.E7FC029C@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 09:13:22 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The world has a lot of pasture. It looks like you are considering good pasture so it is a good idea to put the fence in the best place. A fence will not keep everything in that you want kept in and will not keep everything out that you want to keep out and may trap things in that you do not wish to be trapped in. It looks like a good fence is being considered but particular attention ought to paid to its height. If the pasture is chosen well, it may or may not matter where the tether is staked, yet it needs to be firm to perform its task, but it is less likely to irritate the cow if it is soft to the touch, long enough to permit freedom, and ample in strength and short enough to keep the hemlock tree out of reach. All the time realizing that a cow is very much capable of using scissors. Put on too much gilt and the fence costs too much. And put on too little and the fence costs way too much. Yes, a worthy endeavor. Well, I am off to do my duty in court. I am sure it is indeterminate when I will return. Roger Pewick Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > "I see no alternative but the lunatic asylum or > the gallows." [Tolstoy] > ================================= > > From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu > > To: Bridgelaws > > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > > Date: 01 February 1999 16:59 > > > > ------------------ \x/ ------------------------ -s- > The clock is still ticking. I am still weighing up whether to go > for the view that the least suggested alternative is always the > action dictated by system and judgement of the cards held when > considered in isolation from influemces other than the AI. If I > could be sure this is what I really believe, then maybe this is what > the law, or our interpretation of the law, should say. It certainly fits > with a theme expressed recently by Jose Damiani in a fax. My > hesitation springs from the vast range of situations and anxiety lest > it overlooks some of them. > [Something like this: "When in possession of unauthorized > information a player is to be judged not to have taken advantage > of it if, in isolation from other factors, the player's action is deemed > to be consistent with the disclosed methods of the partnership, the > authorized information available to him, and his holding of cards."] > ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 02:24:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:24:37 +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 CAA28155 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:24:31 +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; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:24:12 +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 PAA18514 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:23:35 GMT From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Illegal multi Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:21:25 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) 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 This happened a few days ago at my local club. I wasn't directing and I expect all concerned have forgotten about it by now, but I wasn't totally confident about what the correct ruling should have been. Licensing regulations were EBU Level 3, where psyching a multi 2D is prohibited, and the weak option of the multi must have at most a 5 HCP range with a minimum of at least 4 HCP and a maximum of at most 12 HCP. A multi was opened on a 1-count, and the opponents missed a slam. There was no agreement on the strength of the multi, so I suppose it's unclear whether this should be treated as an illegal system or as an illegal psyche. Does it matter? I thought the ruling should be ave+/ave- as it was impossible to get a result at the table. Is this correct? Is any additional penalty against the opening side appropriate? Jeremy. --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 02:45:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:45:03 +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 CAA28199 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:44:54 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 1084Tu-0004Ab-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:44:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:30:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <000301be4f62$da651700$bb8d93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000301be4f62$da651700$bb8d93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >++++ Perhaps I am not giving you enough to make the distinction clear. >It will not be the player's judgment that determines the aptness of the >chosen action to fit the stated criteria. The judgment will be that of the >Director/AC who would be required to decide whether the player has >succeeded in meeting the criteria. Perhaps it should be added that >where there is reasonable doubt the Director/AC would rule against >the player's chosen action.. So it is not what the player was always >going to bid but what the rest of the world, give or take a few, >considers to conform to the set criteria. > It will be interesting to see whether other opinion formers on this >list rise to the bait. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ Hello, what is this hook doing? I think you are going to have to explain this a little more. what are you suggesting a player does when in possession of UI, under your new idea? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 699 days to go 1/2 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 02:45:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:45:00 +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 CAA28200 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:44:54 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 1084Tu-0004Ae-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:44:48 +0000 Message-ID: <5L1XDvAYIFu2EwGv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:41:44 +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: >In-Reply-To: >David Stevenson wrote: >> Partner makes a very slow [and therefore doubtful] penalty double. >> You know perfectly well that your current hand is a toss-up between >> leaving it in or pulling it. The current Laws make it mandatory to >> leave it in, and so it should be. If you can convince yourself that it >> is 55% to take it out then you would take it out if the Law said do as >> you would without the UI - and you score a goal when the oppos do not >> call the TD. Is that the way you really want the game to be played? > >If I pass a double that I know is 55% right to pull I also know that I'm >only doing so to avoid a subsequent adjustment. Sometimes passing will >turn out to be right after all and I end up with a good score I wouldn't >have got without the UI - this is not the way I want the game to be played >either. If I "convince myself" erroneously that it is 55% to pull and >opps don't call the TD it works out the same as if they don't call the TD >under the current laws - why on earth would I, or my peers, knowingly take >a 45% action in the absence of UI. Oh, come on, we have had this argument before, and it is pointless. You know perfectly well what I mean by a 45% action: I mean one that if you ask 20 of your peers what they would do then 9 of them will take that action. Why would any of your peers take such an action? because they believe it to be the right action, of course. If you have a situation where 100% of your peers would take an action then that is a 100% action, not a 45% one, and UI does not affect it. >Ideally I want bridge to be played in a friendly atmosphere where UI is >never made available and each player is free to apply their own judgement >to each decision (oh yes and to be dealt a vulnerable slam every Chicago). >The fact that this ideal appears unachievable doesn't lead me to believe >that the current L16 is ideal. Perhaps we could construct a neat "step by >step" flow chart to really help players understand what "equity" means and >how to aspire to it. Include it in the lawbook and players could even >consult it during the hand! Yes, and I would like a mistress with a Siamese cat near every bridge tournament. >> If after a slow penalty double you think taking out is automatic, and >> do so, fine. Even if a TD/AC later disagree with you then you have done >> nothing wrong except make an improper bid in ignorance - disagreements >> over bidding judgement are just part of life. > >A subsequent adjustment doesn't imply an "improper" bid. It could be the >TD/AC identifying a different peer group or a piece of AI you had >forgotten. In another thread we agreed that pulling 2-level penalty >doubles with a void was "just good bridge". Presumably neither of us >would adjust if the other did so - some TDs would. As you say- >disagreements over bidding judgement are just part of life. A subsequent adjustment *does* imply an improper bid. The TD/AC has decided that your bid was not proper under the Laws. Do not confuse unethical with improper. If you make an improper bid without intent then it is not unethical, but it will be adjusted. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 699 days to go 1/2 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 02:45:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:45:04 +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 CAA28198 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:44:53 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 1084Tu-0004Ad-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:44:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:34:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199902021623.LAA06448@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36B744F0.BB46778C@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36B744F0.BB46778C@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >> >> > From: Herman De Wael >> > Well. Answer a few questions : >> > - knowing what we know, is 6NT worse than 1NT (try and >> > imagine the 99-1 example) : even if you don't agree, then >> > assume the answer is NO >> >> The whole point of the example is that 6NT is worse than 1NT. If >> you don't agree, then change the facts. (Perhaps you would like >> to give responder a two-count?) >> > >I don't agree. > >I thought the whole point of the example was that 1NT was a >certain bottom, and at pairs, 6NT only an equal bottom. >That makes 6NT, even if succesfull only 1% of the time, a >better call than 1NT. That was what we started talking about. The thread then produced some fairly meaningless figures to prove that our bridge judgement was wrong. I stick by my original case. No person, using UI, is going to sit down and start calculating 1%'s and 10%'s. If he believes that some action improves his chances, the fact that certain people here believe he has miscalculated seems not to be the point. Do you always rule on that basis? >I am talking about a rational player who should not get the >(even small) benefit. >You are talking about a lunatic. Exactly. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 699 days to go 1/2 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 03:40:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 03:40:54 +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 DAA28491 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 03:40:46 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 1085Lz-0005BY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:40:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:10:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Illegal multi References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: >This happened a few days ago at my local club. I wasn't directing and >I expect all concerned have forgotten about it by now, but I wasn't >totally confident about what the correct ruling should have been. > >Licensing regulations were EBU Level 3, where psyching a multi 2D is >prohibited, and the weak option of the multi must have at most a >5 HCP range with a minimum of at least 4 HCP and a maximum of at most >12 HCP. > >A multi was opened on a 1-count, and the opponents missed a slam. >There was no agreement on the strength of the multi, so I suppose >it's unclear whether this should be treated as an illegal system >or as an illegal psyche. Does it matter? I thought the ruling should >be ave+/ave- as it was impossible to get a result at the table. Is >this correct? Is any additional penalty against the opening side >appropriate? A+/A- is the correct ruling. Psyching a multi at Level 3 is illegal because one of the requirements for playing it is that it not be psyched. Thus a pair who psyche it are playing an illegal system. The EBU has decided that illegal system merits A+/A- unless the NOs did better than that. I see no reason for an additional penalty unless they make a habit of this type of thing. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 699 days to go 1/2 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 03:45:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 03:45:12 +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 DAA28510 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 03:45:05 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA04572 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:44:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id LAA07497 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:45:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:45:08 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902031645.LAA07497@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jan Kamras > Surely [East] is worth 2NT or > something regardless of what W means by his 2C bid! This is a good point that I overlooked. In considering an adjusted score for the OS, not only 1NT needs to be considered but also East's action over the (illegal) 2C. The OS may very well be assigned some large number of clubs or NT or even a major, down a lot doubled. It is not clear to me whether or not you can consider such scores for the NOS. L12C2 specifies "had the irregularity not occurred," but does "irregularity" mean "had East's infraction of pass not occurred," or does it mean, in effect "had no irregularity at all occurred?" If the latter, only scores in 1NT (and the actual table result in 2C) can be considered for the NOS. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 03:47:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 03:47:28 +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 DAA28542 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 03:47:19 +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 QAA21421 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:46:43 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.7.1) id QAA17957 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:45:40 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990203174729.007a47e0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 17:47:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: hasty claim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Again a problem of contested claim, but different enough from the previous one, I hope, not to resuscitate last weeks discussions. This one occured in a French Pairs competition and was heard by all successive appeal authorities. Dealer: East Vuln: All KJ83 - - 2NT - J1092 3NT - - - 852 K5 AQ65 1072 AQ74 53 KQ4 AJ96 A3 10962 94 K86 1073 QJ874 2NT= 20-21 HCP (5-card major not denied) Play processes along these lines: HJ, 3, 6, Q (J denies higher-ranking card) S6, 3, 10, 9 C2, 4, 3, 5 H10, 5, K, A DK, 2, 6, 3 DQ, 5, 9, 7 D4, 8, J, 10 DA, S4, H4, CK CA, S8, C6, C7 H7 and South spreads her hand and claims, requesting the (4) remaining tricks. The score (100 NS) is entered on the travelling sheet. During bidding time of next deal (same table, same round, same opponents), West has a doubt, requires to reexamine the previous deal and contests the claim (due to North's H9). If necessary to evaluate skill level of North's peers, it can be said he is roughly ranked 40th French player. How would you rule? ________________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 4 03:57:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 03:57:02 +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 DAA28577 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 03:56:53 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01191 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:53:45 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199902031653.KAA01191@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:53:44 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Herman De Wael wrote: > >Steve Willner wrote: > >> > >> > From: Herman De Wael > >> > Well. Answer a few questions : > >> > - knowing what we know, is 6NT worse than 1NT (try and > >> > imagine the 99-1 example) : even if you don't agree, then > >> > assume the answer is NO > >> > >> The whole point of the example is that 6NT is worse than 1NT. If > >> you don't agree, then change the facts. (Perhaps you would like > >> to give responder a two-count?) > >> > > > >I don't agree. > > > >I thought the whole point of the example was that 1NT was a > >certain bottom, and at pairs, 6NT only an equal bottom. > >That makes 6NT, even if succesfull only 1% of the time, a > >better call than 1NT. > > That was what we started talking about. The thread then produced some > fairly meaningless figures to prove that our bridge judgement was wrong. > > I stick by my original case. No person, using UI, is going to sit > down and start calculating 1%'s and 10%'s. If he believes that some No, they just bid 2NT or 3NT. > action improves his chances, the fact that certain people here believe > he has miscalculated seems not to be the point. Do you always rule on > that basis? When I am asked whether a bid was 'demonstrably suggested over another' bid, I think I am forced to use bridge judgement on the hand to see how likely various bids are to work given the UI. If, given the UI, bid A seems far more likely to work than bid B, I have difficulty seeing bid B as being demonstrably suggested over bid A. Your bridge judgement is that when partner has a 19-21 point hand with notrump distribution, and I have a flat 6 count, 6NT is likely to make a fair amount of the time, and 3NT is likely to go down fairly seldom. I do not know if you think 6NT is actually more likely to be a good spot than 1NT in such a case, or if you merely think it is close. In my bridge judgement, it isn't even in the ballpark. 3NT very often goes down in such circumstances, and 6NT virtually never makes. It is quite possible that my bridge judgement is wrong, and yours is correct--I am sure that you have much more experience than I have. But I do not think the question is _irrelevant_, because I think that's what _suggested over_ is supposed to mean. But perhaps bridge judgement of the probabilities _is_ irrelevant, because perhaps I misunderstand what "demonstrably suggested over" means. Jam Kamras has laid bare the question, although the percentages were unnecessary. If UI makes a bid _more likely to work than with AI alone_, is that bid automatically 'demonstrably suggested over' any alternative bid, even if the chance of it working remains smaller, perhaps even very much smaller, than the alternative? I would have said 'no'. One member of the list has told me in private e-mail that he thinks the answer is 'yes', and I am sure he isn't alone. If the answer is 'yes', then I definately think the law should be reworded to remove any chance that an ill-informed TD [like myself] might think the 'suggested over' introduces a _comparative_ notion between the alternatives, rather than merely a comparision between the bid itself 'with or without' the UI. > >I am talking about a rational player who should not get the > >(even small) benefit. > >You are talking about a lunatic. > > Exactly. I do not think bidding 6NT with 26 combined HCP and two flattish hands constitutes a rational action, even in the context of 3NT being taken for granted as barred. To whatever degree your judgement says that it _is_ rational, the player should be ruled against. > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 04:01:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 04:01:20 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA28625 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 04:01:12 +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 MAA06251 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:01:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id MAA07543 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:01:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:01:15 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902031701.MAA07543@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 (and David S. similarly) > I thought the whole point of the example was that 1NT was a > certain bottom, and at pairs, 6NT only an equal bottom. Then please reread what I wrote. If you disagree with my stated bridge judgment on the original example, then change the hands to ones where your bridge judgment agrees with mine. (You probably want to give responder a three-count.) > That makes 6NT, even if succesfull only 1% of the time, a > better call than 1NT. Yes, if 1NT is a certain bottom, then 6NT is a logical alternative. (In my bridge judgment, I'd have to give responder an 8 or 9 count.) But if this is your bridge judgment, the ruling is automatic, and I'm sure (pace David) we will all agree on the result if not on exactly how we got there. That's why I think that case isn't interesting. > You are talking about a lunatic. Yes, no doubt! Nevertheless, there are lunatics at the bridge table, and the answer to the question illuminates a very interesting legal principle: whether L73C levies restrictions in addition to L16, or whether it is simply a guiding principle on which L16 is based but has no operational significance of its own. If you don't care to answer, that's fine, but please don't claim that an answer to a different question is relevant to this one. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 04:40:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 04:40:46 +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 EAA28738 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 04:40:40 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa27724; 3 Feb 99 9:40 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: hasty claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Feb 1999 17:47:29 PST." <3.0.5.32.19990203174729.007a47e0@phedre.meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 09:40:00 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902030940.aa27724@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Again a problem of contested claim, but different enough from the previous > one, I hope, not to resuscitate last weeks discussions. This one occured in > a French Pairs competition and was heard by all successive appeal authorities. > > Dealer: East > Vuln: All > KJ83 - - 2NT - > J1092 3NT - - - > 852 > K5 > AQ65 1072 > AQ74 53 > KQ4 AJ96 > A3 10962 > 94 > K86 > 1073 > QJ874 > > 2NT= 20-21 HCP (5-card major not denied) > Play processes along these lines: > > HJ, 3, 6, Q (J denies higher-ranking card) > S6, 3, 10, 9 > C2, 4, 3, 5 > H10, 5, K, A > DK, 2, 6, 3 > DQ, 5, 9, 7 > D4, 8, J, 10 > DA, S4, H4, CK > CA, S8, C6, C7 > H7 and South spreads her hand and claims, requesting the (4) remaining tricks. > > The score (100 NS) is entered on the travelling sheet. > During bidding time of next deal (same table, same round, same opponents), > West has a doubt, requires to reexamine the previous deal and contests the > claim (due to North's H9). > If necessary to evaluate skill level of North's peers, it can be said he is > roughly ranked 40th French player. > > How would you rule? Have E-W made a call on the next board? If so, Law 69 applies. E-W have acquiesced to the claim, and the acquiescence can't be withdrawn unless E-W have conceded a trick that cannot be lost be any normal play; and that doesn't apply here, since North's ducking the heart is certainly a "normal" play. So the score must stand. If E-W have not made a call on the next board, though, the condition in 69A hasn't been met, and they can contest the claim. My own feeling about this type of situation is that the "inferior or careless but not irrational" standard applies, although the Laws that use that phrase (70D and 70E) don't exactly apply here. Still, I think this standard makes sense and is the best way to follow L70A's mandate to adjudicate equitably but resolve doubtful points against the claimer. So for me, the question is, would it be irrational for North to play the H9 at trick 10. I don't think it is. At that point, the remaining cards are KJ 92 -- -- AQ5 72 7 -- -- -- -- 109 -- 8 -- QJ8 but from North's point of view, they could be KJ 92 -- -- AQ 72 87 -- -- -- -- 109 5 -- -- QJ8 in which case it would be necessary to win the heart and exit a heart to avoid giving up an extra overtrick. KJ83 - - 2NT - J1092 3NT - - - 852 K5 AQ6 1072 AQ874 53 KQ4 AJ96 A3 10962 954 K6 1073 QJ874 The above layout is consistent with the bidding, but it does make some of the early plays strange, particularly West's and South's spade plays at trick 2, and possibly South's failure to unblock at trick 1. So North "should" go back over the early plays, try to reconstruct the hands, and realize that the actual layout is more likely than the one I've shown above, and therefore duck the heart. However, I cannot convince myself that failure to do all of this qualifies as "irrational", even for a Top 40 player. So I rule that North will play the H9, and since he's a Top 40 player, I'll assume he can count to 13 and cash the other good heart before giving up the spades. Two tricks to each side, E-W +630. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 04:41:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 04:41:42 +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 EAA28752 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 04:41:36 +1100 Received: from pa8s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.169] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 1086Ii-0003xs-00; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 17:41:20 +0000 Message-ID: <004e01be4f9b$eb5e3ee0$a98a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Rickard, Jeremy" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Illegal multi Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 17:36:41 -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 To: BLML Date: 03 February 1999 15:59 Subject: Illegal multi >I thought the ruling should >be ave+/ave- as it was impossible to get a result at the table. Is >this correct? Is any additional penalty against the opening side >appropriate? > ++ But there *was* a result. They missed a slam. This is not a case of *unable to get a result*. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 05:40:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 05:40:48 +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 FAA28852 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 05:40:42 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA00974; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:39:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902031839.KAA00974@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Rickard, Jeremy" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Illegal multi Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:36:29 -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 ---------- > From: Jeremy Rickard > This happened a few days ago at my local club. I wasn't directing and > I expect all concerned have forgotten about it by now, but I wasn't > totally confident about what the correct ruling should have been. > > Licensing regulations were EBU Level 3, where psyching a multi 2D is > prohibited, and the weak option of the multi must have at most a > 5 HCP range with a minimum of at least 4 HCP and a maximum of at most > 12 HCP. > > A multi was opened on a 1-count, and the opponents missed a slam. > There was no agreement on the strength of the multi, so I suppose > it's unclear whether this should be treated as an illegal system > or as an illegal psyche. Does it matter? I thought the ruling should > be ave+/ave- as it was impossible to get a result at the table. Is > this correct? Is any additional penalty against the opening side > appropriate? > There was "a result at the table," one that indicated damage to the NOS because of the infraction. They should get the most favorable result that was likely if the infraction had not occurred, and the OS the most unfavorable result that was at all probable (L12C2). If it appeared that a slam was missed because of the infraction, there is no reason not to assign that score. If the OS did something irrational, wild, or gambling, however, it could be that only the OS gets the score adjustment. TDs are much too quick to adjust with an artificial score, which should be a rarity. Besides, it's usually unfair in one way or another. Is 40%/60% really what the pairs deserve on this board? Unlikely. Moreover, the artificial adjustment is treated as a "missing result," which can affect the rest of the field in undesirable ways. For instance, no one in either direction can get a complete top on the board. As to an additional penalty, from none all the way to disqualification, that is up to the TD's judgment in re the seriousness of the offense. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 05:43:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 05:43:58 +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 FAA28867 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 05:43:52 +1100 Received: from JESPER.internal ([194.192.112.98]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990203184324.MTD23406.fep4@JESPER.internal> for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:43:24 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridgelaws" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 19:43:25 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36bf92b6.14992808@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 07:47:36 -0000, "Grattan" wrote: > [Something like this: "When in possession of unauthorized >information a player is to be judged not to have taken advantage=20 >of it if, in isolation from other factors, the player's action is deemed= =20 >to be consistent with the disclosed methods of the partnership, the=20 >authorized information available to him, and his holding of cards."] I far prefer our current UI rules. If, after 1N pass pass, a player has a natural choice between passing and bidding, both actions being "consistent with the disclosed methods of the partnership, the authorized information available to him, and his holding of cards", I find it very important that he is not allowed to pass when partner passed quickly and bid when partner hesitated. I quite strongly believe that the only way to protect the non-offenders effectively in UI situations is to have UI rules much like our current ones. It is irritating that they are so difficult to understand for inexperienced players (and directors), but that seems to me to be a necessary price to pay for protecting the NOS adequately. On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 02:52:43 -0000, "Grattan" wrote: >[Of course, it was DWS who famously said "There >is a perfectly good UI law" :-)) ] +++ I agree with David - there _is_ a perfectly good UI law. We may quibble about the detailed wording, but IMO the basics are as they should be and as they must be in order to protect the NOS. On the other hand, there is at least one situation where the rules that tell us which information is unauthorized and which is not are unreasonable. L16C should have exceptions. The obvious example is the 1997 penalty card rules: if a shown card is UI, then there is no reason at all to also impose a mechanical penalty. And vice versa: when there is a mechanical penalty, the shown card should not also be UI. I think I would prefer a simple mechanical penalty (transfer one trick?), but I would also be happy with "no penalty, but the card is UI to partner". The current penalty card rules would be acceptable, though unreasonably complicated, if the card were AI (as it used to be). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 07:24:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 07:24:05 +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 HAA29018 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 07:23:55 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA21250 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 14:20:59 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199902032020.OAA21250@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 14:20:59 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 11:00 PM 1/02/99 +0100, you wrote: > >cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > >> > >> I thought we were now playing with the thermonukes--Herman's > >> answer makes that obvious. > > I wonder if it is time that TDs were asked to provide convention cards > themselves. Something like: Basic system - Thermonuke, but with weak > treatment of incomplete but otherwise rational claims. Strong accept of > psyching when partner must pass, etc. Players could refer to the TD's CC > before deciding what might constitute a LA under his jurisdiction. An excellent suggestion. New TD's could be assumed to rule using a 'standard' system until they perfect their own--e.g. "Standard American" would include 'frequent' artificial adjusted scores, for example. > Cheers, > > Tony > -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 07:32:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 07:32:39 +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 HAA29037 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 07:32:33 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA24202 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:32:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id PAA07853 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:32:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:32:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902032032.PAA07853@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: Jesper Dybdal > I agree with David - there _is_ a perfectly good UI law. We may > quibble about the detailed wording, but IMO the basics are as > they should be and as they must be in order to protect the NOS. Add one more vote, please. I'd like to do something about a normal and correct explanation or alert (make it a less invidious form of UI or even AI), but for hesitations, mannerisms, and other extraneous business, the current UI rules seem about right to me. > On the other hand, there is at least one situation where the > rules that tell us which information is unauthorized and which is > not are unreasonable. L16C should have exceptions. The obvious > example is the 1997 penalty card rules: if a shown card is UI, > then there is no reason at all to also impose a mechanical > penalty. And vice versa: when there is a mechanical penalty, the > shown card should not also be UI. > > I think I would prefer a simple mechanical penalty (transfer one > trick?), but I would also be happy with "no penalty, but the card > is UI to partner". The current penalty card rules would be > acceptable, though unreasonably complicated, if the card were AI > (as it used to be). Agree again. I'd prefer some sort of mechanical penalty, make the card AI -- it's face-up on the table, after all -- and cross-reference L72B1 to prevent "cleverness." One benefit is that this approach is far more easily adapted to rubber bridge than anything involving UI rules. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 07:51:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 07:51:35 +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 HAA29078 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 07:51:28 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-2.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.2]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA42343141 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:54:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36B8B6DE.215B73C3@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 14:51:42 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: hasty claim References: <3.0.5.32.19990203174729.007a47e0@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If no call has been made during the same round [specifically] to the next board it is in time to withdraw a concession for valid reasons per 79C. Those reasons are [a] conceded trick[s] were actually won tricks and/or [b] conceded tricks would actually be won by every normal line of play. On this hand, the requirement was not met so the TD can not cancel the concession of tricks. Had the claim been contested in time under L70, of course, the pesky H9 could be forced to take the trick and declarer would be entitled to two more tricks. In fact, I once sat in the south chair and duly called the director to adjudicate. He did not permit a cancellation. As I hold in reverence the beauty of the game, I know now that if I am quick witted enough, and having realized that I had gone to all that trouble to not win a heart trick so that partner could win the last two, that I could not expect partner to duck the third heart. Hence, from a moral perspective, my claim had not been valid at all. So, I would hurry up and agree that W was right and change the score and attempt to prevent a TD and my partner from finding out my nefarious deed. Next hand. Roger Pewick Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > Again a problem of contested claim, but different enough from the previous > one, I hope, not to resuscitate last weeks discussions. This one occured in > a French Pairs competition and was heard by all successive appeal authorities. > > Dealer: East > Vuln: All > KJ83 - - 2NT - > J1092 3NT - - - > 852 > K5 > AQ65 1072 > AQ74 53 > KQ4 AJ96 > A3 10962 > 94 > K86 > 1073 > QJ874 > > 2NT= 20-21 HCP (5-card major not denied) > Play processes along these lines: > > HJ, 3, 6, Q (J denies higher-ranking card) > S6, 3, 10, 9 > C2, 4, 3, 5 > H10, 5, K, A > DK, 2, 6, 3 > DQ, 5, 9, 7 > D4, 8, J, 10 > DA, S4, H4, CK > CA, S8, C6, C7 > H7 and South spreads her hand and claims, requesting the (4) remaining tricks. > > The score (100 NS) is entered on the travelling sheet. > During bidding time of next deal (same table, same round, same opponents), > West has a doubt, requires to reexamine the previous deal and contests the > claim (due to North's H9). > If necessary to evaluate skill level of North's peers, it can be said he is > roughly ranked 40th French player. > > How would you rule? > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 Feb 4 08:38:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:38:54 +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 IAA29150 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:38:34 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-2.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.2]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA42412774 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:41:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36B8C1E3.6D7C6D58@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 15:38:43 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199902031653.KAA01191@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan, Say during an auction your system suggests two bids [a] and [b]. Based on AI [a] is superior. If there is UI that the AI may not be valid, what is the action to be taken? In other words, does the player subject himself to adjustment if he takes the superior [a]? Consider, if action [a] is superior based on AI then it is likely that everyone else is bidding it so by taking [a] a normal auction would be likely to result- UI or not. If a flaky bid earlier had suggested via AI that [a] was superior when in fact it was not, the pair would probably earn their score, good or bad, as long as they take the best action according to their system. The problem is that UI may give hint that there had been a flaky/inferior bid [etc] earlier which would give reason to do something strange [like select b]. So if the 'inferior' [b] happens to work better than the 'superior' [a] and there was UI, was the result achieved using [b] really an earned result? Or was it a nefarious one? Or do we know? And given L16/L73/L12 what is the proper ruling? Roger Pewick cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Steve Willner wrote: > > >> > > >> > From: Herman De Wael > > >> > Well. Answer a few questions : > > >> > - knowing what we know, is 6NT worse than 1NT (try and > > >> > imagine the 99-1 example) : even if you don't agree, then > > >> > assume the answer is NO > > >> > > >> The whole point of the example is that 6NT is worse than 1NT. If > > >> you don't agree, then change the facts. (Perhaps you would like > > >> to give responder a two-count?) > > >> > > > > > >I don't agree. > > > > > >I thought the whole point of the example was that 1NT was a > > >certain bottom, and at pairs, 6NT only an equal bottom. > > >That makes 6NT, even if succesfull only 1% of the time, a > > >better call than 1NT. > > > > That was what we started talking about. The thread then produced some > > fairly meaningless figures to prove that our bridge judgement was wrong. > > > > I stick by my original case. No person, using UI, is going to sit > > down and start calculating 1%'s and 10%'s. If he believes that some > > No, they just bid 2NT or 3NT. > > > action improves his chances, the fact that certain people here believe > > he has miscalculated seems not to be the point. Do you always rule on > > that basis? > > When I am asked whether a bid was 'demonstrably suggested over > another' bid, I think I am forced to use bridge judgement on the hand to > see how likely various bids are to work given the UI. If, given the UI, > bid A seems far more likely to work than bid B, I have difficulty seeing > bid B as being demonstrably suggested over bid A. > Your bridge judgement is that when partner has a 19-21 point hand > with notrump distribution, and I have a flat 6 count, 6NT is likely to > make a fair amount of the time, and 3NT is likely to go down fairly > seldom. I do not know if you think 6NT is actually more likely to be a > good spot than 1NT in such a case, or if you merely think it is close. In > my bridge judgement, it isn't even in the ballpark. 3NT very often goes > down in such circumstances, and 6NT virtually never makes. It is quite > possible that my bridge judgement is wrong, and yours is correct--I am > sure that you have much more experience than I have. But I do not think > the question is _irrelevant_, because I think that's what _suggested over_ > is supposed to mean. > > But perhaps bridge judgement of the probabilities _is_ irrelevant, > because perhaps I misunderstand what "demonstrably suggested over" means. > Jam Kamras has laid bare the question, although the percentages were > unnecessary. If UI makes a bid _more likely to work than with AI alone_, > is that bid automatically 'demonstrably suggested over' any alternative > bid, even if the chance of it working remains smaller, perhaps even very > much smaller, than the alternative? I would have said 'no'. One member > of the list has told me in private e-mail that he thinks the answer is > 'yes', and I am sure he isn't alone. If the answer is 'yes', then I > definately think the law should be reworded to remove any chance that an > ill-informed TD [like myself] might think the 'suggested over' introduces > a _comparative_ notion between the alternatives, rather than merely a > comparision between the bid itself 'with or without' the UI. > > > >I am talking about a rational player who should not get the > > >(even small) benefit. > > >You are talking about a lunatic. > > > > Exactly. > > I do not think bidding 6NT with 26 combined HCP and two flattish > hands constitutes a rational action, even in the context of 3NT being > taken for granted as barred. To whatever degree your judgement says that > it _is_ rational, the player should be ruled against. > > > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 08:47:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:47:43 +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 IAA29192 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:47:34 +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 <19990203214720.EHFK6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:47:20 -0800 Message-ID: <36B8C4CD.68A96770@home.com> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 13:51:10 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <3.0.1.32.19990203090345.006ea898@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > The "objectivist" position is that we consider the action to have been > "suggested" only if it is better (i.e. leads to a better expected outcome > at the table). The subjectivist position is that the fact that the player > took the action, when he would not have done so absent the UI, creates a > presumption that the UI "suggested" it regardless of its merit. There is also an "in between" position that is still "objective", namely that the action was suggested even if not "better" overall but merely "better than before". (snip) > Grant is also quite > correct in suggesting that the subjective test creates a double standard, > one for logical actions, one for illogical ones, thus forcing us to > determine which of these the action taken was. (snip) > The question isn't whether the double standard makes us comfortable, but > rather whether it makes us more or less uncomfortable than evaluating > illogical actions using a test designed to evaluate logical actions. Or having to go in the direction GE seems now to propose (or is he just trapping us?), which I find becomes even more difficult to handle by TD/AC since it involves evaluating *this* particular player's hand-evaluation in the context of *this* players methods, etc etc. I see no big problem with a "double-standard" in practice. We anyway search for LAs in the L16A process, and we can simply "tag on" that any call which is *not* an LA (let's call them NLAs) are to be judged under the second standard. I would then be quite happy with LAs being disallowed only if they have been made *in absolute terms* suggested over others by the UI (e.g. odds improved from 30 vs 70 to 55 vs 45, not just to 40 vs 60), whereas NLAs would be disallowed as soon as their odds were improved at all by the UI. This is not a perfect solution but has the advantage that it could probably be implemented by a simple "clarifying statement" to L16 by the WBFLC. PS: I don't feel strongly abt the first part though, and can see good bridge-arguments why even among LAs a call should be disallowed if made *only in relative terms* better by the UI (say improved from 30/70 to 40/60). What is essential though is that there exists a uniform standard interpretation, and it would be nice if it could be attained prior to 2007! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 08:52:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:52:01 +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 IAA29214 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:51:53 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 108AD3-0000nV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 22:51:45 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990203225159.00a713d0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 22:51:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help In-Reply-To: <36B7CF07.9D27B87@internet-zahav.net> References: <3.0.5.32.19990203012444.00a6be00@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:22 03-02-99 +0200, you wrote: >Sorry I thought West's hand not important , but see it please : > >xxxx >xxxxx >Qxx >x > >Dany > >Anton Witzen wrote: >> >> At 00:28 03-02-99 +0200, you wrote: >> >Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: >> > >> >The bidding : >> >N.......E.........S.........W...... >> >1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) >> >all pass >> >(1) a small hesitation >> >(2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation >> >before East passed. we all seem to agree in that i guess, so it is an established fact. west shouts : " north is a lier OK Now TD skills get in the picture. Why does he say this. Only the TD probably knows beter than anyone else (deeper lying problems which the other pair perhaps - that happens i know). This action is intorerable. I he doesnt make very kind apologies, he can leave the room and will be prosecuted (we have a special branch in our league that will be very happy to deal with this behaviour) I guess suspention for some months is on. and he just >> >want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. >> > no one believes east i guess >> >The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his >> >unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: >> > ?????? can anyone see this happen with dry eyes???????? TD's should be equipped with a whip for these occasions (will be issued if they get their degree in leading tournaments) >> >Axx >> >Qx >> >AJ >> >AKJxxx >> > >> >> can we see the west hand please??????? you dont expect us to rule without >> this information i hope. >> OK i have seen it, thanks. >> >QUESTION 1 : >> >Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . >> > >> Well, I for certain would hesitate a few seconds before i would take any >> action. Nothing weird about that. but on the other hand i certainly wouldnt pass 2C. and i said a few, not more then 3-4sec. >> >> >QUESTION 2 : >> >What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which >> >Law ??? >> > Use your diciplinary powers and expell them, report them to the NA and they will deal with these rascals (to say the least) >> >> show all hands please!!!!!!!! >> >> >Please your answers and comments as soon as possible >> > >> >Dany >> > Hope this is good enough. We all tend to agree that this stinks like hell and they should burn, but on the other hand, the TD on the table probably knows best to deal witht this misconduct. thanks for clarifying my thoughts about this case. regards, anton >> done i guess >> Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) >> Tel: 020 7763175 >> ICQ 7835770 > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 12:48:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 12:48:44 +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 MAA29748 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 12:48:36 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.147] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 108Dtn-0007gf-00; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 01:48:07 +0000 Message-ID: <199902040148030840.08A489D4@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: <199902021623.LAA06448@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 01:48:03 +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 03/02/99, at 03:28, David Stevenson wrote: [snip] > You hold 6HCP, partner opens a strong 1NT and makes a remark that >makes it seem likely that he meant to bid 2NT. So you bid 6NT, and if >it does not make there would be no story! [snip] > > The position was that the player concerned apparently thought that >passing 1NT would get a bottom, bidding 6NT might do, but just might be >a top, and that bidding 3NT would get ruled back so could not gain. People have, I agree, been talking statistical rubbish. It should be= obvious that if you have 6 HCP and partner opens 1NT (15-17) and tells the= world that he meant to open 2NT but for not seeing an ace (therefore= 20-21), your best hope by a long way for a good score is to pass, given= that you cannot get your side to 3NT. I assure you, though I should not= have to (for one assumes a certain level of bridge expertise among= subscribers to this list) that with a combined balanced 26-27 HCP, your= side will make eight or fewer tricks a great deal more often than it will= make 12 (or 13). I estimate the ratio as close to 100 to 1, though I would= not be surprised to find that it was larger. The position I was trying to postulate was of a player who _knew_ that= passing 1NT (which was what he would have done absent the UI) was _more_= likely to be a top for his side than bidding 6NT (as any bridge player= would, in fact, know). Of course, he should pass anyway, taking the view= that if it had gone 1NT (no expostulation) - pass, that is what he would= have done. If it happened that 3NT did not make, his side would then have= scored a top about which the opponents might have grumbled, but could not= possibly complain to the officials. However, I decided that the poor guy= might be sufficiently confused by the TD's explanation of his "duty" to= think: "What the heck, I might as well bid 6NT - then, at least, no one= will accuse me of taking advantage!" In short, given various opinions about what a player "should" do in the= presence of UI, and given that the question of "selection from among= illogical alternatives" is a point about which I am not clear in my own= mind, I decided to start a hare, in the expectation that people would= smash down this "easy" case before I progressed to more difficult ones.= The debate that followed has surprised me beyond measure, for this case is= one that I would regard as straightforward. But it has contained many= fascinating opinions, in addition to much abject nonsense about the odds= of making 6NT as opposed to going down in 3NT, so having started the hare= I have been watching its run with much interest. The consensus, as far as I have been able to distil it, is this: if the= player who bid 6NT rationalized his choice on the misguided view that 1NT= would always be a bottom while 6NT might not be, then he should be ruled= against, for to him 6NT has "become a logical alternative". I don't have a= problem with that - but this may be because those who have argued that= viewpoint have done so in the way that I would have chosen. I may (frame= this, DWS) be wrong. However, this does not answer the question I was trying to put: if the= player who bid 6NT did so on the basis that this was more likely to be a= bottom than passing 1NT, because he knew the odds but was confused about= what the Laws required him to do, should he be allowed to keep his top if= 6NT happened to make? The next instalment of "Unauthorised misinformation" will follow shortly.= That, at least, was a real case. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 13:11:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:11:33 +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 NAA29869 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:11:26 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.147] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 108EGV-0000Ec-00; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:11:35 +0000 Message-ID: <199902040211120250.08B9BA25@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990203090345.006ea898@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990203090345.006ea898@pop.cais.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 02:11:12 +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 propos of nothing very much, I am intrigued by Herman's view that an= ostensibly illogical bid ought to be deemed logical because the player= made it. Some of you may remember an assertion to the effect that a claim= based on an irrational line of play should be adjusted to allow the= claimant to depart from his statement as soon as it became clear to= outside observers that it would not work. You may wonder who made that assertion. I could not possibly comment. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 13:23:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:23:13 +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 NAA29909 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:23:07 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.147] by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 108ERj-0001cU-00; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:23:11 +0000 Message-ID: <199902040222530210.08C46CC7@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 02:22:53 +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="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 03/02/99, at 08:45, Grattan wrote: [snip] >> >> >[Of course, it was DWS who famously said "There >> >is a perfectly good UI law" :-)) ] +++ >> >> So why is it not in your sig? > >++ It was obviously wasted when I did use it ~ge~ ++ Obviously, if it related to L73. Less obviously, if it related to L16 :) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 15:30:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA00311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:30:41 +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 PAA00306 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:30:35 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka986.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.37.6]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA05552 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 23:30:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990203233021.006fe034@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 23:30:21 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <36B78108.FA46C107@home.com> References: <199902011659.KAA22260@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:49 PM 2/2/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > >> I think >> "demonstrably suggested over" must mean that the UI clearly makes the >> bid chosen a better bid than the bid turned down. "Clearly", that is, >> in the judgement of the TD/AC. I am afraid that some people on this >> list have decided to castrate "suggested over" simply in order to nail > a rare lucky >> irrational bid that happened to work, made by a bidder who may or may >> not have been trying to take advantage of UI. > >Without taking a position on the matter yet, I think Grant has hit the >nail on it's head as it concerns nailing down (no pun intended) what the >argument is all about. Does the phrase mean, or was it intended to mean, >that a disallowed action must have been made *absolutely* better than >the LA by the UI, or is it sufficient that it was made *relatively* >better than without the UI? > >As an illustration only: > >Without UI, action A is 20% and B is 80%. >With UI, A becomes 40% and B 60%. > >Is A demonstrably suggested over B by the UI, although one can argue >that B is still demonstrably the suggested action?? > >Would it be reasonable to conclude that L16 and L73 are using different >standards and that, in my example, a successful A would be allowed by >L16, but could be taken away by L73C? > I think this is the heart of the matter which I tried (unsuccessfully) to elucidate earlier. I prefer the "relative" point of view. In our actual example A is bidding 6nt and B is passing, and our respective percentages are probably something like .2% and 75% without the UI and 2.5% and 10% with the UI. My prediction is that some of those who have argued to allow 6nt will not be so comfortable with allowing Action A in your setup; it is in part the completely "illogical" character of the 6nt call that they rely upon in the first case. But if we insist that the comparison implied by "demonstrably suggested over" is absolute, then we are left with an even more uncomfortable possibility. Suppose that without UI, B is a 100% action, but that with the UI, A and B are equally attractive,i.e., that the numbers are 0 and 100 without UI and 50-50 with UI. If we insist upon the absolute standard, then we must either allow action A, one which can _only_ be arrived at by relying upon UI, or fall back on the muddier language of 73C. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 15:35:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA00334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:35:10 +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 PAA00329 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:35:04 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 108GVD-0005ys-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 04:34:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 04:29:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Illegal multi In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Jeremy Rickard writes >This happened a few days ago at my local club. I wasn't directing and >I expect all concerned have forgotten about it by now, but I wasn't >totally confident about what the correct ruling should have been. > >Licensing regulations were EBU Level 3, where psyching a multi 2D is >prohibited, and the weak option of the multi must have at most a >5 HCP range with a minimum of at least 4 HCP and a maximum of at most >12 HCP. > >A multi was opened on a 1-count, and the opponents missed a slam. >There was no agreement on the strength of the multi, so I suppose >it's unclear whether this should be treated as an illegal system >or as an illegal psyche. Does it matter? I thought the ruling should >be ave+/ave- as it was impossible to get a result at the table. Is >this correct? Is any additional penalty against the opening side >appropriate? > > Jeremy. In the uk, use of an unlicenced convention (which in effect is what you have deemed has happened) fetches 60/40, and 60/30 if they've been warned not to use it. White Book 90.6.2. PPs are not appropriate as the penalty is prescribed. Cheers John > >--------------------------------- >Jeremy Rickard >J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk >Tel:- 0117 9287989 >Fax:- 0117 9287999 >--------------------------------- > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ we've got 101 |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. points |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) more than|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\you know who|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 19:36:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:36:41 +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 TAA00520 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:36:34 +1100 Received: from modem18.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.146] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 108KGs-0002IE-00; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:36:22 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:34:44 -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 see no alternative but the lunatic asylum or the gallows." [Tolstoy] ==================================== > From: Fearghal O'Boyle > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 03 February 1999 11:41 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - > It appears that we will rule the offender used UI no matter what course of > winning action he takes. > > I have no problem with this approach if it is the recommended approach but > would prefer to have the laws clearly state this view. > ++++ As you have seen, Fearghal, I am groping the thought that the action least suggested by UI is the standard, normal judgement of one's cards in the light of the available AI and the disclosed partnership methods. I have cast a net saying that the action to be allowed, perhaps, when in possession of relevant UI from partner, should be that action which for the player's peers at large meets these criteria. Add a proviso that any margin of doubt in the minds of the Director/AC is to go against the call actually made - doubt, that is, that the UI has been wholly excluded in the player's final selection of his action. To now I have not perceived any serious flaw in this concept and it appears to define what is expected of the player who has UI without any reference to alternatives More, by providing positive criteria in respect of the call to be allowed, we also dispose of the argument which seeks to permit players an option of choosing an illogical call that may get lucky occasionally. (I am not saying the wording is exactly right as yet and, yes, most of these scenes do end up on the cutting room floor, but this does not mean it was wrong to film them.) ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 21:22:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:22:07 +1100 Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA00833 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:22:00 +1100 Received: from default ([195.89.178.73]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 6561400 ; Thu, 04 Feb 1999 11:23:06 -0000 Message-ID: <000201be5028$0089d720$49b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "David Stevenson" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 10:19:14 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk magda.thain@cookbury.purplenet.co.uk Over 100 messages and no consensus? Did someone say this law is a good one? Could we have a bad law that we all understand? -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 29 January 1999 06:14 Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > >>Are we any nearer a consensus? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 22:21:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:21:57 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA00954 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:21:51 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 108Mqo-00020v-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 11:21:39 +0000 Message-ID: <8+mG+nCWvQu2Ew1L@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 02:54:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199902021623.LAA06448@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199902040148030840.08A489D4@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902040148030840.08A489D4@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >I may (frame this, DWS) be wrong. Grattan Endicott wrote: >I am puzzled because I did not think this position would >be challenged. David Stevenson wrote: >There is a perfectly good UI law I think the inmates may be taking over the asylum. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 696 days to go 1/2 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 4 22:48:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:48:53 +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 WAA00997 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:48:47 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-244.uunet.be [194.7.9.244]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21035 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 12:48:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36B963FB.327BE4E7@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 10:10:19 +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: Illegal multi References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jeremy, Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > This happened a few days ago at my local club. I wasn't directing and > I expect all concerned have forgotten about it by now, but I wasn't > totally confident about what the correct ruling should have been. > > Licensing regulations were EBU Level 3, where psyching a multi 2D is > prohibited, and the weak option of the multi must have at most a > 5 HCP range with a minimum of at least 4 HCP and a maximum of at most > 12 HCP. > > A multi was opened on a 1-count, and the opponents missed a slam. > There was no agreement on the strength of the multi, so I suppose > it's unclear whether this should be treated as an illegal system > or as an illegal psyche. Does it matter? I thought the ruling should > be ave+/ave- as it was impossible to get a result at the table. Is > this correct? Is any additional penalty against the opening side > appropriate? > As a well-known lover of psychs, but banner of gray systems, I will agree that this is very bad. Psyching is permitted, but if system descriptions are as carefully worded as they are in Britain, then calling this opening a psych is not permissable ! Tell the player to open one heart next time, in which case you will be very happy to have him laugh about his psyche all along. But this is not on. Penalties dependent on the level of knowledge of the Laws that you know the player has. If he is a regular offender, I would give the opponents the slam, redoubled, with an overtrick (and I hope it's IMPs!). Since partner knows his partner did not psyche (as he had been told off before) he now absolutely trusts him, and doubles the opponents, and misdefends because he is counting on an ace with psycher. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 00:30:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:30:57 +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 AAA03567 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:30:49 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.52] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 108Oql-0006SG-00; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:29:44 +0000 Message-ID: <199902041330390540.002C8B21@mail.btinternet.com> References: <000201be4f62$d9ac7560$bb8d93c3@pacific> <199902040243520870.08D7A5EE@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 13:30:39 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorised misinformation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 02/02/99, at 13:23, Grattan Endicott wrote: Jan Kamras wrote >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D\x/---------------------= ----------------- > >>I'm not suggesting anything but what I said, which was in essence: >>The poster's condition was that Pass was *not* forcing! (I still find it >>weird that pass is NF unless the 4S bid is clearly "non-constructive", >>but I guess we'll see in the next installment). >--------------------------\X/------------------------------- > >++++ You don't think it could be "any hand that wants to be >in 4S and not in 6S?" A 'please clarify' pass by South is >then within reason. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ No one at the table had any pretension to being an expert. The guy who bid= 4S didn't eschew 3H because that would have meant something else. The guy= who opened 1S and passed 5H was glad that for him, the war was over. In= short, all four players at the table were Mr and Mr Average. As I tried to= point out, I do not care what your private agreements about this sequence= may be; however weird _you_ find it that pass should not be forcing, that= was the method in use at the time by players who would not know a forcing= pass from the Khyber Pass. It is not for members of BLML to make decisions= based on bridge judgement, for (a) they do not possess any, judging by= their recent description of an automatic 3D bid as "terrible" and their= absurd comments on the subsequent auction; (b) we are here to interpret= the Laws, not to quarrel with the judgment of a player at the table= (however misguided). South's pass was not "please clarify"; it was "I= don't think we'll make 5S, I'm not sure we'll beat 5H, so let's get the= hell out of here". From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 01:08:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 01:08:34 +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 BAA03687 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 01:08:26 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 108PS5-000353-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 14:08:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 12:16:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <000201be5028$0089d720$49b259c3@default> In-Reply-To: <000201be5028$0089d720$49b259c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk magda.thain wrote: >Over 100 messages and no consensus? Did someone say this law is a good one? >Could we have a bad law that we all understand? >>Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >>>Are we any nearer a consensus? Several messages recently have made me wonder what we are all up to! There has been a discussion in this thread over what we do in an incredibly rare position, which a Director quite likely will never meet in his whole career, namely what to do when a player deliberately uses a UI situation to try and better himself by an illogical action. There have been other discussions that have gone on a bit, like the tragically aborted one on following suit to a card that was from the previous trick [I would still like to finish the discussion on that one]. None of this means there is anything wrong with the laws or with people's knowledge of them. The test for the Laws is how they deal with events that occur regularly. I said there is a perfectly good UI law, and I meant it. The fact that someone can find a strange position that is difficult gives a raison d'etre for BLML but does not mean the Law is a bad one. There *are* bad Laws: famously in 1985 the one that banned Duplicate bridge, while in 1997 some of us would like a Law that deals with an Opening Lead out of Turn when partner does not lead as well - but these are little glitches and will be cleaned up in the next laws. I think that UI is always going to be a difficult thing to police in this game. Ignoring it leads to cheating. But adjusting for it is not easy. As far as I am concerned we have adequate UI Laws, but we shall continue to consider the ramifications of them for a long time to come. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Owner of a whole ACBL masterpoint! 699 days to go 1/2 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 01:31:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 01:31:50 +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 BAA03724 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 01:31:43 +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 JAA04647 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:12:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990204091632.006ea28c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 09:16:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199902032032.PAA07853@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:32 PM 2/3/99 -0500, Steve wrote: >Add one more vote, please. I'd like to do something about a normal and >correct explanation or alert (make it a less invidious form of UI or >even AI), but for hesitations, mannerisms, and other extraneous >business, the current UI rules seem about right to me. I don't believe this requires a change in the law. L16A: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information..." When the information content of the player's "remark... question... or the like" consists entirely of information that was already (presumptively) in his partner's possession (as a result of the available AI), he has not *made* that information available to his partner; it already was available. It is almost impossibly difficult to make rulings based on any other interpretation, even in the most egregious cases... Dealer opens 2D, and then adds "Guess what, partner? I remembered our methods this time!" You (TD) are called. The OS's CCs are clearly marked "Flannery". Opener has a textbook Flannery hand. You direct that the auction continue, and the OS has a perfectly normal Flannery auction to the perfectly normal contract. NOS asks for protection under L16. You can impose a PP on the OS, of course, but is there anything here that might lead you to an adjusted result? 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 Feb 5 01:38:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 01:38:45 +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 BAA03756 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 01:38:39 +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 JAA06058 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:37:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990204094139.006ec7fc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 09:41:39 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <199902040211120250.08B9BA25@mail.btinternet.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990203090345.006ea898@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990203090345.006ea898@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:11 AM 2/4/99 +0000, dburn wrote: >A propos of nothing very much, I am intrigued by Herman's view that an ostensibly illogical bid ought to be deemed logical because the player made it. Some of you may remember an assertion to the effect that a claim based on an irrational line of play should be adjusted to allow the claimant to depart from his statement as soon as it became clear to outside observers that it would not work. But a line of play, once embarked on, can be corrected in mid-course if it becomes apparent that it would be irrational to fail to deviate from it rather than pursue it to its originally intended conclusion, whereas a bid, once made, is made; it can't be "deviated from rather than pursued to its originally intended conclusion". So I don't think there's a valid analogy here. Moreover, to be fair to Herman, I don't think he has taken the position that a claimant may depart from his statement "as soon as it [becomes] clear to outside observers that it would not work", but rather "as soon as it becomes clear to outside observers that it would most likely become clear to the claimant that it would not work". 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 Feb 5 03:48:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 03:48:10 +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 DAA04156 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 03:48:04 +1100 Received: from default (ptp53.ac.net [205.138.54.155]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id LAA22885 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 11:47:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 01 Jan 1990 04:07:21 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid In-Reply-To: <36B6B862.8FAA490B@home.com> References: <01be4ad7$df67d2e0$a4394b0c@default> <36B62D92.7F8FA9DD@home.com> <14yk$qAJFmt2EwMU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:33 AM 2/2/99 -0800, you wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Obviously if you do not wish to play a partnership game then Pass > then >> 5D, or 5D direct is a good idea. Since 3D cannot be any hand but the >> one I hold in reality, I would prefer to bid 3D and let partner > decide. > >I see - so you wouldn't bid 3D on: > >xx >xxx >KJxxx >QTx > >or similar? Yes, like x xxx JT9xx Kxxx or xx xxx Axxxx xxx because I want a diamond lead. What if the guy was planning to bid 3D, 4D, 5D? In fact, if my partner jumped out of his chair and screamed "I double you!!!" I would still pull because I know they are going to make it with the given hand (I would have bid 5D). If I had the second example hand with a trick, then I can pass the double. Linda PS. Don't forget David has ONLY 1 masterpoint *grin* > >Do you really seriously maintain that "3D cannot be any hand but": > >x >xx >Jxxxxxx >xxx > >or was that an overstatement in the heat of the battle? > >If serious, maybe we should stop discussing expert bidding-theory here >on BLML, and go back to arguing the laws only? :-) > ----------- Used to be Linda Weinstein. Brian and I tied the knot on 12/25/98 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 05:31:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 05:31:46 +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 FAA04418 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 05:31:40 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA20642; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 10:30:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902041830.KAA20642@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Illegal multi Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 10:27:58 -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 John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In the uk, use of an unlicenced convention (which in effect is what you > have deemed has happened) fetches 60/40, and 60/30 if they've been > warned not to use it. White Book 90.6.2. So, if you use an unlicensed convention, get a zero, then realize you have used an unlicensed convention, you call the TD. He/she gives you 40% and the other side 60%? This is one situation in which a "mixed adjustment" might be justifiable: 40% or actual score, whichever is less, and 60% or actual score, whichever is better. I still think L12C2 should apply, perhaps by way of L12A1. Surely disobeying a regulation concerning conventions is a "violation of law."? (L40E) If so, the White Book seems to be at odds with the Laws when it comes to score adjustments for this infraction. IMO this infraction should be handled by the TD, who can exercise judgment as to the appropriate steps to be taken, perhaps "Don't use that anymore" for a non-damaging infraction by an inexperienced pair, or "You disobeyed my instructions given to all that this convention is not permitted, so I'm penalizing you 1/4 board per L90B8," or "Your repeated failure to obey my instructions is so serious that I am disqualifying you from this event. Please leave!" In any case, L12C2 is used to adjust the score, since a result has been obtained. >PPs are not appropriate as the penalty is prescribed. This should be clearly stated in L90, as many TDs/ACs don't share that philosophy. However, the White Book implies that no penalty is prescribed by the Laws for this infraction, so a PP could be assessed per L90B8. It's analogous to a pair arriving too late to play the first round of a second session. If the TD doesn't want a late play, he gives avg-/avg+ and may also assess a PP. Perfectly okay. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) AKA Cato From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 05:55:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 05:55:36 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA04466 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 05:55:30 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 108TvP-0002iI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:54:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 14:18:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Illegal multi References: <36B963FB.327BE4E7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36B963FB.327BE4E7@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Hi Jeremy, > >Jeremy Rickard wrote: >> >> This happened a few days ago at my local club. I wasn't directing and >> I expect all concerned have forgotten about it by now, but I wasn't >> totally confident about what the correct ruling should have been. >> >> Licensing regulations were EBU Level 3, where psyching a multi 2D is >> prohibited, and the weak option of the multi must have at most a >> 5 HCP range with a minimum of at least 4 HCP and a maximum of at most >> 12 HCP. >> >> A multi was opened on a 1-count, and the opponents missed a slam. >> There was no agreement on the strength of the multi, so I suppose >> it's unclear whether this should be treated as an illegal system >> or as an illegal psyche. Does it matter? I thought the ruling should >> be ave+/ave- as it was impossible to get a result at the table. Is >> this correct? Is any additional penalty against the opening side >> appropriate? >> > >As a well-known lover of psychs, but banner of gray systems, >I will agree that this is very bad. > >Psyching is permitted, but if system descriptions are as >carefully worded as they are in Britain, then calling this >opening a psych is not permissable ! > >Tell the player to open one heart next time, in which case >you will be very happy to have him laugh about his psyche >all along. > >But this is not on. > >Penalties dependent on the level of knowledge of the Laws >that you know the player has. If he is a regular offender, >I would give the opponents the slam, redoubled, with an >overtrick (and I hope it's IMPs!). Since partner knows his >partner did not psyche (as he had been told off before) he >now absolutely trusts him, and doubles the opponents, and >misdefends because he is counting on an ace with psycher. I shall say it one more time. Jeremy has asked a question that is clearly covered by the regulations that apply to his club. Therefore those regulations apply. Being rude at the expense of our regulations will not change this and does not seem necessary. I am sick and tired of people being rude at the expense of a single English regulation often taken out of context. Are you so sure our regulations are wrong? I would be happy as I have indicated before to discuss English regulations, and defend them where necessary. -- 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 Feb 5 06:39:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 06:39:51 +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 GAA04583 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 06:39:44 +1100 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 108Ucl-0006um-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:39:39 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <124K2349>; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:41:54 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: Illegal multi Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:41:53 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > In the uk, use of an unlicenced convention (which in effect is > what you > > have deemed has happened) fetches 60/40, and 60/30 if they've > been > > warned not to use it. White Book 90.6.2. > > So, if you use an unlicensed convention, get a zero, then realize > you have used an unlicensed convention, you call the TD. He/she > gives you 40% and the other side 60%? This is one situation in > which a "mixed adjustment" might be justifiable: 40% or actual > score, whichever is less, and 60% or actual score, whichever is > better. > > ######### John did not include a full statement of the regulation > which in fact states that the offending side gets the worse of their > score on the board or 40% ######## From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 07:45:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 07:45:54 +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 HAA04765 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 07:45:42 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA15008 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 14:42:49 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199902042042.OAA15008@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 14:42:49 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 02:49 PM 2/2/99 -0800, Jan wrote: > > > >Without taking a position on the matter yet, I think Grant has hit the > >nail on it's head as it concerns nailing down (no pun intended) what the > >argument is all about. Does the phrase mean, or was it intended to mean, > >that a disallowed action must have been made *absolutely* better than > >the LA by the UI, or is it sufficient that it was made *relatively* > >better than without the UI? > > > >As an illustration only: > > > >Without UI, action A is 20% and B is 80%. > >With UI, A becomes 40% and B 60%. > > > >Is A demonstrably suggested over B by the UI, although one can argue > >that B is still demonstrably the suggested action?? > > > >Would it be reasonable to conclude that L16 and L73 are using different > >standards and that, in my example, a successful A would be allowed by > >L16, but could be taken away by L73C? > > > I think this is the heart of the matter which I tried (unsuccessfully) to > elucidate earlier. I prefer the "relative" point of view. In our actual > example A is bidding 6nt and B is passing, and our respective percentages > are probably something like .2% and 75% without the UI and 2.5% and 10% > with the UI. I, of course, don't agree with those percentages [my original 1% and 10% being, I thought, conservative]. But I guess the exact numbers don't matter much. > My prediction is that some of those who have argued to allow 6nt will not > be so comfortable with allowing Action A in your setup; it is in part the I am one of them, yes. > completely "illogical" character of the 6nt call that they rely upon in the > first case. But if we insist that the comparison implied by "demonstrably Actually, in my own case, it is the huge disparity between the percentages. I cannot say a bid is suggested over another, when the other bid is _at least_ 10 times more likely to work. In addition, there is the fact that the UI changed the percentages only minutely, from 'never in a lifetime' to 'once in a lifetime, maybe'. I oppose the relative reading on those grounds, also--I think the change in the probability of a bid being successful must be, at least, noticeable. > suggested over" is absolute, then we are left with an even more > uncomfortable possibility. Suppose that without UI, B is a 100% action, but > that with the UI, A and B are equally attractive,i.e., that the numbers are > 0 and 100 without UI and 50-50 with UI. If we insist upon the absolute > standard, then we must either allow action A, one which can _only_ be > arrived at by relying upon UI, or fall back on the muddier language of 73C. You're quite correct that the 'absolute' standard should not be intepreted this way. I have stated this poorly myself at times [though at other times I remember having been careful about it]. It should not be necessary that the bid be obviously more likely to work, but it must be the case that, at the very least, one could _reasonably_ argue that it is more likely to work. I guarantee that in your 50/50 case, or in Jan's 60/40 case, there will be reasonable arguments suggesting that the UI-enhanced bid is more likely to work. [There will, of course, be reasonable arguments on the other side as well.] Herman and David S. seem to think that there are reasonable arguments in favor of the 6NT case as well--I can only say that I don't see them. As someone [Steve Willner?} said, if the combined HCP were, say, 29 or 30, then there would be a different story entirely. Now it is not at all obvious whether 6NT or 1NT is likely to be the best bid, and so 6NT is clearly ruled out by L16/L73F1. {But in no case, ever, whether the bid was rational or irrational, likely to work or likely to fail, would I accept "well, he bid it so by definition it was the bid suggested by the UI" as a reasonable argument, although I would accept "well, he bid it so it must be an alternative for the purposes of L16".} > Mike Dennis -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 09:49:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:49:32 +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 JAA05103 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:49:26 +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 <19990204224919.RTRU6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 14:49:19 -0800 Message-ID: <36BA24D4.2E4C9A1@home.com> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 14:53:08 -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: Unauthorised misinformation References: <000201be4f62$d9ac7560$bb8d93c3@pacific> <199902040243520870.08D7A5EE@mail.btinternet.com> <199902041330390540.002C8B21@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > South's pass was not "please clarify"; it was "I don't think we'll > make 5S, I'm not sure we'll beat 5H, so let's get the hell out of > here". And that is exactly what I was trying to point out and why I objected to the description of pass by someone as "please clarify", which at least to me sounds more like the description of a *forcing* pass. A *non* forcing pass is "telling", rather than "asking", imo. That aside, I am surprised that DB feels that 3D on the other thread is "automatic" and that those who don't agree suffer a complete lack of bridge-judgement. Others have called the bid "terrible". I think both those positions are too extreme (though I'm personally closer to the latter) and that reasonable experts can argue either way. I find it unneccessary, unworthy, and somewhat offensive when David accuses every BLML member who doesn't agree with him on one particular hand to completely lack bridge-judgement. Positions vary from hand to hand, and someone who agrees with DB on one hand might have disagreed on the 3D hand (I frequently agree with DB's positions in LA and other judgement situations). I guess in such cases that person just got lucky that time?! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 10:20:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:20:47 +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 KAA05193 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:20:41 +1100 Received: from modem41.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.41] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 108Y4X-0006xF-00; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:20:34 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Bridgelaws" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:17:15 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee But Facts are chiels that winna ding An downa be disputed - Robt. Burns ====================================== ---------- > From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu > To: Bridgelaws > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 04 February 1999 20:42 > > > At 02:49 PM 2/2/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >Without taking a position on the matter yet, I think Grant has hit the > > >nail on it's head as it concerns nailing down (no pun intended) what the > > >argument is all about. Does the phrase mean, or was it intended to mean, > > >that a disallowed action must have been made *absolutely* better than > > >the LA by the UI, or is it sufficient that it was made *relatively* > > >better than without the UI? ++++ The word that I found difficult in this note and others is "better". I am not sure what that would mean. The Law says "suggested over another" and I think this has to do with the effect the UI has on the level of attraction the call has for the player *for whatever reason*. I am a hard-line reader: if one call is deemed to be made a hair's breadth more attractive than another by the UI then I see nothing in the Law to qualify the truth that A is suggested over B, and if B is a "logical alternative" the player cannot have A. It matters nothing what other considerations arise (always provided B is a logical alternative.) ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 10:20:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:20:46 +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 KAA05192 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:20:39 +1100 Received: from modem41.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.41] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 108Y4W-0006xF-00; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:20:32 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:15:29 -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 But Facts are chiels that winna ding An downa be disputed - Robt. Burns ================================== ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 04 February 1999 02:54 > > David Burn wrote: > >I may (frame this, DWS) be wrong. > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >I am puzzled because I did not think this position would > >be challenged. > > David Stevenson wrote: > >There is a perfectly good UI law > > > I think the inmates may be taking over the asylum. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ++ "A great point was to set each lunatic to guard the actions of all the others." - Edgar Allan Poe ++ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 11:19:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:19:04 +1100 Received: from smtp10.nwnexus.com (smtp10.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05317 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:18:55 +1100 Received: from coho.halcyon.com (bbo@coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by smtp10.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA16924; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:18:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:18:43 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Linda Trent cc: Bridge Laws discussion group Subject: Re: LA's after a bad bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 1 Jan 1990, Linda Trent wrote: > At 12:33 AM 2/2/99 -0800, you wrote: [...] Couldn't help noticing that Linda apparently has a Y-1.999-K Bug! :) rbo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 11:31:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:31:27 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05354 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:31:21 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1) id 108ZAw-0001oF-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:31:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:30:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Illegal multi In-Reply-To: <199902041830.KAA20642@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199902041830.KAA20642@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> In the uk, use of an unlicenced convention (which in effect is >what you >> have deemed has happened) fetches 60/40, and 60/30 if they've >been >> warned not to use it. White Book 90.6.2. > >So, if you use an unlicensed convention, get a zero, then realize >you have used an unlicensed convention, you call the TD. He/she >gives you 40% and the other side 60%? This is one situation in >which a "mixed adjustment" might be justifiable: 40% or actual >score, whichever is less, and 60% or actual score, whichever is >better. Sorry, shorthand for at least 60% and at most 40% or the result at the table if more in favour of the non-offenders. Thus in the 60/30 case, if the NOs score 65% they get the result on the board, and the OS get 30% etc Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ we've got 101 |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. points |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) more than|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\you know who|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 12:06:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:06:32 +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 MAA05420 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:06:26 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA02460 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:06:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902050106.RAA02460@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Illegal multi Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:05:15 -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 ---------- > From: David Martin > To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' > Subject: FW: Illegal multi > Date: Thursday, February 04, 1999 10:41 AM > > Marvin wrote: > > > > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > > > In the uk, use of an unlicenced convention (which in effect is > > what you > > > have deemed has happened) fetches 60/40, and 60/30 if they've > > been > > > warned not to use it. White Book 90.6.2. > > > > So, if you use an unlicensed convention, get a zero, then realize > > you have used an unlicensed convention, you call the TD. He/she > > gives you 40% and the other side 60%? This is one situation in > > which a "mixed adjustment" might be justifiable: 40% or actual > > score, whichever is less, and 60% or actual score, whichever is > > better. > > > > ######### John did not include a full statement of the regulation > > which in fact states that the offending side gets the worse of their > > score on the board or 40% ######## I saw that, but what about the NOs? Why don't they get 60% or their score, whichever is better? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 12:28:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:28:57 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA05456 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:28:52 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 108a4Z-0003p3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 01:28:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 01:09:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Illegal multi References: <199902041830.KAA20642@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199902041830.KAA20642@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: >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> In the uk, use of an unlicenced convention (which in effect is >what you >> have deemed has happened) fetches 60/40, and 60/30 if they've >been >> warned not to use it. White Book 90.6.2. > >So, if you use an unlicensed convention, get a zero, then realize >you have used an unlicensed convention, you call the TD. He/she >gives you 40% and the other side 60%? This is one situation in >which a "mixed adjustment" might be justifiable: 40% or actual >score, whichever is less, and 60% or actual score, whichever is >better. John was a little casual. We give A+/A- *unless* the NOs have done better than A+, in which case we do not adjust. If they have been warned not to use it there is no automatic PP, but I agree a PP would be normal. When John says 60/30, he means A+/A- and a PP of 10% of a top. -- 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 Feb 5 12:41:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:41:13 +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 MAA05487 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:41:07 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA06808 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:41:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902050141.RAA06808@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Illegal multi Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:40:05 -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 ---------- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Illegal multi > Date: Thursday, February 04, 1999 4:30 PM > > In article <199902041830.KAA20642@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. > French" writes > >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > >> In the uk, use of an unlicenced convention (which in effect is > >what you > >> have deemed has happened) fetches 60/40, and 60/30 if they've > >been > >> warned not to use it. White Book 90.6.2. > > > >So, if you use an unlicensed convention, get a zero, then realize > >you have used an unlicensed convention, you call the TD. He/she > >gives you 40% and the other side 60%? This is one situation in > >which a "mixed adjustment" might be justifiable: 40% or actual > >score, whichever is less, and 60% or actual score, whichever is > >better. > > Sorry, shorthand for at least 60% and at most 40% or the result at the > table if more in favour of the non-offenders. Thus in the 60/30 case, if > the NOs score 65% they get the result on the board, and the OS get 30% > etc > My apologies, I should have assumed that. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 18:56:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA05929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:56:32 +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 SAA05924 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:56:25 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA08153 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 07:55:35 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 5 Feb 99 07:55 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: Grattan wrote: > ++++ The word that I found difficult in this note and others is > "better". > I am not sure what that would mean. The Law says "suggested over > another" and I think this has to do with the effect the UI has on the > level of attraction the call has for the player *for whatever reason*. > I am a hard-line reader: if one call is deemed to be made a > hair's breadth more attractive than another by the UI then I see ^^^^^^ > nothing in the Law to qualify the truth that A is suggested over B, and > if B is a "logical alternative" the player cannot have A. It > matters nothing what other considerations arise (always provided B is a > logical alternative.) > Given your choice of the word "than" rather than "relative to" I doubt anyone here would argue with the "hard-line" interpretation. If I have three choices of bid each of which will work best opposite 1/3 of possible hands and I get UI which says A will work opposite 33.667, B 33.333, C 33% of then the ethical player will choose C every time. If I am in a situation where two choices will work opposite 60%/40% of hands and UI tells me that this is now 90%/10% I will still bid A and believe I am acting ethically. I don't really care if B is excluded because it is not an LA or because it is semantically impossible for the UI to suggest A is better than B when it is already an established fact that A is better than B. I believe there are people out there who feel that because A has been made more attractive "relative" to B then A is no longer allowed. I sincerely doubt that I will ever convince, or be convinced by, these people that our respective interpretations of the current law are wrong. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 22:28:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 22:28:52 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA06304 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 22:28:45 +1100 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 108jR6-00050e-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:28:37 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <1KX193B8>; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:49:36 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Illegal multi Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:49:34 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > > > So, if you use an unlicensed convention, get a zero, then > realize > > > you have used an unlicensed convention, you call the TD. He/she > > > gives you 40% and the other side 60%? This is one situation in > > > which a "mixed adjustment" might be justifiable: 40% or actual > > > score, whichever is less, and 60% or actual score, whichever is > > > better. > > > > > > #####OLD#### John did not include a full statement of the > regulation > > > which in fact states that the offending side gets the worse of > their > > > score on the board or 40% ####OLD#### > > I saw that, but what about the NOs? Why don't they get 60% or their > score, whichever is better? > > > ####### They do, ie. they get the best of 60% or their session score > or their score on the board. ######## From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 5 23:47:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 23:47:33 +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 XAA06506 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 23:47:22 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-115.uunet.be [194.7.9.115]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00202 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:47:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36B9C0E8.369B7C8E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 16:46:48 +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: L73C vs L16A References: <3.0.1.32.19990203090345.006ea898@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990203090345.006ea898@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990204094139.006ec7fc@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (quite off topic now, but in response to) Eric Landau wrote: > > > Moreover, to be fair to Herman, I don't think he has taken the position > that a claimant may depart from his statement "as soon as it [becomes] > clear to outside observers that it would not work", but rather "as soon as > it becomes clear to outside observers that it would most likely become > clear to the claimant that it would not work". > I couldn't have said it better myself, and absolutely true. To illustrate, in a case that Richard asked me about privately, a declarer claimed all tricks, saying 5 spades, 2 hearts, 2 diamonds and 3 clubs (that's only 12 to you and me). Although there was a possibility for 4 club tricks, several normal lines would throw this 13th. The difference between this and some other strange claims is that it is "clear to outside observers" that it will be "clear to claimant" only after some 9 tricks will have been played. In the famous "strange claim" it was "clear to outside observers" that it would be "clear to claiment" that there was something wrong even before embarking on actual play. Is that clear (to all, claiments and externals and blmlers alike) ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 03:32:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 03:32:36 +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 DAA09790 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 03:32:26 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-118.uunet.be [194.7.9.118]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA15845 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 17:32:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36BAF1CE.70C74000@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 14:27:42 +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: Illegal multi References: <36B963FB.327BE4E7@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > I shall say it one more time. > > Jeremy has asked a question that is clearly covered by the regulations > that apply to his club. > > Therefore those regulations apply. > > Being rude at the expense of our regulations will not change this and > does not seem necessary. > > I am sick and tired of people being rude at the expense of a single > English regulation often taken out of context. Are you so sure our > regulations are wrong? > > I would be happy as I have indicated before to discuss English > regulations, and defend them where necessary. > As this was added to some comments of mine, I feel targeted. I hope I was not being rude against English regulations. I certainly have no problems with them - and my comments were meant to be complimentary even. if a SO goes as far as this to describe methods that are or aren't licensed, then that regulation MUST be carried out in full. That is why I suggested the redoubled slam with overtrick. So please David, don't read into my posts what I certainly did not mean. In fact, some of us could do with completer regulations. Yesterday evening (IMP pairs), my partner held QJT9872 98 95 73, and he opened first hand with a 2Di Multi (not disallowed in Belgium). When my left hand opponent played 3NT, he took the first spade trick, since he knew he could not stop them twice. When I turned up with just two of them, he was 3 off. Someone else opened that hand 1Sp. I had no choice but to rule "psych" (I don't believe the rule of 18 covers this) and did not rule for the opponent who could not read the cards and went off in 4He. The AC brought that one (strangely) back to 4He doubled on some "proof" by coincidence that partner had not doubled - so he must have had UI as to the extreme weakness of the opening. That is why I like the English regulations. They go very far in describing what is allowed and what isn't. But then these regulations must also be enforced vigourously ! I take no offence in your words David, knowing that it must have been some misunderstanding (or bad writing of mine). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 03:32:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 03:32:38 +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 DAA09798 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 03:32:31 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-118.uunet.be [194.7.9.118]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA15849 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 17:32:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36BAF397.7042AB52@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 14:35:19 +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: L73C vs L16A References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > > If I am in a situation where two choices will work opposite 60%/40% of > hands and UI tells me that this is now 90%/10% I will still bid A and > believe I am acting ethically. I don't really care if B is excluded > because it is not an LA or because it is semantically impossible for the > UI to suggest A is better than B when it is already an established fact > that A is better than B. I believe there are people out there who feel > that because A has been made more attractive "relative" to B then A is no > longer allowed. > Tim, you are among those guilty of mixing percentages. What you are saying is that some action is 60% wrong, over some other. That means that you have established that the one action will work 60% of the time, the other 40%. That might be the case in some decisions of finesses or such, but usually a calculation like that yields options that do not add to 100%. One might calculate that playing for the finesse works 50% of the time, and the drop 57%, and so the drop is the better option. When in bidding situations we use figures like 60%/40%, that means that we estimate that 40% of all players will chose action B. That makes B certainly a logical alternative, and says nothing about the certainty of action A for this player. When after UI this becomes 90%/10%, that means that now almost all players would chose A, so this is clearly a case where A is suggested by UI. Since B was a LA to begin with, it is clearly wrong in this situation to bid anything but A, stating "I was always going to bid A in the first place, since it is a 60/40 option". So please don't use arguments like this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 04:13:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 04:13:40 +1100 Received: from farida (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA10793 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 04:13:32 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 108ooa-0007kw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:13:12 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990205181322.00b2c410@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 18:13:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Illegal multi In-Reply-To: References: <199902041830.KAA20642@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <199902041830.KAA20642@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:09 05-02-99 +0000, you wrote: >Marvin L. French wrote: >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>> In the uk, use of an unlicenced convention (which in effect is >>what you >>> have deemed has happened) fetches 60/40, and 60/30 if they've >>been >>> warned not to use it. White Book 90.6.2. >> >>So, if you use an unlicensed convention, get a zero, then realize >>you have used an unlicensed convention, you call the TD. He/she >>gives you 40% and the other side 60%? This is one situation in >>which a "mixed adjustment" might be justifiable: 40% or actual >>score, whichever is less, and 60% or actual score, whichever is >>better. > > John was a little casual. We give A+/A- *unless* the NOs have done >better than A+, in which case we do not adjust. > > If they have been warned not to use it there is no automatic PP, but I >agree a PP would be normal. When John says 60/30, he means A+/A- and a >PP of 10% of a top. > In holland they get a 3VP penalty for using unlicenced conventrions (for instance red sticker conventions) And the match has to be played again too. We have the rule here that people below 2nd division (district copmpetitions) arent allowed to use red or brown systems. Above this level it only is allowed if the convention is reported at least a month before start of the competition (CC-s are then sent to all participants) It is a good deterrent against unlawful use i think. 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 Sat Feb 6 04:48:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 04:48:49 +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 EAA12526 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 04:48:32 +1100 Received: from tntrasp22-148.abo.wanadoo.fr [164.138.34.148] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:45:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <36BB2EBD.7169@wanadoo.fr> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 18:47:41 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: axeman CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: hasty claim References: <3.0.5.32.19990203174729.007a47e0@phedre.meteo.fr> <36B8B6DE.215B73C3@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: > > If no call has been made during the same round [specifically] to the > next board it is in time to withdraw a concession for valid reasons per > 79C. Those reasons are [a] conceded trick[s] were actually won tricks > and/or [b] conceded tricks would actually be won by every normal line of > play. On this hand, the requirement was not met so the TD can not > cancel the concession of tricks. > > Had the claim been contested in time under L70, of course, the pesky H9 > could be forced to take the trick and declarer would be entitled to two > more tricks. > > In fact, I once sat in the south chair and duly called the director to > adjudicate. He did not permit a cancellation. As I hold in reverence > the beauty of the game, I know now that if I am quick witted enough, and > having realized that I had gone to all that trouble to not win a heart > trick so that partner could win the last two, that I could not expect > partner to duck the third heart. Hence, from a moral perspective, my > claim had not been valid at all. So, I would hurry up and agree that W > was right and change the score and attempt to prevent a TD and my > partner from finding out my nefarious deed. Next hand. > > Roger Pewick > > Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > > Again a problem of contested claim, but different enough from the previous > > one, I hope, not to resuscitate last weeks discussions. This one occured in > > a French Pairs competition and was heard by all successive appeal authorities. > > > > Dealer: East > > Vuln: All > > KJ83 - - 2NT - > > J1092 3NT - - - > > 852 > > K5 > > AQ65 1072 > > AQ74 53 > > KQ4 AJ96 > > A3 10962 > > 94 > > K86 > > 1073 > > QJ874 > > > > 2NT= 20-21 HCP (5-card major not denied) > > Play processes along these lines: > > > > HJ, 3, 6, Q (J denies higher-ranking card) > > S6, 3, 10, 9 > > C2, 4, 3, 5 > > H10, 5, K, A > > DK, 2, 6, 3 > > DQ, 5, 9, 7 > > D4, 8, J, 10 > > DA, S4, H4, CK > > CA, S8, C6, C7 > > H7 and South spreads her hand and claims, requesting the (4) remaining tricks. > > > > The score (100 NS) is entered on the travelling sheet. > > During bidding time of next deal (same table, same round, same opponents), > > West has a doubt, requires to reexamine the previous deal and contests the > > claim (due to North's H9). > > If necessary to evaluate skill level of North's peers, it can be said he is > > roughly ranked 40th French player. > > > > How would you rule? > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > ________________________________________________________________Contrary to what JP Rocaforf told, this case has not yet heard by all successive French appeals or authorithies Committees. The French National Appeals Committee (our highest instance) will be met next friday.This appeal will be judged during this meeting. Ph. Lormant From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 04:59:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 04:59:07 +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 EAA12817 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 04:58:50 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA15463 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:55:49 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199902051755.LAA15463@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:55:49 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Tim West-meads wrote: Perhaps I should let Tim answer for himself, but I have been accused on this 'mistake' in the past, too. Apologies in advance for being touchy. :) > > If I am in a situation where two choices will work opposite 60%/40% of > > hands and UI tells me that this is now 90%/10% I will still bid A and > > believe I am acting ethically. I don't really care if B is excluded > > because it is not an LA or because it is semantically impossible for the > > UI to suggest A is better than B when it is already an established fact > > that A is better than B. I believe there are people out there who feel > > that because A has been made more attractive "relative" to B then A is no > > longer allowed. > > > > Tim, you are among those guilty of mixing percentages. No, he isn't. He's just guilty of using percentages differently from most people on this List. He explicitly said 'will work opposite 60%/40% of hands.' This seems to be like a perfectly reasonable distinction. I open 1NT, partner transfers me to spades and then bids 3NT, giving me my choice of games. I have three spades. I may very well imagine hands for partner and think "If partner has XYZ, then 3NT is the right spot, but if he has ABC we want to be in 4S". > What you are saying is that some action is 60% wrong, over > some other. That means that you have established that the > one action will work 60% of the time, the other 40%. That Yes. > might be the case in some decisions of finesses or such, but > usually a calculation like that yields options that do not > add to 100%. One might calculate that playing for the > finesse works 50% of the time, and the drop 57%, and so the > drop is the better option. In my above example, I may very well judge "4S will work best opposite 60% of the possible hands partner could hold, and 3NT will work best opposite the other 40". In the infamous 6NT case, I proposed a hypothetical division whereby 6NT was the best bid on 1% of hands, 3NT on 89%, and Pass[1NT] on 10%. I certainly did not mean that 1% of players would bid 6NT and 10% would pass. :) > When in bidding situations we use figures like 60%/40%, that > means that we estimate that 40% of all players will chose > action B. That makes B certainly a logical alternative, and > says nothing about the certainty of action A for this > player. Which is fine, but that isn't what he's talking about right now. Ordinarily in bidding situations people on this List use 60/40 to talk about percentages of peers, but surely there are cases [as we have just seen] where the other sort of percentages are relevant, too. Clearly, one should be careful to state which they are doing. > When after UI this becomes 90%/10%, that means that now > almost all players would chose A, so this is clearly a case > where A is suggested by UI. Since B was a LA to begin with, > it is clearly wrong in this situation to bid anything but A, > stating "I was always going to bid A in the first place, > since it is a 60/40 option". > > So please don't use arguments like this. Arguments like what? Tim is saying that if he knew that an option was going to be right 60% of the time [regardless of how many of his peers would have bid it], and now he sees through UI that it will be right 90% of the time, he doesn't think he is legally obligated to make an inferior bid. I make no claims about whether his legal theory is correct, but he isn't guilty of mixing anything up at all. I suspect that if a two bids are 60/40 likely to be right that the '40' bid is a LA in most jurisdictions, since some decent percentage of one's peers [perhaps 40%, perhaps more or less] would bid it. > Herman DE WAEL All that without having to liken your theories to the use of fusion weapons, Herman. :) -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 05:37:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 05:37:12 +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 FAA15636 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 05:36:54 +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 NAA26872 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:36:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id NAA09606 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:36:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:36:56 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902051836.NAA09606@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: Jan Kamras > Without UI, action A is 20% and B is 80%. > With UI, A becomes 40% and B 60%. > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > If I am in a situation where two choices will work opposite 60%/40% of > hands and UI tells me that this is now 90%/10%... There seems to be a semantic gap here. "A is a 60% action..." may mean two entirely different things. Jan is, I think, using it in the "poll" sense: the fraction of equivalent players who would choose each action. Tim is using it in a "personal evaluation" sense: the fraction of hands on which he believes the action will work. I believe L16 demands that we evaluate LA's in the poll sense. If _everyone_ agrees with Tim's evaluation that A works 60% of the time and B only 40%, then 100% of the players will choose A, and B isn't a LA (probably even in the ACBL). In practice, it will be rare for everyone to agree on the best action -- giving a correct answer to Blackwood might qualify :-) -- but if we ever have a case where everyone agrees that only one action is correct absent UI, I submit we won't have any problem finding the right ruling when there is UI. Anyway, let's please all be careful when using "x% action" to make clear which sense we mean. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 05:45:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA16324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 05:45:09 +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 FAA16298 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 05:44:50 +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 NAA06045 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:44:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:44:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902051844.NAA13854@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199902051755.LAA15463@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> (cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu) Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk cfgcs writes: > Herman De Wael weites: >> Tim, you are among those guilty of mixing percentages. >> What you are saying is that some action is 60% wrong, over >> some other. That means that you have established that the >> one action will work 60% of the time, the other 40%. That > Yes. >> might be the case in some decisions of finesses or such, but >> usually a calculation like that yields options that do not >> add to 100%. One might calculate that playing for the >> finesse works 50% of the time, and the drop 57%, and so the >> drop is the better option. > In my above example, I may very well judge "4S will work best > opposite 60% of the possible hands partner could hold, and 3NT will work > best opposite the other 40". In the infamous 6NT case, I proposed a > hypothetical division whereby 6NT was the best bid on 1% of hands, 3NT on > 89%, and Pass[1NT] on 10%. I certainly did not mean that 1% of players > would bid 6NT and 10% would pass. :) Here's a realistic example. At IMPs, we have had a long slam auction, and partner has shown that we are missing the king of trumps but that we have plenty of tricks. Based on AI alone, a grand slam is 50-50. I also have UI that partner misunderstood one of my bids, and thus that the probability of making the grand slam is actually only 25%. The UI demonstrably suggests stopping in a small slam. However, knowing that the king of trumps is missing (which I know to be AI), all players will stop in a small slam; 50% grand slams should not be bid at IMPs, so the grand is not a LA. Thus I can ethically bid the small slam. -- 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 Feb 6 06:05:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 06:05:50 +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 GAA17963 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 06:05:31 +1100 Received: from modem22.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.150] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 108qYz-0006a3-00; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 19:05:13 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "axeman" , "reply BLML" Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:04:20 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee But Facts are chiels that winna ding An downa be disputed - Robt. Burns ====================================== > From: axeman > To: reply BLML > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 03 February 1999 21:38 > > Grattan, > > Say during an auction your system suggests two bids [a] and [b]. Based > on AI [a] is superior. If there is UI that the AI may not be valid, > what is the action to be taken? In other words, does the player > subject himself to adjustment if he takes the superior [a]? +++ The devil UI sitting on his shoulder is whispering "Hey, don't be stupid, the Saint AI may be saying do (a) but he has got his knickers twisted and (b) is more likely than he says" ? Well, if you listen to UI you will be attracted towards (b) - UI is suggesting (b) over (a). So what is the problem I am not seeing? He cannot use the UI info that the AI may be invalid +++ +++ I blotted out the long text that continued here. It was full of pretty obscure stuff. Why do people want to quote yards of percentages? The raw question for the Director is what logical action is least attractive to the player in the light of the UI? The fantasy hand that has occupied so much disk space lately is out in left field. What does every sane player do with a 6-count opposite a One No Trump opener? They decide whether to leave it in 1NT or go for a part score in a colour. Not only do they not think of 3NT or 6NT, they do not plan to manoeuvre into even 2NT although occasionally they get there by accident. So our hero should be doing exactly what he would be doing in response to 1NT, and not hearing the advice whispered in his left ear. +++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 06:54:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 06:54:35 +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 GAA21707 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 06:54:20 +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 <19990205195406.CZFG6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:54:06 -0800 Message-ID: <36BB4D43.C54CBEEB@home.com> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 11:57:55 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <36BAF397.7042AB52@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > When in bidding situations we use figures like 60%/40%, that > means that we estimate that 40% of all players will chose > action B. Not per force. It could also mean that the AC estimates the chances of success to be 60/40, even though more than 60% of the players would actually take the "better" action (correctly so, since one has to chose one call only after all). > That makes B certainly a logical alternative, and > says nothing about the certainty of action A for this > player. > When after UI this becomes 90%/10%, that means that now > almost all players would chose A, so this is clearly a case > where A is suggested by UI. This is where the main disagreement lies. At 60/40, or 70/30, in favour of A even absent UI, A was "suggested over B" even before the UI, i.e. it was *not* the UI that suggested A over B! Thus Tim's remark about GE's use of the word "than" rather than "relative to" is totally relevant to the discussion. Put differently, for an action to be prohibited, does the UI have to tip the scale in it's favour (TG's position), or is it enough that it has become "slightly less bad" (GE's position)? A strict reading of the law seems to support the former, so I beleive a change is neccessary if the latter is what is intended/desired. I could live with either, as long as I know all TD/ACs apply the same standard. (Actually, the definitions of LA become quite important to this discussion. If everyone actually choses A in a 70/30 situation, then by some definitions in use B is not even an LA. Thus it is conceivable - though not preferable - to vary between the TG and GE position depending on the LA definition in use in that SO). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 07:05:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 07:05:23 +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 HAA22137 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 07:05:16 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA09108; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:05:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902052005.MAA09108@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:02:38 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: (snip) > > I believe L16 demands that we evaluate LA's in the poll sense. But the poll should be of players who are not only equivalent in experience, but who also regularly play in the same manner (or are intimately familiar with that manner) a treatment or convention that is involved in the case. If you poll current players about action to be taken when partner doubles an overcall for penalty, it isn't fair to include players who do not play penalty doubles or are unfamiliar with them, or those who do play penalty doubles but in a way that is unusual (e.g., a double is a command rather than a suggestion). I would extend this to AC members, who should not serve on an AC if they unfamiliar with the methods used by those appearing before them, when those methods are an issue. If they do serve, let them not characterize explanations of participants as "self-serving." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 07:22:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 07:22:15 +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 HAA23041 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 07:22:10 +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 <19990205202204.DHEH6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:22:04 -0800 Message-ID: <36BB53D1.583ECF13@home.com> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 12:25:53 -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: hasty claim References: <9902030940.aa27724@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > However, I cannot > convince myself that failure to do all of this qualifies as > "irrational", even for a Top 40 player. > > So I rule that North will play the H9, and since he's a Top 40 player, > I'll assume he can count to 13 and cash the other good heart before > giving up the spades. Two tricks to each side, E-W +630. Agree, and in a sense this has become a UI-like situation. South's premature claim made it 110% impossible for North to go wrong, and frankly it should be investigated why South couldn't wait another 2 seconds to claim :-(( (I can say this since the risk of being sued is so much smaller in France!) If nothing else, ruling against South here might give him/her a useful lesson for the future! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 08:07:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 08:07:14 +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 IAA23161 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 08:06:53 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA21002; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 15:05:42 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-18.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.82) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020973; Fri Feb 5 15:05:11 1999 Received: by har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE5121.4018F2A0@har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:04:46 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE5121.4018F2A0@har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'David Grabiner'" Subject: RE: L73C vs L16A Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:01:38 -0500 Encoding: 58 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ouch! Isn't this opening a can of worms? What if the other team is seeded and you are playibg up? What if this is the 4th quarter and you were down 20 going into it? Now must you bid the grand when behind or the inferior team but be able to eschew it despite the UI if ahead or the favoured team? The odds of stopping have demonstrably improved due to the UI. Is bidding the grand, a 50% action, really not an LA? At least by ACBL standards? Craig ---------- From: David Grabiner[SMTP:grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu] Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 8:44 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A cfgcs writes: > Herman De Wael weites: >> Tim, you are among those guilty of mixing percentages. >> What you are saying is that some action is 60% wrong, over >> some other. That means that you have established that the >> one action will work 60% of the time, the other 40%. That > Yes. >> might be the case in some decisions of finesses or such, but >> usually a calculation like that yields options that do not >> add to 100%. One might calculate that playing for the >> finesse works 50% of the time, and the drop 57%, and so the >> drop is the better option. > In my above example, I may very well judge "4S will work best > opposite 60% of the possible hands partner could hold, and 3NT will work > best opposite the other 40". In the infamous 6NT case, I proposed a > hypothetical division whereby 6NT was the best bid on 1% of hands, 3NT on > 89%, and Pass[1NT] on 10%. I certainly did not mean that 1% of players > would bid 6NT and 10% would pass. :) Here's a realistic example. At IMPs, we have had a long slam auction, and partner has shown that we are missing the king of trumps but that we have plenty of tricks. Based on AI alone, a grand slam is 50-50. I also have UI that partner misunderstood one of my bids, and thus that the probability of making the grand slam is actually only 25%. The UI demonstrably suggests stopping in a small slam. However, knowing that the king of trumps is missing (which I know to be AI), all players will stop in a small slam; 50% grand slams should not be bid at IMPs, so the grand is not a LA. Thus I can ethically bid the small slam. -- 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 Feb 6 08:30:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 08:30:47 +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 IAA23220 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 08:30:41 +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 QAA08133 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:30:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id QAA09811 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:30:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:30:49 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902052130.QAA09811@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: Craig Senior > Ouch! Isn't this opening a can of worms? What if... Why do you want to make things complicated? Just go back and ask the poll question. Given the state of the match (and the methods in use and the abilities of the players and the auction and play so far and all the other AI, as Marv reminds us), what fraction of _equivalent_ players would take the "not suggested" option? If it's bigger than the fraction considered a LA in your jurisdiction (some unclear but small number in the ACBL, 30% in the EBU, 10% to 25% in most other jurisdictions), you have one of the elements needed for adjustment. ("Existence of UI," "damage," and "suggested over another" are the others.) At least this should be the approach in an ordinary L16 case. Making the necessary bridge judgments may be difficult, but I see no reason the underlying legal principles need to be. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 08:41:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 08:41:05 +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 IAA23239 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 08:40:59 +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 QAA08240 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:40:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id QAA09830 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:41:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:41:07 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902052141.QAA09830@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: Eric Landau > Dealer opens 2D, and then adds "Guess what, partner? I remembered our > methods this time!"... Oh, Eric, I thought you were a participant in one of our interminable threads on this topic. Am I misremembering? The problem is when dealer's partner correctly alerts and, when asked, explains "Flannery," and both convention cards are so marked, but dealer does not in fact have a Flannery hand. BLML has discussed at length the position under current laws, and I for one don't find it very satisfactory. A radical alternative, which I believe does require a change in the laws, would be to declare partner's _correct_ alert and explanation AI. Then dealer could try to recover from his misbid or psyche as best he is able. There are, no doubt, less radical alternatives. I hope the WBFLC will consider the matter at its convenience. If responder's explanation is incorrect, or if the evidence is insufficient to establish that it is correct, I have no problem at all deeming the alert or explanation UI. It's the correct explanations that don't match the hand that cause the problem. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 08:57:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 08:57:17 +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 IAA23278 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 08:57:07 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.125]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA16815; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 23:56:28 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36BB6927.BE61BED4@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 23:56:55 +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: Defective Claim References: <3.0.1.32.19990127081547.006f7064@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Two events pushed me to reply to this thread so late : 1. We had an appeal here yesterday - the AC wanted to decide they are not able to establish the facts ; the best player , member of that AC resigned because he was astonished about his colleagues' actions.... It is the Appeal Committee's task to establish evidence when the TD has no time to do it , TD's highest priority being running the tournament .... 2. I told it to one of my youngest cats Pushpush - he is sick since he heard that full story , and reading this one afterwards... And to the point - I think the club where this case happened will vanish in a short while , according to BJJ's principle : "Clubs where TDs don't act according to Dany's Law 0 vanish." Enjoy the real game Tony. Dany Eric Landau wrote: > > 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 Sat Feb 6 09:11:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 09:11:09 +1100 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA23306 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 09:10:55 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.125]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA21528 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 00:10:47 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36BB6C84.720ADCBF@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 00:11:16 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help References: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you all for your help. And special thanks to TON KOIJMAN who was the chief TD of the IIF; we all were lucky and happy that his skills to deal with the difficulties helped running this festival . I mean his skills first as a personality dealing with people (hmmmm ...personally I am happy he always act according to my law 0..)and as a model of using laws TD. Dany Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: > > The bidding : > N.......E.........S.........W...... > 1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) > all pass > (1) a small hesitation > (2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation > before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just > want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. > > The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his > unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: > > Axx > Qx > AJ > AKJxxx > > QUESTION 1 : > Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . > > QUESTION 2 : > What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which > Law ??? > > Please your answers and comments as soon as possible > > Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 10:01:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:01:54 +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 KAA23383 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:01:47 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-33.max-1.hou.smartworld.net [12.14.108.81]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA44689792 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:05:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36BB7863.29809029@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 17:01:55 -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: <01BE5121.4018F2A0@har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx2.freewwweb.com id SAA44689792 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It looks like the case for taking the best action that system, AI, and the cards suggest is getting stronger. And perhaps factors such as state of the match, disparity of skill and the like, may be considered when justifying the chosen action when there are multiple 'best possible actions'- but seem to be a bit self serving even though they do seem to be the best way to 'break a tie'. [And if there are more than one best choices, where UI does not point to one but does point to the other=85.] However, fwiw I have seen more events in desperate circumstances won by trying to play as well as possible than by trying to create swings. And conversely, I have seen tenuous events exacerbated beyond hopelessness by swinging. So, for the point of justifying 'anti percentage actions', I see less merit in it than most since my partners have lost more than 40 championships in the last round by swinging yet have never gained a championship by swinging. Middle of the road looks to be a pretty good way to go. Roger Pewick Craig Senior wrote: >=20 > Ouch! Isn't this opening a can of worms? What if the other team is seed= ed > and you are playibg up? What if this is the 4th quarter and you were do= wn > 20 going into it? Now must you bid the grand when behind or the inferio= r > team but be able to eschew it despite the UI if ahead or the favoured t= eam? > The odds of stopping have demonstrably improved due to the UI. Is biddi= ng > the grand, a 50% action, really not an LA? At least by ACBL standards? >=20 > Craig >=20 > ---------- > From: David Grabiner[SMTP:grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu] > Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 8:44 AM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A >=20 > cfgcs writes: >=20 > > Herman De Wael weites: >=20 > >> Tim, you are among those guilty of mixing percentages. >=20 > >> What you are saying is that some action is 60% wrong, over > >> some other. That means that you have established that the > >> one action will work 60% of the time, the other 40%. That >=20 > > Yes. >=20 > >> might be the case in some decisions of finesses or such, but > >> usually a calculation like that yields options that do not > >> add to 100%. One might calculate that playing for the > >> finesse works 50% of the time, and the drop 57%, and so the > >> drop is the better option. >=20 > > In my above example, I may very well judge "4S will work best > > opposite 60% of the possible hands partner could hold, and 3NT will w= ork > > best opposite the other 40". In the infamous 6NT case, I proposed a > > hypothetical division whereby 6NT was the best bid on 1% of hands, 3N= T on > > 89%, and Pass[1NT] on 10%. I certainly did not mean that 1% of playe= rs > > would bid 6NT and 10% would pass. :) >=20 > Here's a realistic example. At IMPs, we have had a long slam auction, > and partner has shown that we are missing the king of trumps but that w= e > have plenty of tricks. Based on AI alone, a grand slam is 50-50. I > also have UI that partner misunderstood one of my bids, and thus that > the probability of making the grand slam is actually only 25%. The UI > demonstrably suggests stopping in a small slam. However, knowing that > the king of trumps is missing (which I know to be AI), all players will > stop in a small slam; 50% grand slams should not be bid at IMPs, so the > grand is not a LA. Thus I can ethically bid the small slam. >=20 > -- > 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 Feb 6 10:37:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:37:19 +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 KAA23457 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:37:13 +1100 Received: from ip144.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.144]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990205233655.IISB23406.fep4@ip144.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 00:36:55 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 00:36:56 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36bb7864.2000546@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:34:44 -0000, "Grattan" wrote: >Add a=20 >proviso that any margin of doubt in the minds of the Director/AC is >to go against the call actually made - doubt, that is, that the UI has = been >wholly excluded in the player's final selection of his action. It seems to me that our current rules are the closest we can get to objective guidelines for what constitutes a valid reason for such doubt. I definitely do not want rules that require the TD to judge the motives of players. Such rules would be quite impossible in practice: any player ruled against would feel accused of cheating, and many TDs would - understandably - adjust very rarely because adjusting would be considered an accusation of cheating (or at least lying). If a player says to me: "I did not notice partner's hesitation at all", and I adjust with the reason that I had some doubt that "the UI has been wholly excluded in the player's final selection of his action", then it is impossible to explain to the player that he is not being accused of lying or worse. It is an extremely important property of the current L16A that the TD can explain to a player that the player's motives are quite irrelevant for the ruling, that he is therefore not being accused of lying or cheating, and that the adjustment follows automatically from the TDs impression that there was UI and that there was a less successful logical alternative over which the action taken was suggested by the UI. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 10:37:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:37:34 +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 KAA23463 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:37:28 +1100 Received: from ip144.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.144]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990205233701.IISI23406.fep4@ip144.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 00:37:01 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 00:37:03 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36bc7c31.2973415@post12.tele.dk> References: <199902052141.QAA09830@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199902052141.QAA09830@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, 5 Feb 1999 16:41:07 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >BLML has discussed at length the position under current laws, and I for >one don't find it very satisfactory. A radical alternative, which I >believe does require a change in the laws, would be to declare >partner's _correct_ alert and explanation AI. Then dealer could try to >recover from his misbid or psyche as best he is able. That would be simpler in many ways. The problem with it is that it means that innocent opponents who ask about the auction risk helping the player who misbid, and that the alert procedure now suddenly becomes an important tool to detect your misbids. I find it important that players can ask about their opponent's methods without helping those opponents sort out their system and get a good score. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 13:23:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:23:25 +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 NAA23777 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:23:03 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 108xOK-0000AE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 03:22:40 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990206032249.00b1b670@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 03:22:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help In-Reply-To: <36BB6C84.720ADCBF@internet-zahav.net> References: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk hi dany, please can you tell us waht the actual decision was of the AC. we are very interested. Were they shot down at dawnor put on an EL-AL flight to holland??? :) regards, anton At 00:11 06-02-99 +0200, you wrote: >Thank you all for your help. > >And special thanks to TON KOIJMAN who was the chief TD of the IIF; >we all were lucky and happy that his skills to deal with the >difficulties helped running this festival . I mean his skills first >as a personality dealing with people (hmmmm ...personally I am happy >he always act according to my law 0..)and as a model of using laws TD. > >Dany > > >Dany Haimovici wrote: >> >> Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: >> >> The bidding : >> N.......E.........S.........W...... >> 1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) >> all pass >> (1) a small hesitation >> (2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation >> before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just >> want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. >> >> The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his >> unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: >> >> Axx >> Qx >> AJ >> AKJxxx >> >> QUESTION 1 : >> Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . >> >> QUESTION 2 : >> What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which >> Law ??? >> >> Please your answers and comments as soon as possible >> >> Dany > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 15:13:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA23964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 15:13:24 +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 PAA23959 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 15:13:18 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 108z7F-0001go-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 04:13:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 00:16:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199902052005.MAA09108@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199902052005.MAA09108@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 would extend this to AC members, who should not serve on an AC if >they unfamiliar with the methods used by those appearing before >them, when those methods are an issue. If they do serve, let them >not characterize explanations of participants as "self-serving." We seems to be having a semantic difficulty over this term "self- serving". If you make a statement that supports your own position it *is* self-serving. That does not mean that such a statement is not admissible as evidence. You cannot say it is not "self-serving" when it is. A good AC or TD will take in all the information available to them, and will also apply their own weighting to the reliability of such evidence. -- 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 Feb 6 19:28:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 19:28:06 +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 TAA24332 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 19:27:59 +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 <19990206082747.KGFO6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 00:27:47 -0800 Message-ID: <36BBFDE8.8140BB57@home.com> Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 00:31:36 -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: L73C vs L16A References: <36BAF397.7042AB52@village.uunet.be> <36BB4D43.C54CBEEB@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For good order's sake, pls substitute "TW" wherever I erroneously used "TG". Sorry. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 6 21:28:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 21:28:47 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA24536 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 21:28:22 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-19.uunet.be [194.7.13.19]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA29896 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 11:28:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36BC151E.9981DC65@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 11:10:38 +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: The Rabbit's foot is back ! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello all, This is just a funny story I want to share with you, my friends. The ruling aspect is very slight (but perhaps read the end ?) so if you can't spare a minute, hit the delete key. My partner used to be called "the rabbit's foot", because he had huge sets of good fortune. Since playing with me, he seems to have lost this (last week we came 350th out of 354 in the fifth friday challenge, with 34.8% !). Yesterday, we managed to win the tournament with a score of 62%. This one contributed a lot : Please tell me what score in NS you would deem sufficient to score the top : deal 23 (S/All) AK7652 KQ8 T4 A9 J QT4 J53 AT4 Q75 AJ93 KQJ542 876 983 9762 K862 T3 It all began with me opening 1Sp. Ooops, out of turn. East did not want to accept and that barred partner. So on the second try, I opened 4Sp, which was doubled by West (to make things interesting, he said). East led the Club 8 and when I saw dummy, I knew I was in trouble. I took the first trick, and played Ace and King of Spades. Oops, another one down. I now played a small diamond and if I tell you you'll never guess what East did next, you surely will guess : Ace of Diamonds, Queen of Spades, Ace of Hearts, small Heart !!! +790. TMTRL (To make this Laws-related) : Do you think that, in appliance to L23, I could have known, at the time of opening 1Sp, that this would likely damage my opponents ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 7 01:24:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 01:24:38 +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 BAA27136 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 01:24:24 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-38.tc-1.hou.smartworld.net [12.14.108.38]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA45944860 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 09:27:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36BC5051.84F562D@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 08:23:13 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The Rabbit's foot is back ! References: <36BC151E.9981DC65@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The worst blasphemy I can permit is 4SX making and I would be highly disappointed that it would not be a top. Much more palatable is a contrived 5CX down 3. The card god ought not look favorably upon EW for neglecting his children so much. My opinion, the 1S opening did not damage EW. It therefore is irrelevant if you could have known they might be damaged by the enforced pass. And, in any circumstance, partner had no reasonable action holding the cards he had except pass. They earned their score because they played poorly. They had 5 tricks for the taking and piddled two away whether or not opener decides to exclude partner from the auction . Roger Pewick Herman De Wael wrote: > > Hello all, > > This is just a funny story I want to share with you, my > friends. The ruling aspect is very slight (but perhaps read > the end ?) so if you can't spare a minute, hit the delete > key. > > My partner used to be called "the rabbit's foot", because he > had huge sets of good fortune. Since playing with me, he > seems to have lost this (last week we came 350th out of 354 > in the fifth friday challenge, with 34.8% !). Yesterday, we > managed to win the tournament with a score of 62%. > > This one contributed a lot : > > Please tell me what score in NS you would deem sufficient to > score the top : > > deal 23 (S/All) > AK7652 > KQ8 > T4 > A9 > J QT4 > J53 AT4 > Q75 AJ93 > KQJ542 876 > 983 > 9762 > K862 > T3 > > It all began with me opening 1Sp. Ooops, out of turn. East > did not want to accept and that barred partner. So on the > second try, I opened 4Sp, which was doubled by West (to make > things interesting, he said). > > East led the Club 8 and when I saw dummy, I knew I was in > trouble. > > I took the first trick, and played Ace and King of Spades. > Oops, another one down. I now played a small diamond and if > I tell you you'll never guess what East did next, you surely > will guess : Ace of Diamonds, Queen of Spades, Ace of > Hearts, small Heart !!! +790. > > TMTRL (To make this Laws-related) : > Do you think that, in appliance to L23, I could have known, > at the time of opening 1Sp, that this would likely damage my > opponents ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 7 03:59:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 03:59:22 +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 DAA27559 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 03:59:05 +1100 Received: from modem104.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.232] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 109B48-0000FB-00; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 16:58:45 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Dave Kent" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Two systems Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 16:57:13 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee But Facts are chiels that winna ding An downa be disputed - Robt. Burns ====================================== ---------- > From: Dave Kent > To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' > Subject: Re: Two systems > Date: 01 February 1999 14:54 > > >>Request for information. > >> J-P Rocafort: > >I see this as only one system, even if built by aggregation of two systems. > >In France, it would not be allowed in pairs competitions, where meanings of > >opening bids cannot vary according to position or vulnerability (except for > >strength of 1NT opening). > > Dave Kent:- > Surely you do not mean this. If I open a weak 2S in 3rd seat NV vs V (this > could be VERY weak - QJxxx x Qxxx xxx would be more than enough), the same > bid in 4th seat V vs NV should be allowed to have a different meaning. Many > preemptive bids have different meanings based on the vulnerability and seat > position. As another example, if you play that an opening bid of 3NT shows > a solid 7 card minor with no outside A or K in 1st or 2nd seat, making the > same bid in 4th seat may not have the same upside (since an opening bid of 3 > of the minor should show something like this). Even opening bids at the one > level in 3rd seat are often much lighter than those in 1st or 2nd seat. > Regulating bidding judgement should not be under the NCBO's jurisdiction > (although the ACBL has done so on occasion - e.g. rule of 5 and 5). > +++ Dear Dave, Understandable as it may be for someone in the Americas to feel surprised, it would be dangerous for you to think JPR does not mean exactly what he says. In Zone 1 we have probably a greater diversity between member nations than the variance between the practices of the zone authorities, ACBL and EBL. All regulation and options within each NBO are delegated to the NBOs and they follow different paths in the extreme, determined for each one by the bridge culture (and maybe the national characteristics) of its people. I do not know the French regulations and I can pass no comment upon the accuracy of JPR's words (we should ask Lormant Philippe for that) but I do counsel you not to jump in with both feet. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 7 08:54:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 08:54:26 +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 IAA27986 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 08:54:06 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.173]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA19460; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:53:44 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36BCBA05.18B72F6A@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 23:54:13 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anton Witzen CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help References: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> <3.0.5.32.19990206032249.00b1b670@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There was no AC . Only a serious admonishment from the IBF captain . As I told , TON was the TD and he handled this the best way in order to run the tournament silent (as possible...).We smiled , because a year ago I told Ton that the table's result will be wrong for the offenders. Most results were 90 or -100 for the NOS. and here there was +100 for the NOS......... If I remember right E-W got also a PP of 1/4 board - i.e. 1% from the final result. My main point (and I bet for that ) was that seeing the hesitator's hand no one will believe that player didn't hesitate ....even if he didn't !!!!!! Well ....... one of our colistiers here (BLML members) told us that in his opinion ....the West's reaction was the best evidence that he used the UI. Anyway , better not to meet such cases. Thank you all again. Dany Anton Witzen wrote: > > hi dany, please can you tell us waht the actual decision was of the AC. > we are very interested. Were they shot down at dawnor put on an EL-AL > flight to holland??? :) > regards, > anton > > At 00:11 06-02-99 +0200, you wrote: > >Thank you all for your help. > > > >And special thanks to TON KOIJMAN who was the chief TD of the IIF; > >we all were lucky and happy that his skills to deal with the > >difficulties helped running this festival . I mean his skills first > >as a personality dealing with people (hmmmm ...personally I am happy > >he always act according to my law 0..)and as a model of using laws TD. > > > >Dany > > > > > >Dany Haimovici wrote: > >> > >> Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: > >> > >> The bidding : > >> N.......E.........S.........W...... > >> 1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) > >> all pass > >> (1) a small hesitation > >> (2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation > >> before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just > >> want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. > >> > >> The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his > >> unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: > >> > >> Axx > >> Qx > >> AJ > >> AKJxxx > >> > >> QUESTION 1 : > >> Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . > >> > >> QUESTION 2 : > >> What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which > >> Law ??? > >> > >> Please your answers and comments as soon as possible > >> > >> Dany > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) > Tel: 020 7763175 > ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 7 11:42:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 11:42:46 +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 LAA28481 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 11:42:35 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA12642; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 16:42:20 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902070042.QAA12642@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 16:41:02 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: - > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >I would extend this to AC members, who should not serve on an AC if > >they unfamiliar with the methods used by those appearing before > >them, when those methods are an issue. If they do serve, let them > >not characterize explanations of participants as "self-serving." > > We seems to be having a semantic difficulty over this term "self- > serving". If you make a statement that supports your own position it > *is* self-serving. That does not mean that such a statement is not > admissible as evidence. You cannot say it is not "self-serving" when it > is. > Perhaps it's just another difference between Englisch und Americanisch. ACBL ACs use the term as a polite euphemism for "probably untrue," as can be inferred from various case write-ups: Albuquerque AC case 9: "While the Committee had a great deal of sympathy with South's dilemma, it considered the statements South made about their aggressive bidding style to be self-serving and that there could have been some hands with long hearts that North may not have chosen to open. South had to act as if he had not heard partner's Alert." Dallas AC case 9: "The argument that the D2 was a suit preference signal was considered reasonable by some Committee members and self-serving by others. The Committee decided that the threshold of bridge argument had been met by E/W and the club play would be allowed. The contract was changed to 4H down one, plus 50 for E/W. " Checking in my humongous *Random House Dictionary of The English Language*, I find the following definition of "self-serving": 1. Preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the truth... 2. Serving to further one's own selfish interests. Hence, you can bet that a statement labeled "self-serving" by an NABC AC is not going to be given any weight in its decision. I have some sympathy for the skepticism of ACBL NABC ACs, who indeed are often subjected to self-serving statements. However, the skepticism is sometimes excessive when the testimony concerns a bridge subject with which the AC is not familiar. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 7 14:09:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 14:09:21 +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 OAA28933 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 14:09:11 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by spartacus with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 109Kaj-0006ZS-00; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 04:09:02 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990207040909.00b367d0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 04:09:09 +0100 To: Dany Haimovici , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help In-Reply-To: <36BCBA05.18B72F6A@internet-zahav.net> References: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> <3.0.5.32.19990206032249.00b1b670@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk hi dany, i hope you didnt regard my comments as rude. It wasnt meant to be. I only wanted to state that i didnt like the behaviour of the offending side. We all agreed on that on BLML. thanks for the comments and hope to have no hard feelings. regards, anton At 23:54 06-02-99 +0200, you wrote: >There was no AC . > >Only a serious admonishment from the IBF captain . As I told , >TON was the TD and he handled this the best way in order to run >the tournament silent (as possible...).We smiled , because a year >ago I told Ton that the table's result will be wrong for the offenders. >Most results were 90 or -100 for the NOS. and here there was +100 >for the NOS......... >If I remember right E-W got also a PP of 1/4 board - i.e. 1% from >the final result. >My main point (and I bet for that ) was that seeing the hesitator's >hand no one will believe that player didn't hesitate ....even if he >didn't !!!!!! Well ....... one of our colistiers here (BLML members) >told us that in his opinion ....the West's reaction was the >best evidence that he used the UI. >Anyway , better not to meet such cases. > >Thank you all again. > >Dany > >Anton Witzen wrote: >> >> hi dany, please can you tell us waht the actual decision was of the AC. >> we are very interested. Were they shot down at dawnor put on an EL-AL >> flight to holland??? :) >> regards, >> anton >> >> At 00:11 06-02-99 +0200, you wrote: >> >Thank you all for your help. >> > >> >And special thanks to TON KOIJMAN who was the chief TD of the IIF; >> >we all were lucky and happy that his skills to deal with the >> >difficulties helped running this festival . I mean his skills first >> >as a personality dealing with people (hmmmm ...personally I am happy >> >he always act according to my law 0..)and as a model of using laws TD. >> > >> >Dany >> > >> > >> >Dany Haimovici wrote: >> >> >> >> Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: >> >> >> >> The bidding : >> >> N.......E.........S.........W...... >> >> 1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) >> >> all pass >> >> (1) a small hesitation >> >> (2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation >> >> before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just >> >> want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. >> >> >> >> The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his >> >> unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: >> >> >> >> Axx >> >> Qx >> >> AJ >> >> AKJxxx >> >> >> >> QUESTION 1 : >> >> Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . >> >> >> >> QUESTION 2 : >> >> What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which >> >> Law ??? >> >> >> >> Please your answers and comments as soon as possible >> >> >> >> Dany >> > >> Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) >> Tel: 020 7763175 >> ICQ 7835770 > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 7 22:21:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:21:49 +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 WAA00103 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:21:42 +1100 Received: from modem106.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.234] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 109SHP-0003Eh-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 11:21:36 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 11:13:19 -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 But Facts are chiels that winna ding An downa be disputed - Robt. Burns ====================================== ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: David Stevenson ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A > Date: 07 February 1999 00:41 > > DWS wrote: > - > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > " >I have some sympathy for the skepticism of ACBL NABC ACs, who > indeed are often subjected to self-serving statements. However, the > skepticism is sometimes excessive when the testimony concerns a > bridge subject with which the AC is not familiar. > ++ One of the real problems of ACs is inability to stand in the mind of the player and see through his eyes and judge with his methods. This ability is particularly rare amongst the best players and is one of the substantial reasons why they should not monopolise the membership of ACs. ++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 7 23:00:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 23:00:31 +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 XAA00168 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 23:00:23 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.115]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id NAA13237; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 13:59:52 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36BD8057.F2F6BF66@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 14:00:23 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anton Witzen CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help References: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> <3.0.5.32.19990206032249.00b1b670@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <3.0.5.32.19990207040909.00b367d0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Ton the 2nd (Koijman is the 1st.!!) I never thought anything was rude . You see .. even me , I like to make jokes or be humorous sarcastic from time to time , and I hope none will be angry when the jokes are not the most successfully . Your friend Dany Anton Witzen wrote: > > hi dany, > i hope you didnt regard my comments as rude. It wasnt meant to be. I only > wanted to state that i didnt like the behaviour of the offending side. We > all agreed on that on BLML. > thanks for the comments and hope to have no hard feelings. > regards, > anton > > At 23:54 06-02-99 +0200, you wrote: > >There was no AC . > > > >Only a serious admonishment from the IBF captain . As I told , > >TON was the TD and he handled this the best way in order to run > >the tournament silent (as possible...).We smiled , because a year > >ago I told Ton that the table's result will be wrong for the offenders. > >Most results were 90 or -100 for the NOS. and here there was +100 > >for the NOS......... > >If I remember right E-W got also a PP of 1/4 board - i.e. 1% from > >the final result. > >My main point (and I bet for that ) was that seeing the hesitator's > >hand no one will believe that player didn't hesitate ....even if he > >didn't !!!!!! Well ....... one of our colistiers here (BLML members) > >told us that in his opinion ....the West's reaction was the > >best evidence that he used the UI. > >Anyway , better not to meet such cases. > > > >Thank you all again. > > > >Dany > > > >Anton Witzen wrote: > >> > >> hi dany, please can you tell us waht the actual decision was of the AC. > >> we are very interested. Were they shot down at dawnor put on an EL-AL > >> flight to holland??? :) > >> regards, > >> anton > >> > >> At 00:11 06-02-99 +0200, you wrote: > >> >Thank you all for your help. > >> > > >> >And special thanks to TON KOIJMAN who was the chief TD of the IIF; > >> >we all were lucky and happy that his skills to deal with the > >> >difficulties helped running this festival . I mean his skills first > >> >as a personality dealing with people (hmmmm ...personally I am happy > >> >he always act according to my law 0..)and as a model of using laws TD. > >> > > >> >Dany > >> > > >> > > >> >Dany Haimovici wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Here's case 1 from th Israeli international festival: > >> >> > >> >> The bidding : > >> >> N.......E.........S.........W...... > >> >> 1NT.....(1)......pass......2Cl (2) > >> >> all pass > >> >> (1) a small hesitation > >> >> (2) North summons the TD and tells him there was an hesitation > >> >> before East passed. west shouts : " north is a lier and he just > >> >> want to offend us" . east swears there was no hesitation. > >> >> > >> >> The TD admomestated the West and compell him to apologize for his > >> >> unpolite wording . bla bla bla ... and East spreads his cards: > >> >> > >> >> Axx > >> >> Qx > >> >> AJ > >> >> AKJxxx > >> >> > >> >> QUESTION 1 : > >> >> Do you believe North or East & West ?? there was an hesitation . > >> >> > >> >> QUESTION 2 : > >> >> What action should be applied for West's behavior and accordind to which > >> >> Law ??? > >> >> > >> >> Please your answers and comments as soon as possible > >> >> > >> >> Dany > >> > > >> Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) > >> Tel: 020 7763175 > >> ICQ 7835770 > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) > Tel: 020 7763175 > ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 8 03:00:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 03:00:50 +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 DAA02985 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 03:00:43 +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 QAA13294 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 16:00:08 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 PAA29580 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 15:59:02 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990207170100.007ab780@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 17:01:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort 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 10:13 02/02/99 GMT0, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> By your suggestion, you wish me to make bids that look as though they >> use UI, so the TD will get called once a session, maybe? How is this >> simpler? It's an appalling method. > >"Bid as you would based only on AI" and the current laws would produce the >same result in the vast majority of UI cases. The problem arises where a >player is unsure how he would bid without the AI. L16 and its >accompanying regulations attempt, rather poorly IMO, to give guidance in >this situation and leave room for improvement. Asking players to second >guess "their peers" or a TD/AC is not what I think bridge should be about. >I'm also not happy with the practice of not bidding as you think you would >in order to avoid a possible adjustment. > I think the agreed way in which players are meant to behave in presence of UI is very difficult to teach to the great majority of them. It is already difficult to make them understand how to behave in the simple situation in which partner alerts or explains agreements (you simply behave as if you had not heard anything); is it realisitic to hope them to understand what should happen in more subtle situations with UI, like huddles? "you should distort your bids to take account of UI, so as, maybe, to choose a bid in contradiction with UI?" I understood GE's recent mails about UI as agreeing that a bid could be considered "proper" but could be later adjusted. Indeed I only understood the meaning of an "improper bid" when DS explained the difference with "unethical bid" (I read blml mainly in order to improve my understanding of English language!), and I would like to add the notion of "easy bid": within a possible UI interpretation, we could have: - unethical bid: blatant use of UI by a player who uses UI to choose a bid he would not have chosen (and maybe was not LA) with only AI. Shoot him! - improper bid: player chooses a bid suggested by UI, which was one of several LA with AI, and nobody is able to determine which of them was the most due to be successful. Adjustment in order. - (too) easy bid: similar situation, player chooses the "best bid", the bid he would have chosen absent the UI, but there were LA and a poll would have given the result that 60% think this is the bid with the better expectation. With UI, the odds of 60% become 90%. TD or AC tells this player he was right to choose the "good" bid but it was made "too easy" by UI, and adjusts the score. On another side, but always with reference to UI situations, I sincerely wonder how TD should act when called by the player in possession of UI. For example: A Player tells TD: I have UI, could you give me my options before my next bid? TD explains LA, bids suggested by UI... but player wants to know more: "could you tell me which exact bid(s) would be suggested by UI, which bid(s) will be ruled back if successful?". These precisions would be of a particular importance when there is a jurisprudence for adjudication of UI cases, as in UK, where for example, it has been said that a slow response of 3S over 1S opening is systematically considered to be 3.5 S (instead of 2.5 S). JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 8 03:03:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 03:03:27 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA03007 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 03:03:19 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-20.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.20]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA46287064 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 11:06:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36BDB914.5B6906EA@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 10:02:28 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: Re: IIF - case 1 - quick help References: <36B77C29.9A0226BF@internet-zahav.net> <3.0.5.32.19990206032249.00b1b670@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <3.0.5.32.19990207040909.00b367d0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <36BD8057.F2F6BF66@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Dany, I need to take exception. I am not among those who do believe that the player broke tempo because of the powerful hand. I agree that almost everyone breaks tempo with such a hand. But, I believe that holding such a hand, it is entirely possible that he did not break tempo because I routinely pass such hands in tempo. I also bid such hands in tempo. However, after studying some of the facts and then more of the facts, I came to the conclusion that all of the facts supported [or at least did not deny], without exception, that a tempo break did occur. I sleep easier when all of the facts are explained in a consistent way. 1. An opponent said there was a break. There is almost always a valid reason to believe there was a break if there was one. Conversely, without one, it is unlikely to say that there was one. 2. The failure to alert 2C. It is highly unusual to overcall 2C natural without values and since those values were not in the club suit they needed to be fairly substantial elsewhere. Failure to bid 3N opposite that call suggests that he believed that partner was bidding on air. A good reason for bidding on air is that partner has the values to make up for the deficiency. A tempo break could give partner that belief. The highly unusual pass can be explained by his believing that partner bid because of his tempo break, as opposed to values he held. 3. The vociferous denial. I have had opponents get down right ugly when denying tempo breaks- even longer than 10 seconds. They have found that they can intimidate TD and that the TD is duty bound to rule that they are telling the truth without compelling evidence to the contrary. Typically, when one is in the right, there is little need to make the first denial in such an adamant way. I interpret the denial as fight for survival, most likely based on intimidation instead of the facts. 4. The failure to call the TD at the end of the auction [because of the failure to alert 2C]. The declaring side knows that they are supposed to correct MI before the opening lead and they did not. A reason could be that he did not want their perfidy to be discovered in their unusual 2C call. The most likely of which was that it could have been made due to the use of UI. 5. The paucity of values for the 2C call. That suggests that it was made from the benefit of UI and not by bridge reasoning. I have seen overcalls like this cracked for 1100. I am not inclined to believe that EW had malicious intent except for the extreme incivility. But it is not out of the question. Had W bid 3N, I would be inclined to give adequate weight to the denial. Had he bid 2N, I consider it to be hedging his bets a little too much. Roger Pewick Dany Haimovici wrote: -s- > > At 23:54 06-02-99 +0200, you wrote: > > >There was no AC . > > > > > >Only a serious admonishment from the IBF captain . As I told , > > >TON was the TD and he handled this the best way in order to run > > >the tournament silent (as possible...).We smiled , because a year > > >ago I told Ton that the table's result will be wrong for the offenders. > > >Most results were 90 or -100 for the NOS. and here there was +100 > > >for the NOS......... > > >If I remember right E-W got also a PP of 1/4 board - i.e. 1% from > > >the final result. > > >My main point (and I bet for that ) was that seeing the hesitator's > > >hand no one will believe that player didn't hesitate ....even if he > > >didn't !!!!!! Well ....... one of our colistiers here (BLML members) > > >told us that in his opinion ....the West's reaction was the > > >best evidence that he used the UI. > > >Anyway , better not to meet such cases. > > > > > >Thank you all again. > > > > > >Dany From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 8 07:25:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 07:25:22 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA03420 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 07:25:13 +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 PAA15324 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 15:24:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990207152832.006f06b4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 15:28:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990207170100.007ab780@phedre.meteo.fr> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:01 PM 2/7/99 +0100, Jean-Pierre wrote: > On another side, but always with reference to UI situations, I sincerely >wonder how TD should act when called by the player in possession of UI. For >example: > A Player tells TD: I have UI, could you give me my options before my next >bid? >TD explains LA, bids suggested by UI... but player wants to know more: >"could you tell me which exact bid(s) would be suggested by UI, which >bid(s) will be ruled back if successful?". I think Jean-Pierre has gone to the heart of the reason why the competitive bridge community is collectively dissatisfied with the manner in which UI adjudications are handled; perhaps, indeed, the reason why many question the entire committee-based adjudication system in general. Players want it to be possible that in any UI situation, given all the facts (the auction, the nature of the UI, the circumstances of its transmission, their hand, etc.), one can know precisely which of their potential actions are proper (will not be ruled back) and which are improper (will be ruled back). They can and will accept the fact that they may not know the answer, provided that the reason for their not knowing the answer is their own ignorance or lack of understanding of the rules (they can resolve to learn for the future), but they are loath to accept the fact that there is no one in the world who would know the answer. Yet, as many of our discussions have clearly illustrated, that is often the case. One can make the case that issues are simply too complex, that this is inherent in the nature of the issues involved, that the players' dissatisfaction is inevitable and cannot be helped. But it is equally inevitable that this would mean that players will never be comfortable with the rules. 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 Feb 8 09:48:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:48:27 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA03766 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:48:18 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 109czN-0001AA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:47:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 02:33:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <199902070042.QAA12642@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199902070042.QAA12642@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: >DWS wrote: >- >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >I would extend this to AC members, who should not serve on an AC >if >> >they unfamiliar with the methods used by those appearing before >> >them, when those methods are an issue. If they do serve, let >them >> >not characterize explanations of participants as "self-serving." >> >> We seems to be having a semantic difficulty over this term >"self- >> serving". If you make a statement that supports your own >position it >> *is* self-serving. That does not mean that such a statement is >not >> admissible as evidence. You cannot say it is not "self-serving" >when it >> is. >> >Perhaps it's just another difference between Englisch und >Americanisch. ACBL ACs use the term as a polite euphemism for >"probably untrue," as can be inferred from various case write-ups: > >Albuquerque AC case 9: "While the Committee had a great deal of >sympathy with South's dilemma, it considered the statements South >made about their aggressive bidding style to be self-serving and >that there could have been some hands with long hearts that North >may not have chosen to open. South had to act as if he had not >heard partner's Alert." > >Dallas AC case 9: "The argument that the D2 was a suit preference >signal was considered reasonable by some Committee members and >self-serving by others. The Committee decided that the threshold of >bridge argument had been met by E/W and the club play would be >allowed. The contract was changed to 4H down one, plus 50 for E/W. >" > >Checking in my humongous *Random House Dictionary of The English >Language*, I find the following definition of "self-serving": > >1. Preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the >truth... > >2. Serving to further one's own selfish interests. > >Hence, you can bet that a statement labeled "self-serving" by an >NABC AC is not going to be given any weight in its decision. > >I have some sympathy for the skepticism of ACBL NABC ACs, who >indeed are often subjected to self-serving statements. However, the >skepticism is sometimes excessive when the testimony concerns a >bridge subject with which the AC is not familiar. It seems that the problem is that first one gets a label for a type of evidence which *correctly* should have less weight attached: then one realises that in some cases evidence with this label should get a zero weighting: so that then people make the final unfortunate and incorrect logical leap. The two cases you quote suggest that committees have gone too far in discounting such evidence. -- 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 Feb 8 11:39:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:39:59 +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 LAA03975 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:39:54 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 109ejq-0003Zy-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 00:39:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 21:20:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: The Rabbit's foot is back ! In-Reply-To: <36BC5051.84F562D@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <36BC5051.84F562D@freewwweb.com>, axeman writes > >Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> deal 23 (S/All) >> AK7652 >> KQ8 >> T4 >> A9 >> J QT4 >> J53 AT4 >> Q75 AJ93 >> KQJ542 876 >> 983 >> 9762 >> K862 >> T3 >> >> It all began with me opening 1Sp. Ooops, out of turn. East >> did not want to accept and that barred partner. So on the >> second try, I opened 4Sp, which was doubled by West (to make >> things interesting, he said). >> TMTRL (To make this Laws-related) : >> Do you think that, in appliance to L23, I could have known, >> at the time of opening 1Sp, that this would likely damage my >> opponents ? Ruling: North buys East a drink for the BOOT East buys West a drink for the defence South buys the TD a drink for his choice of partner West buys the bargirl a drink to drown his sorrows Everyone's happy and we can play the next hand -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ we've got 101 |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. points |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) more than|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\you know who|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 8 12:26:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA04033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:26:54 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA04028 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:26:48 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 109fTE-0007kM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:26:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 00:51:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Law 9 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk So, I have just played in the North Wales Area heat of the WBU Men's Pairs. Owing to my partner's inability to cash the defence's suit against 3NT and other similar things, it is now an agonised wait to find out whether 4th out of 12 is good enough to progress! Anyway, a question for you all: Suppose five cards are played to a trick. It is discovered at the end of the hand when a player has a card short. After the TD is summoned, he wants to know where the card went. "It happened at trick 3" says Declarer, "RHO led, and at the end followed with another card." Do we have a problem with this 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 Mon Feb 8 12:26:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA04038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:26:58 +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 MAA04027 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:26:48 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 109fTE-0007kK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:26:41 +0000 Message-ID: <$NouyNABDjv2EwOK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 00:33:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L73C vs L16A References: <3.0.5.32.19990207170100.007ab780@phedre.meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990207170100.007ab780@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 the agreed way in which players are meant to behave in presence of >UI is very difficult to teach to the great majority of them. It is already >difficult to make them understand how to behave in the simple situation in >which partner alerts or explains agreements (you simply behave as if you >had not heard anything); is it realisitic to hope them to understand what >should happen in more subtle situations with UI, like huddles? "you should >distort your bids to take account of UI, so as, maybe, to choose a bid in >contradiction with UI?" Well, if you explain it that way! For people who have an ethical approach to the game, telling them that when they have UI they must bend over backwards to avoid using or appearing to use the UI will make it fairly clear. >TD explains LA, bids suggested by UI... but player wants to know more: >"could you tell me which exact bid(s) would be suggested by UI, which >bid(s) will be ruled back if successful?". These precisions would be of a >particular importance when there is a jurisprudence for adjudication of UI >cases, as in UK, where for example, it has been said that a slow response >of 3S over 1S opening is systematically considered to be 3.5 S (instead of >2.5 S). When playing the game of bridge, the player cannot expect the Director to make judgement decisions for him. However, the specific case you mention is interesting insofar as it there is a real interpretation that is used by TDs. The TD is certainly not going to answer the question as to what bids are suggested by the UI: he is certainly not going to say what bids will be ruled back: but I *can* see a case for telling players of the interpretations. But is this the right time? We don't teach people how to play the game during a hand - and this is teaching people about the SO's interpretaions. OK, this one is written down, but in another case, should the TD be quoting case law? It is an interesting idea, in the specific case where there are laid down interpretations: what do others think? Having said it is written down, now I cannot find it - help! Where is it written? Robin? Grattan? David? -- 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 Feb 8 12:52:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA04089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:52:26 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA04084 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:52:20 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 109frx-0001zE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:52:13 +0000 Message-ID: <7J4feCCtLkv2Ew+r@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:50:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 9 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > So, I have just played in the North Wales Area heat of the WBU Men's >Pairs. Owing to my partner's inability to cash the defence's suit >against 3NT and other similar things, it is now an agonised wait to find >out whether 4th out of 12 is good enough to progress! > > Anyway, a question for you all: > > Suppose five cards are played to a trick. It is discovered at the end >of the hand when a player has a card short. After the TD is summoned, >he wants to know where the card went. "It happened at trick 3" says >Declarer, "RHO led, and at the end followed with another card." > > Do we have a problem with this ruling? > let's assume that this is what actually happened. L67A does not apply. 67B2 does. The fifth card is deemed to have belonged continuously etc, and we may get a revoke out of it. However it is clear that declarer knew RHO had played a fifth card to the third trick, and L45E1 has something to say about this. Is declarer in contravention of L72A3 I wonder? If he calls in the NYPD then all he's going to get is a penalty card, his way he might get a revoke. Nah, he's allowed to let the oppo revoke without drawing their attention to it. *We* don't have a problem. :) Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ we've got 101 |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. points |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) more than|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\you know who|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 8 17:35:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA04624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 17:35:15 +1100 Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA04619 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 17:35:09 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME ([202.27.177.36]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990208063437.PASI682101.mta1-rme@LOCALNAME>; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 19:34:37 +1300 Message-ID: <36BFACAE.29D5@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 19:34:06 -0800 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 9 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > So, I have just played in the North Wales Area heat of the WBU Men's > Pairs. Owing to my partner's inability to cash the defence's suit > against 3NT and other similar things, it is now an agonised wait to find > out whether 4th out of 12 is good enough to progress! > > Anyway, a question for you all: > > Suppose five cards are played to a trick. It is discovered at the end > of the hand when a player has a card short. After the TD is summoned, > he wants to know where the card went. "It happened at trick 3" says > Declarer, "RHO led, and at the end followed with another card." > > Do we have a problem with this 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 ~ Question: Did declarer know at the end of trick three that there had been an irregularity? Aside from that rule under L67B2. Second card played by RHO is restored tto hand played on last trick and revoke penalties applied if appropriate. Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 8 20:52:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 20:52:11 +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 UAA04917 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 20:52:02 +1100 Received: from modem106.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.106] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 109nM7-0001QI-00; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:51:51 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:30:20 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee But Facts are chiels that winna ding An downa be disputed - Robt. Burns ===================================== ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Law 9 > Date: 08 February 1999 00:51 > > > So, I have just played in the North Wales Area heat of the WBU Men's > Pairs. > 4th out of 12 > ++ Just one ACBL Master Point? :-)) ++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 9 00:34:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 00:34:36 +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 AAA08515 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 00:34:28 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-89.uunet.be [194.7.13.89]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA18204 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:34:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36BEDEAB.5191AFF1@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 13:55:07 +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 9 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Anyway, a question for you all: > > Suppose five cards are played to a trick. It is discovered at the end > of the hand when a player has a card short. After the TD is summoned, > he wants to know where the card went. "It happened at trick 3" says > Declarer, "RHO led, and at the end followed with another card." > > Do we have a problem with this ruling? > Do you mean the technical ruling (what would happen if this is discovered) or the ethical one ? Do I gather from your wording that declarer knew this had happened at the time but had said nothing ? Now that's tricky ! A player is not obliged to draw attention to an irregularity, but is it fair not to do so ? I don't like it, but I cannot quickly find anything wrong with it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 9 03:06:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 03:06:43 +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 DAA08991 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 03:06:31 +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 109tCU-0004Oj-00; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 17:06:18 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA070859977; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 17:06:17 +0100 Subject: Re: Law 9 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 17:06:17 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <36BEDEAB.5191AFF1@village.uunet.be> from "Herman De Wael" at Feb 08, 1999 01:55:07 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to Herman De Wael: > >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Anyway, a question for you all: >> >> Suppose five cards are played to a trick. It is discovered at the end >> of the hand when a player has a card short. After the TD is summoned, >> he wants to know where the card went. "It happened at trick 3" says >> Declarer, "RHO led, and at the end followed with another card." >> >> Do we have a problem with this ruling? >> > >Do you mean the technical ruling (what would happen if this >is discovered) or the ethical one ? > >Do I gather from your wording that declarer knew this had >happened at the time but had said nothing ? > >Now that's tricky ! > >A player is not obliged to draw attention to an >irregularity, but is it fair not to do so ? > >I don't like it, but I cannot quickly find anything wrong >with it. Me neither. I think the following example situation might be illustrative: A very good declarer has a complete count of a hand at a very early stage of play. His LHO does not follow suit, and declarer knows that LHO is revoking. I do not consider it to be unethical if declarer exploits this mistake. Thomas, back from a team league weekend where in one match declarer had an opportunity for an uncommon safety play for one down knowing that LHO had revoked to an early trick. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 9 04:40:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 04:40:03 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA09234 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 04:39:56 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 109uey-0003qr-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 17:39:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:52:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 9 References: <36BFACAE.29D5@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <36BFACAE.29D5@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B A Small wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> Suppose five cards are played to a trick. It is discovered at the end >> of the hand when a player has a card short. After the TD is summoned, >> he wants to know where the card went. "It happened at trick 3" says >> Declarer, "RHO led, and at the end followed with another card." >Question: Did declarer know at the end of trick three that there had >been an irregularity? It is difficult to see how declarer could have said this if he did not know at the 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 Tue Feb 9 05:58:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 05:58:30 +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 FAA09380 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 05:58:24 +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 NAA27931 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:58:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:58:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902081858.NAA24002@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 8 Feb 1999 00:51:06 +0000) Subject: Re: Law 9 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > Suppose five cards are played to a trick. It is discovered at the end > of the hand when a player has a card short. After the TD is summoned, > he wants to know where the card went. "It happened at trick 3" says > Declarer, "RHO led, and at the end followed with another card." > Do we have a problem with this ruling? This is ambiguous. The closest applicable Law is 11A: The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty. Likewise not quite applying is Law 60A1: A play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has led or played out of turn or prematurely, and before a penalty has been assessed, forfeits the right to penalize that offense. Here, the declarer gained not through his opponent's ignorance of the penalty, but through his opponent's ignorance of the infraction. The fifth card was played at the wrong time, but not out of turn or prematurely. the spirit of these two Lwas suggests that declarer should have called attention to the irregularity when it happened, and cannot gain a revoke penalty by refusing to do so. It is clear that Law 67 should apply to fifth cards played to a trick. However, I would be inclined not to allow a declarer who should have enforced Law 45B1 when the irregularity was claer to everyone at the table. (The case of a revoke is not the same, because a revoke is a normally hidden infraction. If Declarer finds that the five outstanding trumps have broken 2-2, he has no obligation to inquire about the revoke. And I would not expect declarer to rely on a count of the hand, since a revoke destroys the normal functioning of a count.) -- 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 Feb 9 14:24:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA10946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:24:46 +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 OAA10941 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:24:40 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10A3mq-0001Bh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 03:24:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 02:58:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: UI or AI from answer to partner's question MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This was posted on RGB by Hank Youngerman, and is reproduced without permission [I am guessing that he will not shoot me for it]. ------------ Playing in an IMP event (swiss teams, victory points), you hold: KQ10xx x QJxx Qxx Neither side vulnerable, RHO opens 2D, alerted. You glance sideways at the opponent's convention card and see that they are playing the 2D opener as 11 to 15, ah, must be Flannery. You bid 2H, takeout of hearts, wisely or unwisely. Pass on your left, and partner inquires about the 2D bid. "Roman," he is told, a 3-suiter. Oops! Partner now bids 4H. Are you ethically constrained in any way? Partner's question is surely legitimate. (If, at my turn to call, I ask "Oh - uh - you mean the 2D bid wasn't Flannery?" - this is UI for partner of course, but it doesn't seem his question was inappropriate.) -- 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 Feb 9 15:10:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA11104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:10:36 +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 PAA11099 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:10:30 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa23252; 8 Feb 99 20:09 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Feb 1999 02:58:30 PST." Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 20:09:53 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902082009.aa23252@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > This was posted on RGB by Hank Youngerman, and is reproduced without > permission [I am guessing that he will not shoot me for it]. > > ------------ > > Playing in an IMP event (swiss teams, victory points), you hold: > > KQ10xx > x > QJxx > Qxx > > Neither side vulnerable, RHO opens 2D, alerted. You glance sideways > at the opponent's convention card and see that they are playing the 2D > opener as 11 to 15, ah, must be Flannery. You bid 2H, takeout of > hearts, wisely or unwisely. Pass on your left, and partner inquires > about the 2D bid. "Roman," he is told, a 3-suiter. Oops! Partner > now bids 4H. > > Are you ethically constrained in any way? Partner's question is > surely legitimate. (If, at my turn to call, I ask "Oh - uh - you mean > the 2D bid wasn't Flannery?" - this is UI for partner of course, but > it doesn't seem his question was inappropriate.) I vote for "no". I.e. the opponents' explanation is AI. Partner's question is UI but this seems irrelevant because it doesn't suggest anything about his hand. Thus, you are ethically free to choose the method by which you will go -800 or worse. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 9 17:00:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA11256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:00:30 +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 RAA11251 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:00:24 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-168.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.168]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA48888260; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 01:03:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36BFCEC2.DD1B4077@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 23:59:30 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [a] I think you are called upon to bid as if partner has responded to a 2H overcall of mini roman. After all, you did overcall mini roman, even though you may have thought otherwise at the time. I believe the applicable term is that 2H was a MISTAKEn bid. [b] I think that you are called upon to not break tempo, with UI consequences on partner's further action if you fail. [c] The 'question' posed has already been answered. Especially in this form it calls for a severe PP [L73B1] plus UI consequences. >From an analysis point of view, trying to rescue without the aid of a double moves you from a plutonium bomb to a hydrogen bomb. Solution: try to claim at trick one. Roger Pewick David Stevenson wrote: > > This was posted on RGB by Hank Youngerman, and is reproduced without > permission [I am guessing that he will not shoot me for it]. > > ------------ > > Playing in an IMP event (swiss teams, victory points), you hold: > > KQ10xx > x > QJxx > Qxx > > Neither side vulnerable, RHO opens 2D, alerted. You glance sideways > at the opponent's convention card and see that they are playing the 2D > opener as 11 to 15, ah, must be Flannery. You bid 2H, takeout of > hearts, wisely or unwisely. Pass on your left, and partner inquires > about the 2D bid. "Roman," he is told, a 3-suiter. Oops! Partner > now bids 4H. > > Are you ethically constrained in any way? Partner's question is > surely legitimate. (If, at my turn to call, I ask "Oh - uh - you mean > the 2D bid wasn't Flannery?" - this is UI for partner of course, but > it doesn't seem his question was inappropriate.) > > -- > 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 Feb 9 19:38:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:38:28 +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 TAA12653 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:38:19 +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 IAA09927 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:37:43 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.7.1) id IAA13788 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:36:37 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990209093835.007afbd0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 09:38:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:58 09/02/99 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >Playing in an IMP event (swiss teams, victory points), you hold: > >KQ10xx >x >QJxx >Qxx > >Neither side vulnerable, RHO opens 2D, alerted. You glance sideways >at the opponent's convention card and see that they are playing the 2D >opener as 11 to 15, ah, must be Flannery. You bid 2H, takeout of >hearts, wisely or unwisely. Pass on your left, and partner inquires >about the 2D bid. "Roman," he is told, a 3-suiter. Oops! Partner >now bids 4H. > >Are you ethically constrained in any way? Partner's question is >surely legitimate. (If, at my turn to call, I ask "Oh - uh - you mean >the 2D bid wasn't Flannery?" - this is UI for partner of course, but >it doesn't seem his question was inappropriate.) >-- >David Stevenson Not so easy IMO. According to L16, opponents' response to partner's inquiry doesn't suit the definition of AI, it's neither extraneous information from partner; so it should be what is left (Extraneous Info from others sources) but does no more suit its definition of "accidental info". If we try the "screen test", it appears to be UI (info. not available when playing with screens). I should then say UI, but, in this instance, I think the player should "ethically" consider he can get the same knowledge of the meaning of 2D with AI: partner's 4H bid is unexpected enough to act as a wake-up and induce 2H's player to try to know more about 2D opening. Even with AI, I think this player's situation still remains very unenviable! A further inquiry about 2D opening would, of course, be UI for 4H's bidder, and highly unethical, if formulated with the denying form suggested. 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 Feb 9 23:41:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA17134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 23:41:24 +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 XAA17116 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 23:41:13 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-189.uunet.be [194.7.14.189]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA13036 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 13:40:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C01CBA.88C89E49@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 12:32:10 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <3.0.5.32.19990209093835.007afbd0@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > Not so easy IMO. According to L16, opponents' response to partner's > inquiry doesn't suit the definition of AI, it's neither extraneous > information from partner; so it should be what is left (Extraneous Info > from others sources) but does no more suit its definition of "accidental > info". If we try the "screen test", it appears to be UI (info. not > available when playing with screens). > I should then say UI, but, in this instance, I think the player should > "ethically" consider he can get the same knowledge of the meaning of 2D > with AI: partner's 4H bid is unexpected enough to act as a wake-up and > induce 2H's player to try to know more about 2D opening. Even with AI, I > think this player's situation still remains very unenviable! > A further inquiry about 2D opening would, of course, be UI for 4H's > bidder, and highly unethical, if formulated with the denying form suggested. > These responses suggest that the player is in fact in error in assuming Flannery from the CC. In that case of course the answers given are correct. I agree with JPR's definition of UI because of the screen test, but I also assume that this player will now check the CC again, and ask further. So I rule, no UI, the problem of rescueing this into something sensible, without revealling your own mistake before (as that would be UI to partner indeed), are far greater and some leeway should be given to a player who does keep a straight face now he has learned through not too bad methods of his previous mistake. But you see David, even you succeed in putting problems on blml that are not totally without interpretation problems. A good lesson to all of us: don't assume that someone is an idiot just because he gives a response that seems totally contrary to your ideas, but rather try and find out just what question he was answering ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 9 23:41:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA17128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 23:41:21 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA17106 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 23:41:09 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-189.uunet.be [194.7.14.189]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA13030 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 13:40:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C01B07.5EB5A7D4@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 12:24:55 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > This was posted on RGB by Hank Youngerman, and is reproduced without > permission [I am guessing that he will not shoot me for it]. > Seeing that it is certainly an interesting case, he should be grateful you ask the most interesting group of people. > ------------ > > Playing in an IMP event (swiss teams, victory points), you hold: > > KQ10xx > x > QJxx > Qxx > > Neither side vulnerable, RHO opens 2D, alerted. You glance sideways > at the opponent's convention card and see that they are playing the 2D > opener as 11 to 15, ah, must be Flannery. You bid 2H, takeout of > hearts, wisely or unwisely. Pass on your left, and partner inquires > about the 2D bid. "Roman," he is told, a 3-suiter. Oops! Partner > now bids 4H. > I am not too familiar with Flannery, but I am assuming the mistake is either on the card or in the response, not in your assumption that it must be Flannery ? > Are you ethically constrained in any way? Partner's question is > surely legitimate. (If, at my turn to call, I ask "Oh - uh - you mean > the 2D bid wasn't Flannery?" - this is UI for partner of course, but > it doesn't seem his question was inappropriate.) > You are ethically and legally constrained in not giving UI to partner, when he has given a wrong explanation of YOUR bidding. L75D2 is quite explicit IMO, saying that you are not allowed to correct partner's explanation. In this case his explanation of your 2Heart as natural. I would in this case happily bid 6Sp, go seven down and ask for the best possible score from the TD ! So, in short, yes, you are ethically barred, but this is a problem that will simply not go away before the TD sorts it out. And you will have full protection from the wrong explanation that either player has given you, whatever 2Di bidder actually holds ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 10 00:21:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:21:32 +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 AAA22264 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:21:19 +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 IAA11493 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:20:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990209082445.006f2004@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 08:24:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990209093835.007afbd0@phedre.meteo.fr> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:38 AM 2/9/99 +0100, Jean-Pierre wrote: >At 02:58 09/02/99 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >>Playing in an IMP event (swiss teams, victory points), you hold: >> >>KQ10xx >>x >>QJxx >>Qxx >> >>Neither side vulnerable, RHO opens 2D, alerted. You glance sideways >>at the opponent's convention card and see that they are playing the 2D >>opener as 11 to 15, ah, must be Flannery. You bid 2H, takeout of >>hearts, wisely or unwisely. Pass on your left, and partner inquires >>about the 2D bid. "Roman," he is told, a 3-suiter. Oops! Partner >>now bids 4H. >> >>Are you ethically constrained in any way? Partner's question is >>surely legitimate. (If, at my turn to call, I ask "Oh - uh - you mean >>the 2D bid wasn't Flannery?" - this is UI for partner of course, but >>it doesn't seem his question was inappropriate.) > > Not so easy IMO. According to L16, opponents' response to partner's >inquiry doesn't suit the definition of AI, it's neither extraneous >information from partner; so it should be what is left (Extraneous Info >from others sources) but does no more suit its definition of "accidental >info". If we try the "screen test", it appears to be UI (info. not >available when playing with screens). I responded to this on r.g.b, suggesting that L16A does apply, since the opponent's reply, albeit not partner's question per se, was made available "by means of" that question. I went on to suggest that this is a case where the "screen test" does apply. > I should then say UI, but, in this instance, I think the player should >"ethically" consider he can get the same knowledge of the meaning of 2D >with AI: partner's 4H bid is unexpected enough to act as a wake-up and >induce 2H's player to try to know more about 2D opening. Even with AI, I >think this player's situation still remains very unenviable! > A further inquiry about 2D opening would, of course, be UI for 4H's >bidder, and highly unethical, if formulated with the denying form >suggested. I agree here, and when on to point out that, assuming 4H was an "impossible" bid in Hank's (the original poster of the problem's) methods, he is allowed to "wake up" and try to make the best of the situation -- the "impossible" nature of 4H creates a presumption that even had partner not asked anything, Hank would have clarified the situation for himself. 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 Feb 10 03:49:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 03:49:33 +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 DAA28399 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 03:49:26 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa06157; 9 Feb 99 8:48 PST To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Feb 1999 12:24:55 PST." <36C01B07.5EB5A7D4@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 08:48:53 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902090848.aa06157@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > You are ethically and legally constrained in not giving UI > to partner, when he has given a wrong explanation of YOUR > bidding. L75D2 is quite explicit IMO, saying that you are > not allowed to correct partner's explanation. In this case > his explanation of your 2Heart as natural. Partner wasn't asked about your 2H call and didn't give any explanation of it, so how does any of this apply? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 10 04:14:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 04:14:46 +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 EAA28557 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 04:14:40 +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 MAA24909 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:14:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id MAA02187 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:14:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:14:40 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902091714.MAA02187@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > Partner wasn't asked about your 2H call and didn't give any > explanation of it, so how does any of this apply? Exactly so. Apropos another thread, if the opponents _had_ asked about 2H, under current rules they would have been in a much stronger legal position because of the UI implications of the answer. I don't think putting opponents in a disadvantageous position by asking questions is the way the game ought to be played, and again I commend this matter to attention of the LC. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 10 04:59:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 04:59:13 +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 EAA28795 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 04:58:17 +1100 Received: from mmsinet1.mms-inc.com ([207.227.69.130] helo=pcmjn) by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10AHQO-0002xv-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:58:16 -0500 X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 12:57:57 +0000 To: Bridge Laws From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <9902090848.aa06157@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_15687958==_.ALT" Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_15687958==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:48 PM 2/9/99 , Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Herman wrote: > >> You are ethically and legally constrained in not giving UI >> to partner, when he has given a wrong explanation of YOUR >> bidding. L75D2 is quite explicit IMO, saying that you are >> not allowed to correct partner's explanation. In this case >> his explanation of your 2Heart as natural. > >Partner wasn't asked about your 2H call and didn't give any >explanation of it, so how does any of this apply? > > -- Adam > Since he didn't alert it he "explained" it as natural???? John S. Nichols --=====================_15687958==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 04:48 PM 2/9/99 , Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
>Herman wrote:
>
>> You are ethically and legally constrained in not giving UI
>> to partner, when he has given a wrong explanation of YOUR
>> bidding.  L75D2 is quite explicit IMO, saying that you are
>> not allowed to correct partner's explanation.  In this case
>> his explanation of your 2Heart as natural.
>
>Partner wasn't asked about your 2H call and didn't give any
>explanation of it, so how does any of this apply?
>
>                                -- Adam
>

Since he didn't alert it he "explained" it as natural????
John S. Nichols
--=====================_15687958==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 10 05:48:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 05:48:46 +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 FAA28998 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 05:48:39 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa13130; 9 Feb 99 10:48 PST To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Feb 1999 12:57:57 PST." Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 10:48:04 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902091048.aa13130@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John S. Nichols wrote: > At 04:48 PM 2/9/99 , Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > >Herman wrote: > > > >> You are ethically and legally constrained in not giving UI > >> to partner, when he has given a wrong explanation of YOUR > >> bidding. L75D2 is quite explicit IMO, saying that you are > >> not allowed to correct partner's explanation. In this case > >> his explanation of your 2Heart as natural. > > > >Partner wasn't asked about your 2H call and didn't give any > >explanation of it, so how does any of this apply? > > > > -- Adam > > > > Since he didn't alert it he "explained" it as natural???? > John S. Nichols Oops, I missed that point entirely. I thought this entire debate was over whether the opponents' explanation in response to partner's question is AI or UI---but I forgot that a 2H takeout overcall of Flannery would be alertable, and that the lack of alert is UI. Yes, that does change things significantly. So now we have UI that tells us that we've misbid. But we also have the opponents' answer to a question that tells us the same thing. I think I'd still rule that the opponents' answer is AI, and that this nullifies partner's failure to alert because the UI doesn't provide any additional information that isn't also provided by AI; and that therefore there are no ethical restrictions. But I'm a little less certain than I was previously. I still believe that if there's no UI (e.g. the opponents requested before the round that you not alert), the opponents' answer to partner's question is authorized. My understanding of the intent of the Laws is that any information you get from your partner, other than his legal calls and plays, is unauthorized; but any information you get from the opponents (from anything they say or do) is authorized (except for information about other boards that they played against someone else!). Also, I cannot see how Law 16A applies here. To me, Law 16A is clearly intended to label as "unauthorized" information that you get from actions your partner took. So if he asks a question, the tone and wording of the question, as well as the fact that he asked a question at all, are UI; but to say that the opponents' answer is something that your partner "makes available" to you by asking the question seems to be stretching L16A well beyond what it was intended to mean. Suppose, for instance, LHO bids 2D alerted, partner asks what it means, RHO says "It shows a 3-suiter", partner now asks what the HCP range of the bid is, RHO hems and haws and finally says "I think we agreed on 18-24, but we discussed changing it to 10-13, and I don't remember for sure whether we actually agreed on it or not. I think we're still playing 18-24." Now, you know that your opponents may well be in trouble. But is this information unauthorized, because it was made available to you by your partner by means of his question about the range? That hardly seems like anything intended by the Lawmakers. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 10 06:12:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 06:12:16 +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 GAA29041 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 06:12:10 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.219] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10AIYh-0000k1-00; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:10:55 +0000 Message-ID: <199902091911410480.150692AF@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990209082445.006f2004@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990209082445.006f2004@pop.cais.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 19:11:41 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 09/02/99, at 08:24, Eric Landau wrote: [snip] [synopsis of problem: East opens 2D, actually Roman but thought by South to= be Flannery. South bids 2H for takeout on a 5-1-4-3 minimum hand. West= passes, and North asks what 2D meant, is told "Roman - any three suits",= and "raises" to 4H. May South act in the light of information received?] >I agree here, and when on to point out that, assuming 4H was an >"impossible" bid in Hank's (the original poster of the problem's) methods, >he is allowed to "wake up" and try to make the best of the situation --= the >"impossible" nature of 4H creates a presumption that even had partner not >asked anything, Hank would have clarified the situation for himself. Presumably, those quotes around "impossible" are meant to denote "highly= improbable". No real reason why a Flannery opener should not have Qxxxx of= hearts, with the responder to the "takeout" 2H having such as AKJ109xx.= Indeed, in the 1992 Olympiad there was a deal where Hamman opened 2H= (Flannery) and his opponents, Chemla-Perron, could make 4H the other way -= they scored 1400 for so doing, courtesy of a courageous reopening double= by Perron. I think that the "screen test" is a good practical solution to the problem= here, but only a partial solution. If playing with screens, the player who= bid 2H for takeout could continue to assume that 2H was Flannery, and that= his partner's unexpected 4H was natural (since 3H would be available as a= force). Of course, in "real life" the player would probably check his= opponents' card more carefully when 4H came through the screen, and= discover the probable misunderstanding; he would now be at liberty to do= what he liked (presumably 4S) and hope that his partner would realise that= such a bid really was "impossible". This strategy is not without risk,= since partners have a habit of assuming that 4S is a cue bid of some kind= rather than that 2H was not intended as natural, but it would be a valid= strategy for South. The legal question, then, is: can the player take that course of action= anyway? He has been alerted to his own misunderstanding as a result of= information arising from his partner's question and the opponents' reply.= I think that L16A prohibits the use of such information, and I am not sure= that it is valid to argue that South would have clarified the situation= for himself in any case. Besides which, there is nothing at the moment to= suggest that passing 4H will not be the winning action - there is no= reason why partner should not have seven-card "support"! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 10 14:18:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA00378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:18:03 +1100 Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA00373 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:17:56 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn22p30.ozemail.com.au [203.108.27.158]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA11999 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:17:53 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:17:53 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199902100317.OAA11999@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:24 PM 9/02/99 +0100, HdW wrote: > >I would in this case happily bid 6Sp, go seven down and ask >for the best possible score from the TD ! > And what if 6S makes an a fluke? Tony > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 10 15:19:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA00460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 15:19:51 +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 PAA00454 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 15:19:40 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka9df.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.37.175]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA07706 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 23:19:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990209231926.00710c5c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 23:19:26 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990209093835.007afbd0@phedre.meteo.fr> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:38 AM 2/9/99 +0100, Jean Pierre wrote: > Not so easy IMO. According to L16, opponents' response to partner's >inquiry doesn't suit the definition of AI, it's neither extraneous >information from partner; so it should be what is left (Extraneous Info >from others sources) but does no more suit its definition of "accidental >info". If we try the "screen test", it appears to be UI (info. not >available when playing with screens). Whoa! You are asserting that the opponents' explanations of their methods are UI, because they are not included in the definition of AI. By this logic, it can never be right to ask for an explanation, because the explanation is UI to both you and your partner. You may even be subject to the restrictions of L16 if you accidentally hear the opponents alerting their bids, since this, too, is UI, I guess. That can't be right. The opponents' explanations of their bids are AI, of course. What good that information will do you in the present circumstance is far from clear, but you are welcome to use it however seems best. As for the "screen test", I'll take that concept more seriously when it finds expression in the Laws. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 10 17:08:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA00665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:08:03 +1100 Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA00659 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:07:57 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME ([203.96.101.209]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990210060826.MRVA678125.mta2-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:08:26 +1300 Message-ID: <36C24953.3D8E@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:06:59 -0800 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 9 References: <36BFACAE.29D5@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > B A Small wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> Suppose five cards are played to a trick. It is discovered at the end > >> of the hand when a player has a card short. After the TD is summoned, > >> he wants to know where the card went. "It happened at trick 3" says > >> Declarer, "RHO led, and at the end followed with another card." > > >Question: Did declarer know at the end of trick three that there had > >been an irregularity? > > It is difficult to see how declarer could have said this if he did not > know at the time. Agreed and this raises the ethical/moral dilemia alluded to in other replies. In which case does 11B apply? Amazingly had similar situation arise last night. Called to table to be told declarer (in two spades making three) had finished play while dummy and opponents all had one card left. Lost card was stuck to another card played at trick six. Was small diamond and one defender who had count knew he held winning diamond. Ruled under 67B2 and (fortunately no revoke had occurred) result became 2S making 2. Was nice to be able to direct quickly on one that doesn't come up often. Thank you. Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 10 20:00:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:00:14 +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 UAA01050 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:00:07 +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 IAA20130 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:59:30 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 IAA23947 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:58:23 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990210100025.007afad0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:00:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990209231926.00710c5c@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19990209093835.007afbd0@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:19 09/02/99 -0500, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 09:38 AM 2/9/99 +0100, Jean Pierre wrote: >> Not so easy IMO. According to L16, opponents' response to partner's >>inquiry doesn't suit the definition of AI, it's neither extraneous >>information from partner; so it should be what is left (Extraneous Info >>from others sources) but does no more suit its definition of "accidental >>info". If we try the "screen test", it appears to be UI (info. not >>available when playing with screens). > >Whoa! You are asserting that the opponents' explanations of their methods >are UI, because they are not included in the definition of AI. By this >logic, it can never be right to ask for an explanation, because the >explanation is UI to both you and your partner. You may even be subject to >the restrictions of L16 if you accidentally hear the opponents alerting >their bids, since this, too, is UI, I guess. > >That can't be right. The opponents' explanations of their bids are AI, of >course. What good that information will do you in the present circumstance >is far from clear, but you are welcome to use it however seems best. As for > the "screen test", I'll take that concept more seriously when it finds >expression in the Laws. >Mike Dennis > Unfortunately L16 is too precise when it defines both AI and UI; if it only defined AI (as in its first sentence), it could be said UI would be what is left. But it follows with trying to exhaustively list "extraneous info" to define UI and forgets some parts of information which are then "nothing I", neither AI, neither UI. This explains why some of us try desperate means, like screen-test, to classify NI as AI or UI. Another solution is to say: I know UI when I see it... of course. Discussions about angels'sex anyway, but isn't it what we all enjoy? JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 10 21:19:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 21:19:12 +1100 Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA01200 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 21:19:06 +1100 Received: from default ([195.89.178.75]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 7988400 ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:19:52 -0000 Message-ID: <000201be54de$94286220$4bb259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:21:04 -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 cookbury@purplenet.co.uk In our community hall I told the players that if something happens but they do not want a ruling they should say nothing and go on with the game. I thought that was what the law allowed. Are you saying I am wrong? They like to call me or my mother only for bigger problems. -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: 08 February 1999 16:06 Subject: Re: Law 9 >> >Do I gather from your wording that declarer knew this had >happened at the time but had said nothing ? > >Now that's tricky ! > >A player is not obliged to draw attention to an >irregularity, but is it fair not to do so ? > >I don't like it, but I cannot quickly find anything wrong >with it. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 10 22:51:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:51:45 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA01390 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:51:38 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-106.uunet.be [194.7.13.106]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10734 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:51:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C16C8B.D2EB1853@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:24:59 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <3.0.5.32.19990209093835.007afbd0@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.5.32.19990210100025.007afad0@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > > Unfortunately L16 is too precise when it defines both AI and UI; if it > only defined AI (as in its first sentence), it could be said UI would be > what is left. But it follows with trying to exhaustively list "extraneous > info" to define UI and forgets some parts of information which are then > "nothing I", neither AI, neither UI. In English : "_as by means_" and "_or the like_" suggests the list is not exhaustive. In French (for the purposes of JPR) : it says nothing in front ("_si par_") but it does conclude ("_ou l'equivalent_") I believe this really means that the definition is of AI, and everything else is UI. > This explains why some of us try > desperate means, like screen-test, to classify NI as AI or UI. Another > solution is to say: I know UI when I see it... of course. > Discussions about angels'sex anyway, but isn't it what we all enjoy? > > JP Rocafort > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 10 22:51:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:51:41 +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 WAA01385 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:51:34 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-106.uunet.be [194.7.13.106]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10715 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:51:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C16591.DEC503C0@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:55:13 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902090848.aa06157@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Although I have since seen that my original reply to this case was based on an erroneous assumption, I must answer to what : Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > > You are ethically and legally constrained in not giving UI > > to partner, when he has given a wrong explanation of YOUR > > bidding. L75D2 is quite explicit IMO, saying that you are > > not allowed to correct partner's explanation. In this case > > his explanation of your 2Heart as natural. > > Partner wasn't asked about your 2H call and didn't give any > explanation of it, so how does any of this apply? > Partner DID explain your call to opponents, by not alerting, as "Natural", whereas you intended it as "takeout over hearts". Whatever other circumstances compound the problem, the "prime directive" of L75D2 remains : "Thou shalt not in any way inform partner of his misexplanation of your call". Alerting AND Not Alerting are both ways in which explanations are given and all regulations covering misexplication includes BOTH these ways. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 10 22:51:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:51:43 +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 WAA01386 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:51:36 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-106.uunet.be [194.7.13.106]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA10721 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:51:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C16B3D.58165737@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:19:25 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902091048.aa13130@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > > Since he didn't alert it he "explained" it as natural???? > > John S. Nichols > > Oops, I missed that point entirely. I thought this entire debate was > over whether the opponents' explanation in response to partner's > question is AI or UI---but I forgot that a 2H takeout overcall of > Flannery would be alertable, and that the lack of alert is UI. Yes, > that does change things significantly. So now we have UI that tells > us that we've misbid. But we also have the opponents' answer to a > question that tells us the same thing. I think I'd still rule that > the opponents' answer is AI, and that this nullifies partner's failure > to alert because the UI doesn't provide any additional information > that isn't also provided by AI; and that therefore there are no > ethical restrictions. But I'm a little less certain than I was > previously. > > I still believe that if there's no UI (e.g. the opponents requested > before the round that you not alert), the opponents' answer to > partner's question is authorized. > > My understanding of the intent of the Laws is that any information you > get from your partner, other than his legal calls and plays, is > unauthorized; but any information you get from the opponents (from > anything they say or do) is authorized (except for information about > other boards that they played against someone else!). > > Also, I cannot see how Law 16A applies here. To me, Law 16A is > clearly intended to label as "unauthorized" information that you get > from actions your partner took. So if he asks a question, the tone > and wording of the question, as well as the fact that he asked a > question at all, are UI; but to say that the opponents' answer is > something that your partner "makes available" to you by asking the > question seems to be stretching L16A well beyond what it was intended > to mean. > This is the real crux of the problem, and probably the reason why David posted it here. The wording "makes available" do seem to suggest that more is meant than simply "say", "do" or something. In that sense, this is UI. In that sense too, the "screen test" is a valid one. In another sense, while the fact of partner asking is UI, the response would not be. But is it ? Suppose I am second in hand and I don't care about opponent's bidding. Partner, fourth behind some conventional bid, does know, or has read the CC, but asks anyway. This wakes me up to some particular feature of the hand and directs my actions. Surely you would rule this UI. And yet it cannot be said I was awakened by him asking, but by the response. So in this case too, I lean more towards UI than AI. If partner is second in hand, and asks about a call, then of course the response remains AI, as it cannot be said I was not interested as well. But when partner is fourth, and I have not asked, or misinterpreted, then the response should be UI. I am of the opinion however, that in this case the AI (partner's 4H) may be sufficient to counter the available UI, but it does make for an interesting problem. So I propose the following blml-decision : "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did not seek the same information." -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 00:33:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:33:04 +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 AAA04893 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:32:57 +1100 Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl3.philips.com with ESMTP id OAA19438 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:32:48 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from lippens@natlab.research.philips.com) Received: from smtprelay-eur1.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl3.philips.com via mwrap (4.0a) id xma019436; Wed, 10 Feb 99 14:32:48 +0100 Received: from natlab.research.philips.com (prle.natlab.research.philips.com [130.139.161.112]) by smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (8.8.5/8.6.10-1.2.2m-970826) with SMTP id OAA16710 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:32:47 +0100 (MET) Received: by natlab.research.philips.com; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:32:46 +0100 Message-Id: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:32:43 +0100 From: Paul Lippens Organization: Philips Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Ethical? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, I am a new in the arbitration circuit and need help with the following. N/all North: A2 KT9 AJ65 AQ73 East: KT9 AJ8764 T JT5 South: Q873 - Q8732 K942 West: J654 Q532 K94 86 Bidding: 1NT 2H ...pass pass 2NT Is this 2NT bid allowed, or did North use the thinking time of partner? Wat should be my decision? Thanks for your help. Paul Lippens From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 01:30:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:30:18 +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 BAA06718 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:30:07 +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 OAA03729 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:29:29 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 OAA22668 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:28:22 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990210153025.007b7100@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 15:30:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <36C16C8B.D2EB1853@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.5.32.19990209093835.007afbd0@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.5.32.19990210100025.007afad0@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:24 10/02/99 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> >> > >> Unfortunately L16 is too precise when it defines both AI and UI; if it >> only defined AI (as in its first sentence), it could be said UI would be >> what is left. But it follows with trying to exhaustively list "extraneous >> info" to define UI and forgets some parts of information which are then >> "nothing I", neither AI, neither UI. > >In English : "_as by means_" and "_or the like_" suggests >the list is not exhaustive. > >I believe this really means that the definition is of AI, >and everything else is UI. > >Herman DE WAEL OK, I will not argue about English understandings, but L16 seems to classify UI within 3 types: A from partner, B from elsewhere, C from withdrawn actions and exemples of each, restrictive ones in some way, tend to indicate that some forms of information were not intended here by lawmakers. Furthermore if AI is exhaustively defined in the first part of L16, how can it be that another part is added in "C1"? If it was an exhaustive definition of AI, why not write: "base their calls on and only on..."? There is AI (header), extraneous information (A and B) and, unfortunately, other informations (C and maybe still others) which happen to be either AI or UI. I don't understand exactly the meaning of "extraneous" but it is apparent it is not used for "other". A literary appreciation of L16 by an English language expert would be very useful for me! Anyway, the strict interpretation of L16 that AI is what it says and UI the remainder, doesn't seem to be a consensus opinion, not even yours if I understand what you wrote in other posts. 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 Feb 11 01:30:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:30:10 +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 BAA06698 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:29:57 +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 JAA27013 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:28:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990210093336.0069badc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:33:36 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Ethical? In-Reply-To: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:32 PM 2/10/99 +0100, Paul wrote: >I am a new in the arbitration circuit and need help with the following. [hand snipped] >Bidding: >1NT 2H ...pass pass >2NT > >Is this 2NT bid allowed, or did North use the thinking time of partner? >Wat should be my decision? Hello, Paul, and welcome to BLML. I'll leave it to others to collect your cat and dog info. To answer your question, if I were called to the table in the situation you describe, and found no special circumstances not mentioned above, I would definitely rule the contract back to 2H by East (and inform N-S of their right to appeal my ruling). Two points need be made about your message, as you will learn soon enough as you continue to participate in our discussions: (1) You seem to be asking the wrong question. The right question is whether South's slow pass made North's 2NT bid more attractive, in some abstract or theoretical sense which has nothing to do with North's actual thinking. The question of whether North "used" South's huddle to find his 2NT bid or would have bid 2NT anyhow is completely irrelevant. (2) Your subject line seems misguided. Ruling the contract back to 2H says only that North has committed a violation of the rules. It carries absolutely no implication that he has acted unethically. 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 Feb 11 02:07:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 02:07:36 +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 CAA08769 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 02:07:26 +1100 Received: from txdirect.net (anas-01-26.sat.idworld.net [209.142.69.250]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id JAA20521; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:07:01 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <36C1A07D.9E9C1C1@txdirect.net> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:06:37 -0600 From: "Albert \"BiigAl\" Lochli" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Lippens CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Ethical? References: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The bid by North should not be permitted - especially following a delay (hesitation, pause for thought) by his partner. (His partner had a problem - a five card heart suit, a void and points). There is a law (73 and 16) covering actions by a partner ACTING on a partners hesitation, it should be applied. And North advised of the unacceptability of sure actions. If a very experienced player, the Law should be applied to the fullest extent. A less experienced player should be educated, the more experienced punished. Adjusted scores and procedural penalties may apply. 1 NT Being a limited bid by nature - they cards held do not indicate any further action. A re-opening double is even less indicated. The argument that 18 points were held ,- but so short in tricks, and no spade cover really further leads to the conclusion that the bid was based on the partnership pause. I decry the use of ethical/unethical commentary. Inappropriate action maybe but without a clear and consistent pattern and a history I would not use ethical/unethical no matter how improper. However, I would remember - and be more stringent on any further like occurance. Paul Lippens wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am a new in the arbitration circuit and need help with the following. > > N/all > > North: > A2 > KT9 > AJ65 > AQ73 > > East: > KT9 > AJ8764 > T > JT5 > > South: > Q873 > - > Q8732 > K942 > > West: > J654 > Q532 > K94 > 86 > > Bidding: > 1NT 2H ...pass pass > 2NT > > Is this 2NT bid allowed, or did North use the thinking time of partner? > Wat should be my decision? > > Thanks for your help. > > Paul Lippens -- 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 Thu Feb 11 02:56:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 02:56:33 +1100 Received: from mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de (mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA11569 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 02:56:19 +1100 Received: from ralf.brain.uni-freiburg.de (sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de) [132.230.63.114] by mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #3) id 10Abzc-0007Da-00; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:56:00 +0100 Message-ID: <36C1AC37.4EDD61A0@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:57:08 +0100 From: Ralf Teichmann Reply-To: teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Lippens , bridge laws Subject: Re: Ethical? References: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk  

Paul Lippens wrote:

Hi all,

I am a new in the arbitration circuit and need help with the following.

N/all

                          North:
                          A2
                          KT9
                          AJ65
                          AQ73

             West:                    East:
             J654                     KT9
             Q532                     AJ8764
             K94                      T
             86                       JT5
 

                          South:
                          Q873

                          Q8732
                          K942

Bidding:
1NT  2H  ...pass  pass
2NT

Is this 2NT bid allowed, or did North use the thinking time of partner?
Wat should be my decision?

Thanks for your help.

Paul Lippens

Hi Paul,

I assume N/S's notrump range is 16-18 HCP. So N allready bid what he had. Just having a maximum is no reason to bid on if partner passed, and it is absolutely not funny to do this if partner had a slow pass.
If you were called at the moment indicated and the auction is not over, let them proceed. After the play and if there is a damage for E/W, you should set the contract to 2H by East made or -more probable- down one.

However, if N/S's notrump range is 12-14 and north miscounted his hand (maybe an ace was occluded), ...

Ralf From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 03:01:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:01:04 +1100 Received: from mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de (mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA11821 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:00:40 +1100 Received: from ralf.brain.uni-freiburg.de (sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de) [132.230.63.114] by mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #3) id 10Ac3x-0007Iv-00; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:00:29 +0100 Message-ID: <36C1AD43.8BE121A@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:01:39 +0100 From: Ralf Teichmann Reply-To: teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Re: Ethical? References: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> <36C1AC37.4EDD61A0@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Paul Lippens wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am a new in the arbitration circuit and need help with the >> following. >> >> N/all >> >> North: >> A2 >> KT9 >> AJ65 >> AQ73 >> >> West: East: >> J654 KT9 >> Q532 AJ8764 >> K94 T >> 86 JT5 >> >> >> South: >> Q873 > >> Q8732 >> K942 >> >> Bidding: >> 1NT 2H ...pass pass >> 2NT >> >> Is this 2NT bid allowed, or did North use the thinking time of >> partner? >> Wat should be my decision? >> >> Thanks for your help. >> >> Paul Lippens > > Hi Paul, > > I assume N/S's notrump range is 16-18 HCP. So N already bid what he > had. Just having a maximum is no reason to bid on if partner passed, > and it is absolutely not funny to do this if partner had a slow pass. > If you were called at the moment indicated and the auction is not > over, let them proceed. After the play and if there is a damage for > E/W, you should set the contract to 2H by East made or -more probable- > down one. > > However, if N/S's notrump range is 12-14 and north miscounted his hand > (maybe an ace was occluded), ... > > Ralf I apologize for html-posting Ralf From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 03:12:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:12:42 +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 DAA12513 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:12:34 +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 RAA12510; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:11:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA15486; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:11:53 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:11:53 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Paul Lippens cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Ethical? In-Reply-To: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Paul Lippens wrote: Welcome to the list! N/A A2 KT9 AJ65 AQ73 J654 KT9 Q532 AJ8764 K94 T 86 JT5 Q873 -- Q8732 K942 North East South West > 1NT 2H ...pass pass > 2NT > Is this 2NT bid allowed, or did North use the thinking time of partner? IMHO, no. It is extremely rare for a player to bid again after a descriptive 16-18 1NT opening bid and a silent partner, so pass is definitely a Logical Alternative. However, bidding became a lot more attractive once partner broke tempo and thus presumably had some values. North may not select the alternatives suggested by the break in tempo (2NT, or perhaps X) over the other one. > Wat should be my decision? Now that the 2NT isn't allowed, 2H will be the final contract. At the first glance, it looks as this will go down 1, declarer losing 2 clubs, a diamond, a trump and 2 spades, so the score is adjusted to 2H, NS +100. (Assuming, of course, that declarer somehow made his 8 tricks in NT). 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 Thu Feb 11 03:26:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:26:56 +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 DAA13256 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:26:44 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA02295 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:23:41 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199902101623.KAA02295@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:23:41 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > So I propose the following blml-decision : > > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did > not seek the same information." I dissent. I sometimes do not ask the meaning of a conventional bid when I am behind it, intending to ask later when the auction has run its course. If we accept your decision, then if partner happens to ask I am banned from using the information I was going to ask about later. But, more importantly, I don't think that opponents' explanations of their methods should be UI, although I might accept an interpretation that says that partner may not ask question for the purpose of waking me up. > Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 04:16:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 04:16:03 +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 EAA15450 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 04:15:57 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA13626; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:15:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902101715.JAA13626@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "magda.thain" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:14:34 -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 ---------- > From: magda.thain > > In our community hall I told the players that if something happens but they > do not want a ruling they should say nothing and go on with the game. I > thought that was what the law allowed. Are you saying I am wrong? They > like to call me or my mother only for bigger problems. > > > From: Herman De Wael > > >> > >Do I gather from your wording that declarer knew this had > >happened at the time but had said nothing ? > > > >Now that's tricky ! > > > >A player is not obliged to draw attention to an > >irregularity, but is it fair not to do so ? > > > >I don't like it, but I cannot quickly find anything wrong > >with it. > > > If the irregularity is subject to any sort of penalty, failure to call attention to it is surely tantamount to waiving a penalty, forbidden by L72A3: In duplicate tournaments a player may not, on his own initiative, waive a penalty for an opponent's infraction... That makes it okay in a home duplicate game or other non-tournament contest. A declarer's revoke is not subject to penalty until it is established. I don't believe good sportsmanship requires me to remind declarer that he has a card of the suit led. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 04:44:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 04:44:09 +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 EAA15510 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 04:44:03 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA16808 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:43:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902101743.JAA16808@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:41:59 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A bridge magazine editor has just told me that there has been some reasoned debate in the past as to whether it is better to matchpoint by sections or ATF within the same event-- that there are arguments on both sides-- This is not the first time I have heard (or rather, seen) this, but it's hard for me to believe that there could be a good argument against ATF. I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention to a few counter-arguments that were posted on RGB, and I can't find them now. What is BLML opinion, please? Let's get the matter settled once and for all, one way or the other. Comments about players' desires are inappropriate. Besides, our La Jolla & Beach unit (wife Alice president) has been using ATF combined with in-section ranking for other than overall placement (an ACBLScore option that few know about), and the players love it. Someone on rgb reported that a TD told him that this scoring method is not permitted by the ACBL. He shouldn't believe everything that TDs say. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Fairness is not a popularity contest From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 05:03:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 05:03:39 +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 FAA15549 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 05:03:33 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa22793; 10 Feb 99 10:03 PST To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:19:25 PST." <36C16B3D.58165737@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:02:59 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902101003.aa22793@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > So I propose the following blml-decision : > > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did > not seek the same information." Well, a rule like this may have some merit (althought Grant's objection has merit, also). Whether it's a good rule or not, however, I don't think it's an interpretation that can be supported by the current Laws. Thus, if we were to adopt an interpretation like this, we would be, in effect, creating new Laws that probably contravene the existing ones. Eric and others have been trying to interpret "extraneous information" to include answers to questions that partner asks. The problem with this is that there's nothing in the Laws to distinguish between a question asked by the bidder's LHO and a question asked by the fourth hand. Thus, if you interpret "extraneous information" in this way, the interpretation has to apply regardless of when the question is asked---leading to the situation where if your LHO bids and your partner asks a question about it, you must treat the response as UI. I don't see how you can make it so that this definition applies only to one questioner and not the other, unless you create a new Law. As for whether a new Law, or a new rule like Herman's, is needed: My feeling is that the general principle underlying everything else is that "partners may not pass information to each other", and all the rules on UI that deal with the hand being played are attempts to put this general principle into practice. I don't see how a rule like this would further this general principle. (On the other hand, I think that asking a question for the sole purpose of having your partner hear the answer would violate the principle; but that's not the case here.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 05:12:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 05:12:26 +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 FAA15581 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 05:12:18 +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 <19990210181152.ZEJP23406.fep4@ip52.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:11:52 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:11:52 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36c3cbb7.10317886@post12.tele.dk> References: <9902091048.aa13130@flash.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <9902091048.aa13130@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 Tue, 09 Feb 1999 10:48:04 PST, Adam Beneschan wrote: >I still believe that if there's no UI (e.g. the opponents requested >before the round that you not alert), the opponents' answer to >partner's question is authorized. I agree with this. I play in a club of 16 pairs of which approximately 15 plays 2D Multi. The following could well happen: My LHO opens 2D, alerted. I have a weak hand with 2=3D2=3D4=3D5 shape, and vaguely assumes that this is probably a Multi. Now my partner asks what 2D means and is told that it is an opening hand with a 4441 shape. Yes, of course, this is the pair that does not play multi. Partner then bids 2H, which is natural (because we have no special agreement) over the actual call, but which over a Multi would show hearts and tolerance for the minors. RHO bids 2S, alerted. Now what? If the explanation is AI to me, I will pass; if it is UI, I will have to bid 3C. It may depend: (a) Perhaps I'm confident that without the explanation I would have remembered to ask (or look) myself, (b) Perhaps I'm certain that I would not have asked, but just have assumed that it was a Multi, (c) Perhaps I believe I probably would have asked, but just might not, (d) Perhaps I consider it likely, but not certain, that I would have noticed who I was playing against (they've played that system for more years than I've played bridge, so it should not really come as a surprise). Do I really have to determine which of these cases apply whenever partner has asked a question and received an answer? If the information is UI it seems to me that I can use it only in case (a), and I would find that quite unreasonable. If you find that this situation is different from the original one because partner asked _before_ I had to call, imagine that the auction started on my right with a 2D opening which I passed without much thought because my hand was weak, and partner later asks. Then we're back in the same situation. What if partner had told me _before_ the round: "Don't forget that these opponents are not playing Multi"? Is that a different situation in any significant way? It seems to me that any information about the opponents' system has to be AI: it is information that I'm entitled to. There is no way to determine whether I might have asked or read the CC on my own, and applying the standards normally used for UI would IMO be quite unreasonable. In the original case, there is no way to determine whether the player would have asked (or checked the CC again) or not. The ideal is that all players always have the benefit of full knowledge of the opponents' system. We have procedures (CCs, questions) that try to get near that ideal. When it accidentally happens that we get nearer to the ideal by some other means (such as a reply to partner's question), that is good. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 05:18:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 05:18:23 +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 FAA15623 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 05:18:17 +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 <19990210181751.ZEWN23406.fep4@ip52.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:17:51 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:17:51 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36c4cce0.10615123@post12.tele.dk> References: <199902101623.KAA02295@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199902101623.KAA02295@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:23:41 -0600 (CST), cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > But, more importantly, I don't think that opponents' explanations >of their methods should be UI, although I might accept an interpretation >that says that partner may not ask question for the purpose of waking me >up. I agree. The ban on asking for partner's benefit is to avoid UI arising from the fact that the question was asked on a specific occasion, not because the reply itself is a problem. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 05:18:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 05:18:41 +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 FAA15630 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 05:18:35 +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 <19990210181828.ZEXT23406.fep4@ip52.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:18:28 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:18:28 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36c4cce0.10615123@post12.tele.dk> References: <199902101623.KAA02295@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199902101623.KAA02295@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:23:41 -0600 (CST), cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > But, more importantly, I don't think that opponents' explanations >of their methods should be UI, although I might accept an interpretation >that says that partner may not ask question for the purpose of waking me >up. I agree. The ban on asking for partner's benefit is to avoid UI arising from the fact that the question was asked on a specific occasion, not because the reply itself is a problem. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 05:30:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 05:30:42 +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 FAA15692 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 05:30:35 +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 NAA80984 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:30:29 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id NAA13096 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:25:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199902101825.NAA13096@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae02dm02sc06 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:25:06, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Internet simulcast (IB) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Regarding computer input by players for the finals of event. 1) We are not technically ready, but I am sure the time is coming soon. 2) It would make my job a heck of a lot easier when we are reporting and event. I have often brought up the idea of the broadcast rights being held by the NCBO. The output would go to a server. From the server you go to the Auditorium and you make it possible that any online bridge club, that wants to pay for the rights, can tap into the server and display the data on their system. 3) But here comes the real problem that no one is considering: All of us organize information in our brains in different ways. When I learned to play bridge I couldn't remember all the cards, so eventually I created a map/form/array that was filled in as the cards were played. Then came the first time I played online bridge. It was an absolutely stressful situation when I found out I couldn't remember all the cards that had been played. I had to add to my brain a 2nd way to remember cards. This takes practice to have your brain make this new map. It is totally unfair to subject a player, who has never played on-line bridge, to the stress of both the finals of a major event AND the stress of figuring out how a computer program works. If you play with bidding boxes and you are use to the auction looking like a square around the table and now the auction looks like something from a newspaper, you have to spend a couple of extra seconds processing that information in a different form. Or even if you are use to hearing the auction and now must see the auction, transition in either direction is difficult. 4) In order for the next step in technical accomplishments I predict that we must have several methods ready to go at a moments notice. a) Four players are comfortable with online bridge; no problem b) Four recorders, connected to laptops, sitting behind each player, recording the bid or play directly (meaning live). Also, having done this, you need to practice at recording. c) A recorder capable of doing a whole table into a laptop and the information goes out live. d) It is very difficult to be the only recorder at the table because there is always some player who holds or plays their cards in a manner in which you can't see what is going on. It is easier to be the recorder for the person sitting on the opposite side of the table than you are. This might make having two live laptops at each table a practical idea. Don't suggest asking the players to play their cards differently; they would gladly accommodate you and as soon as the first hand comes by that needs extra thought, they forget everything and go back to their old habits. Wish list, not probably going to happen any time soon: Upgrade in technology: in front of each player there is a bar code reader. Each time a player makes a bid or plays a a card, we train the players to pass their play or bid in front of the bar code reader. I think it is much easier to train a player to do this than to learn a computer program. At first thought you might think this is unreasonable, but learning to use a computer program requires analysis. Learning to pass a card through or in front of a bar code reader is a single repetitive action that will eventually require no thought; it is like taking the card out of your hand and playing it face up on the table. -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 05:37:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 05:37:12 +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 FAA15713 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 05:37:05 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa24513; 10 Feb 99 10:36 PST To: Bridgelaws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:23:41 PST." <199902101623.KAA02295@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:36:32 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902101036.aa24513@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > So I propose the following blml-decision : > > > > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner > > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be > > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did > > not seek the same information." > > I dissent. I sometimes do not ask the meaning of a conventional > bid when I am behind it, intending to ask later when the auction has run > its course. If we accept your decision, then if partner happens to ask I > am banned from using the information I was going to ask about later. Hmmm, it just occurred to me that in some places, such as EBU-land, the official policy is that you may not ask the meaning of a call during the auction if it's not going to affect your call. I think this is a bad policy, but it does exist in places, and in other places this type of behavior is sometimes encouraged, on the theory that asking a question deceives the opponents into thinking you have something in your hand to think about. So what if the above BLML-decision were to take effect in places like that? You'd be completely screwed. RHO makes a bid, alerted. You have a flat 7-count that would never do anything besides pass, so you're not allowed to ask what RHO's bid means. LHO passes to your partner, who has a hand that might be worth reopening, so he asks what the bid means. Now, according to the proposed rule, the opponents' answer is UI for you. So the rules would imply not only that you're prevented from knowing what the alerted bid means, you must bend over backward to choose logical alternatives that are not suggested by this knowledge!!! Is this bridge? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 06:24:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 06:24:30 +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 GAA15772 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 06:24:18 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA28607; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:23:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-04.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.68) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028379; Wed Feb 10 13:22:50 1999 Received: by har-pa2-04.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE5500.D5F33780@har-pa2-04.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:22:49 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE5500.D5F33780@har-pa2-04.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'CHYAH E BURGHARD'" Subject: RE: Internet simulcast (IB) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:16:54 -0500 Encoding: 59 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: CHYAH E BURGHARD[SMTP:DMFV47B@prodigy.com] (snip)3) But here comes the real problem that no one is considering: All of us organize information in our brains in different ways. When I learned to play bridge I couldn't remember all the cards, so eventually I created a map/form/array that was filled in as the cards were played. Then came the first time I played online bridge. It was an absolutely stressful situation when I found out I couldn't remember all the cards that had been played. I had to add to my brain a 2nd way to remember cards. This takes practice to have your brain make this new map. It is totally unfair to subject a player, who has never played on-line bridge, to the stress of both the finals of a major event AND the stress of figuring out how a computer program works. If you play with bidding boxes and you are use to the auction looking like a square around the table and now the auction looks like something from a newspaper, you have to spend a couple of extra seconds processing that information in a different form. Or even if you are use to hearing the auction and now must see the auction, transition in either direction is difficult. ##### Cannot this problem best be eliminated by making the conditions of contest known some months in advance, allowing all potential serious competitors ample time to practice under the match conditions? As you point out, the shift to bid boxes made a difference until folks got used to it...but they did rather rapidly.##### (snip) At first thought you might think this is unreasonable, but learning to use a computer program requires analysis. Learning to pass a card through or in front of a bar code reader is a single repetitive action that will eventually require no thought; it is like taking the card out of your hand and playing it face up on the table. ### I don't think it unreasonable...I do think it highly unnecessary. You do not need to learn a computer program to play online bridge. You just need to learn how to point and click a mouse and type a little bit. My 7 year old has no problem with this, and is mostly self-taught. Many people who couldn't place sixth in a seven table novice game have no problem whatever with the mechanics of most online programs once the software is downloaded and their computer is set up. This is not rocket science. Anyone who could not master it swiftly would certainly lack the intelligence to play in a high level game. There might be a need to accomodate some physical handicaps with vision or manual dexterity...but no more so than there is now with playing cards and bid boxes. Craig ##### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 06:40:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 06:40:31 +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 GAA15826 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 06:40:25 +1100 Received: from ip87.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.87]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990210194018.ZNNW23406.fep4@ip87.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:40:18 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:40:18 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36cfe001.15511394@post12.tele.dk> References: <9902101036.aa24513@flash.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <9902101036.aa24513@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 Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:36:32 PST, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: >=20 >> > So I propose the following blml-decision : >> >=20 >> > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner >> > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be >> > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did >> > not seek the same information." >>=20 >> I dissent. I sometimes do not ask the meaning of a conventional >> bid when I am behind it, intending to ask later when the auction has = run >> its course. If we accept your decision, then if partner happens to = ask I >> am banned from using the information I was going to ask about later. > >Hmmm, it just occurred to me that in some places, such as EBU-land, >the official policy is that you may not ask the meaning of a call >during the auction if it's not going to affect your call. I think >this is a bad policy, but it does exist in places, and in other places >this type of behavior is sometimes encouraged, on the theory that >asking a question deceives the opponents into thinking you have >something in your hand to think about. > >So what if the above BLML-decision were to take effect in places like >that? It does not have to be "in places like that". There is, everywhere, a perfectly good reason for sometimes "not seeking the same information": you may have the information already from former knowledge of these opponents, or from knowledge of the system they play. I hope nobody is suggesting that we should ask for information we already have just to demonstrate that we did not need to listen to the answer to partner's question. Apologies for sending a previous message twice: the mail program indicated that the first attempt had failed, and I believed it. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 07:01:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 07:01:30 +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 HAA15883 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 07:01:24 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA01807; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:01:13 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902102001.MAA01807@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:59:30 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Herman wrote: > > > So I propose the following blml-decision : > > > > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner > > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be > > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did > > not seek the same information." > I propose the following blml-decision: "Players should not ask question a call when the answer is clearly shown on the opposing convention card" That's why we have cc's, isn't it? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum censeo prohibitandas esse multas quaestiones From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 07:41:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 07:41:12 +1100 Received: from out2.ibm.net (out2.ibm.net [165.87.194.229]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA15946 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 07:41:06 +1100 Received: from newron-3d (slip139-92-183-155.hai.il.ibm.net [139.92.183.155]) by out2.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA48812; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:40:56 GMT Message-ID: <00a801be5535$a3d622a0$9bb75c8b@newron-3d> From: "Ilan Shezifi" To: "Paul Lippens" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Ethical? Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:40:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.37 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.37 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by out2.ibm.net id UAA48812 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lippens To: Bridge Laws Date: =E9=E5=ED =F8=E1=E9=F2=E9 10 =F4=E1=F8=E5=E0=F8 1999 16:10 Subject: Ethical? >Hi all, > >I am a new in the arbitration circuit and need help with the following. > >N/all > >North: >A2 >KT9 >AJ65 >AQ73 > >East: >KT9 >AJ8764 >T >JT5 > >South: >Q873 >- >Q8732 >K942 > >West: >J654 >Q532 >K94 >86 > >Bidding: >1NT 2H ...pass pass >2NT > >Is this 2NT bid allowed, or did North use the thinking time of partner? >Wat should be my decision? > >Thanks for your help. > >Paul Lippens > > > Hi Paul I agree with all the previous answers, (NO ! ) and, if North is experienc= ed player, I'll consider to add procedural penalty in points. Ilan Shezifi Israel Bridge Federation. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 08:22:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:22:42 +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 IAA16032 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:22:35 +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 <19990210212229.MLUG6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:22:29 -0800 Message-ID: <36C1F982.A31C076B@home.com> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:26:26 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902091048.aa13130@flash.irvine.com> <36c3cbb7.10317886@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I apologize for a "me too" post but in case anyone keeps "score" I fully agree with the gist of Jesper's, Grant's etc position, and would just add that a new law like Herman proposes also seems completely impossible to administer (the usual stuff abt entering a specific players mind, etc.). As a general comment, I find it impossible at the same time to support the principle of full disclosure while creating all kinds of UI problems for us when opponents do indeed fully disclose! :-) Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 10:48:04 PST, Adam Beneschan > wrote: > > >I still believe that if there's no UI (e.g. the opponents requested > >before the round that you not alert), the opponents' answer to > >partner's question is authorized. > > I agree with this. > > I play in a club of 16 pairs of which approximately 15 plays 2D > Multi. > > The following could well happen: > > My LHO opens 2D, alerted. I have a weak hand with 2=2=4=5 shape, > and vaguely assumes that this is probably a Multi. > > Now my partner asks what 2D means and is told that it is an > opening hand with a 4441 shape. Yes, of course, this is the pair > that does not play multi. Partner then bids 2H, which is natural > (because we have no special agreement) over the actual call, but > which over a Multi would show hearts and tolerance for the > minors. RHO bids 2S, alerted. > > Now what? If the explanation is AI to me, I will pass; if it is > UI, I will have to bid 3C. > > It may depend: > (a) Perhaps I'm confident that without the explanation I would > have remembered to ask (or look) myself, > (b) Perhaps I'm certain that I would not have asked, but just > have assumed that it was a Multi, > (c) Perhaps I believe I probably would have asked, but just might > not, > (d) Perhaps I consider it likely, but not certain, that I would > have noticed who I was playing against (they've played that > system for more years than I've played bridge, so it should not > really come as a surprise). > > Do I really have to determine which of these cases apply whenever > partner has asked a question and received an answer? If the > information is UI it seems to me that I can use it only in case > (a), and I would find that quite unreasonable. > > If you find that this situation is different from the original > one because partner asked _before_ I had to call, imagine that > the auction started on my right with a 2D opening which I passed > without much thought because my hand was weak, and partner later > asks. Then we're back in the same situation. > > What if partner had told me _before_ the round: "Don't forget > that these opponents are not playing Multi"? Is that a different > situation in any significant way? > > It seems to me that any information about the opponents' system > has to be AI: it is information that I'm entitled to. There is > no way to determine whether I might have asked or read the CC on > my own, and applying the standards normally used for UI would IMO > be quite unreasonable. > > In the original case, there is no way to determine whether the > player would have asked (or checked the CC again) or not. > > The ideal is that all players always have the benefit of full > knowledge of the opponents' system. We have procedures (CCs, > questions) that try to get near that ideal. When it accidentally > happens that we get nearer to the ideal by some other means (such > as a reply to partner's question), that is good. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 11:14:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:14:21 +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 LAA16419 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:14:14 +1100 Received: from p66s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.103] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10Ajlb-0003iK-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:14:04 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:19:15 -0000 Message-ID: <01be5554$2843d320$678693c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: magda.thain ; Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 5:42 PM Subject: Re: Law 9 >---------- >> From: magda.thain >> >> In our community hall I told the players that if something >happens but they >> do not want a ruling they should say nothing and go on with the >game. I >> thought that was what the law allowed. Are you saying I am >wrong? They >> like to call me or my mother only for bigger problems. >> >> >> From: Herman De Wael >> >> >> >> >Do I gather from your wording that declarer knew this had >> >happened at the time but had said nothing ? >> > >> >Now that's tricky ! >> > >> >A player is not obliged to draw attention to an >> >irregularity, but is it fair not to do so ? >> > >> >I don't like it, but I cannot quickly find anything wrong >> >with it. >> > >> >If the irregularity is subject to any sort of penalty, failure to >call attention to it is surely tantamount to waiving a penalty, >forbidden by L72A3: In duplicate tournaments a player may not, on >his own initiative, waive a penalty for an opponent's infraction... > >That makes it okay in a home duplicate game or other non-tournament >contest. You speak with authority. I would have thought that "it" is only OK if the players have agreed that they are playing a game of cards without observing the Laws of Bridge, or having agreed which of the Laws they are not going to observe. It might be good fun and suitable for a Christmas Party to agree that the only Laws to be observed are the Even numbered Laws! The Laws of Duplicate Bridge apply to all duplicate games played to the rules. Remeber that Law 93 allows any player to appeal to the national authority, not only players in high powered tournaments, not only members of a NBO, but even LOLs playing duplicate Bridge at home. Anne > >A declarer's revoke is not subject to penalty until it is >established. I don't believe good sportsmanship requires me to >remind declarer that he has a card of the suit led. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 11:47:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:47:10 +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 LAA16509 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:47:04 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10AkHQ-0006J1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:46:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 18:59:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Ethical? In-Reply-To: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com>, Paul Lippens writes >Hi all, > >I am a new in the arbitration circuit and need help with the following. > >N/all > >North: >A2 >KT9 >AJ65 >AQ73 > >East: >KT9 >AJ8764 >T >JT5 > >South: >Q873 >- >Q8732 >K942 > >West: >J654 >Q532 >K94 >86 > >Bidding: >1NT 2H ...pass pass >2NT. >Is this 2NT bid allowed, or did North use the thinking time of partner? >Wat should be my decision? > Regardless of the announced range of the 1NT (which you should specify in your problem - I play 10-12 for example) I'd rule back to 2H. Pass is a logical alternative to 2N, and the hesitation suggests that of the alternatives, bidding on may be more successful. BTW please lay hands out traditionally. Cheers John. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ we've got 101 |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. points |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) more than|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\you know who|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 12:26:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:26:28 +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 MAA16643 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:26:22 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10AktU-0007Vh-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:26:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:20:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <199902102001.MAA01807@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199902102001.MAA01807@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >> Herman wrote: >> >> > So I propose the following blml-decision : >> > >> > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner >> > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be >> > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did >> > not seek the same information." >> >I propose the following blml-decision: > >"Players should not ask question a call when the answer is clearly >shown on the opposing convention card" > >That's why we have cc's, isn't it? > Why slow the game down? It goes 1S, P, 2N* "raise eyebrow at LHO" "Baron" "tx", 3S* "eyebrow" "H & minor" "tx", 4D* "uh" "Q" "tx", etc all over in 5 seconds. I want to play bridge, not get eyestrain from peering at incompletely and scruffily filled in ccs. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ we've got 101 |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. points |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) more than|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\you know who|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 12:46:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:46:05 +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 MAA16711 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:45:59 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10AlCO-0001op-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:45:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:30:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 9 References: <000201be54de$94286220$4bb259c3@default> In-Reply-To: <000201be54de$94286220$4bb259c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk magda.thain wrote: >cookbury@purplenet.co.uk > >In our community hall I told the players that if something happens but they >do not want a ruling they should say nothing and go on with the game. I >thought that was what the law allowed. Are you saying I am wrong? They >like to call me or my mother only for bigger problems. While some people dislike this approach, which may be technically illegal, most people consider it acceptable. The problem on the actual hand is that the player concerned knew that an infraction had occurred - he had seen five cards played to a trick - and knew something was going to be said about it eventually because one player [and he knew who] would eventually be a card short. -- 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 Feb 11 12:46:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:46:04 +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 MAA16710 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:45:58 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10AlCO-0001oq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:45:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:36:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <3.0.5.32.19990209093835.007afbd0@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.1.32.19990209231926.00710c5c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990209231926.00710c5c@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 09:38 AM 2/9/99 +0100, Jean Pierre wrote: >> Not so easy IMO. According to L16, opponents' response to partner's >>inquiry doesn't suit the definition of AI, it's neither extraneous >>information from partner; so it should be what is left (Extraneous Info >>from others sources) but does no more suit its definition of "accidental >>info". If we try the "screen test", it appears to be UI (info. not >>available when playing with screens). An interesting rule. Mannerisms of one opponent is not available with screens [since you cannot see him]. So, in ordinary play, mannerisms of LHO are UI and of RHO are AI? No, sorry, your screen test is a flawed method of deciding 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 Thu Feb 11 14:13:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA17099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:13:59 +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 OAA17083 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:13:51 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10AmZT-0005Ac-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:13:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 02:58:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <199902102001.MAA01807@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199902102001.MAA01807@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: >> Herman wrote: >> >> > So I propose the following blml-decision : >> > >> > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner >> > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be >> > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did >> > not seek the same information." >> >I propose the following blml-decision: > >"Players should not ask question a call when the answer is clearly >shown on the opposing convention card" > >That's why we have cc's, isn't it? No. -- 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 Feb 11 14:14:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA17101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:14:01 +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 OAA17084 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:13:53 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10AmZT-0005V5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:13:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 02:53:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 9 References: <199902101715.JAA13626@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199902101715.JAA13626@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: >---------- >> From: magda.thain >> >> In our community hall I told the players that if something >happens but they >> do not want a ruling they should say nothing and go on with the >game. I >> thought that was what the law allowed. Are you saying I am >wrong? They >> like to call me or my mother only for bigger problems. >> >> >> From: Herman De Wael >> >> >> >> >Do I gather from your wording that declarer knew this had >> >happened at the time but had said nothing ? >> > >> >Now that's tricky ! >> > >> >A player is not obliged to draw attention to an >> >irregularity, but is it fair not to do so ? >> > >> >I don't like it, but I cannot quickly find anything wrong >> >with it. >> > >> >If the irregularity is subject to any sort of penalty, failure to >call attention to it is surely tantamount to waiving a penalty, >forbidden by L72A3: In duplicate tournaments a player may not, on >his own initiative, waive a penalty for an opponent's infraction... The word 'tantamount' always gets the hackles to rise at the back of my neck. If I leave the matter to the end of the hand, and then call the Director and ask for a ruling, I may have done many things, but I certainly have not waived a penalty! -- 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 Feb 11 14:14:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA17102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:14:02 +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 OAA17094 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:13:56 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10AmZT-0006Fh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:13:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:06:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ethical? References: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> In-Reply-To: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Paul Lippens wrote: >I am a new in the arbitration circuit and need help with the following. Well, everyone else has given you the right answer, so I shall not repeat it. I just would like to say Hi, hope you enjoy yourself here, and hope you have a cat or two to show your heart is in the right place [ok, or a dog ]. -- 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 Feb 11 15:04:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA17232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:04:52 +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 PAA17227 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:04:47 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA02364 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:04:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902110404.UAA02364@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:02:05 -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 ---------- > From: AnneJones > > > From: Marvin L. French > > > >---------- > >> From: magda.thain > >> > >> In our community hall I told the players that if something > >happens but they > >> do not want a ruling they should say nothing and go on with the > >game. I > >> thought that was what the law allowed. Are you saying I am > >wrong? They > >> like to call me or my mother only for bigger problems. > >> > >> > >> From: Herman De Wael > >> > >> >> > >> >Do I gather from your wording that declarer knew this had > >> >happened at the time but had said nothing ? > >> > > >> >Now that's tricky ! > >> > > >> >A player is not obliged to draw attention to an > >> >irregularity, but is it fair not to do so ? > >> > > >> >I don't like it, but I cannot quickly find anything wrong > >> >with it. > >> > > >> > >If the irregularity is subject to any sort of penalty, failure to > >call attention to it is surely tantamount to waiving a penalty, > >forbidden by L72A3: In duplicate tournaments a player may not, on > >his own initiative, waive a penalty for an opponent's infraction... > > > >That makes it okay in a home duplicate game or other non-tournament > >contest. > > You speak with authority. I would have thought that "it" is only OK if the > players have agreed that they are playing a game of cards without observing > the Laws of Bridge, or having agreed which of the Laws they are not going to > observe. > It might be good fun and suitable for a Christmas Party to agree that the > only Laws to be observed are the Even numbered Laws! > The Laws of Duplicate Bridge apply to all duplicate games played to the > rules. Remeber that Law 93 allows any player to appeal to the national > authority, not only players in high powered tournaments, not only members of > a NBO, but even LOLs playing duplicate Bridge at home. Well, L72A3 is applicable only to duplicate tournaments, as it says. If it were applicable to all duplicate games, there would be no need to qualify its effectivity, since the title of the book is *The Laws of Duplicate Bridge*. The law is merely recognizing that there would likely be no Director in non-tournament duplicate games. It permits me as a player to waive a penalty in a home game, a right that I am unlikely to exercise in other than a friendly game of DOOP. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 17:23:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:23:38 +1100 Received: from wacky.total.net (wacky.total.net [205.236.175.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA17405 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:23:31 +1100 Received: from total.net (ppp-annex-0164.que.total.net [205.236.100.74]) by wacky.total.net (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA05134 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:23:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36C27736.3CB2B06E@total.net> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:22:49 -0500 From: Andre Pion X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-CA,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bridge , List" Subject: How retroactive is Law 40? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This week is a STaC(Sectional Tournament at Club) in our unit. Tonight I feel I have been had. Would you please tell me how to react next time and if I can adjust score of round 1 at round 7 on the base of Law 40. At round 1 , I am called at a table where E/W are complaining that N/S have coded leads and that it is not written on North CC and unreadable on South CC. N/S are well seasonned players. They don't play together at club meetings but they are regularly seen together in tournaments. CCs do not match; I told the 2 ladies about law 40 that they do know of and asked them to have matching CCs and gave them the benefit of the doubt. At round 7, the field was quiet so I was kibitzing at their tables. My eye caught one of their CC and then the second one. They were not the CCs from the 1st round nor new CCs but their regular Tournament CC that they took out of their CC holder. On rd 1, the NS pair did 3NT +1 and the field did a flat 3NT on that board; I feel strongly that the EW pair who are good players would have better defended if they had known the leads were coded. What are your advices for future reference? Can adjust score of round 1 at round 7 on the base of Law 40. Thank you Andre Pion Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 18:15:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA17508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:15:38 +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 SAA17503 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:15:32 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA03080; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 23:14:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902110714.XAA03080@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 23:12:06 -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 > From: John (MadDog) Probst > "Marvin L. French" > >> Herman wrote: > >> > >> > So I propose the following blml-decision : > >> > > >> > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner > >> > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be > >> > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did > >> > not seek the same information." > >> > >I propose the following blml-decision: > > > >"Players should not ask question a call when the answer is clearly > >shown on the opposing convention card" > > > >That's why we have cc's, isn't it? > > > Why slow the game down? It goes 1S, P, 2N* "raise eyebrow at LHO" > "Baron" "tx", 3S* "eyebrow" "H & minor" "tx", 4D* "uh" "Q" "tx", etc > all over in 5 seconds. > > I want to play bridge, not get eyestrain from peering at incompletely > and scruffily filled in ccs. > Well, what we have here is evidently a cultural difference. In ACBL-land we have a regulation that requires the two cc's for each pair to be legible, complete, and in plain view. We can therefore casually glance at an opposing cc for information without: -- slowing the game down -- revealing particular interest -- helping partner -- generating UI -- eliciting UI -- creating problems for confused opponents -- solving problems for confused opponents -- violating L20F1 Uh, that is, in games where the regulation is enforced. It helps that we don't have as wide a variety of oddball conventions in common use as is found elsewhere. Fred Flam suggests Announcing the meaning and HCP range of partner's calls in the early rounds of bidding. Sounds extreme, but not a bad idea when players of some experience are involved. After a few rounds any necessary questioning can accord with L20F1: "Please explain your auction." Let's remember that the great majority of players are not sophisticated enough to practice the shorthand disclosures that are mutually appropriate for two experienced pairs. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 18:28:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA17556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:28:59 +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 SAA17551 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:28:54 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA04685; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 23:28:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902110728.XAA04685@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 23:26:01 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Marvin L. French wrote: > >> Herman wrote: > >> > >> > So I propose the following blml-decision : > >> > > >> > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner > >> > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be > >> > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did > >> > not seek the same information." > >> > >I propose the following blml-decision: > > > >"Players should not ask question a call when the answer is clearly > >shown on the opposing convention card" > > > >That's why we have cc's, isn't it? > > No. > Ah, another cultural difference. Over here the cc "is used by players in duplicate bridge to indicate to opponents the conventions and special understandings a pair has." (*The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge*). Also, the ACBL Convention Card regulation begins: "The ACBL Convention Card is designed to be easier for players to use by making available pertinent information to opponents." Using the cc merely as a scribbled documentation of one's understandings for the benefit of the partnership and TD/AC is not using it for its primary purpose. Over here, that is. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 19:28:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:28:57 +1100 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA17638 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:28:51 +1100 Received: from modem83.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.211] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10ArUF-0004zS-00; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:28:40 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "magda.thain" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 23:15:59 -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 But Facts are chiels that winna ding An downa be disputed - Robt. Burns ====================================== ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: magda.thain ; Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Law 9 > Date: 10 February 1999 17:14 > If the irregularity is subject to any sort of penalty, failure to > call attention to it is surely tantamount to waiving a penalty, > forbidden by L72A3: In duplicate tournaments a player may not, on > his own initiative, waive a penalty for an opponent's infraction... > ++++ Not, I would say, as surely as all that. It is not clear to me that to *forego* the penalty at the time, by not calling the Director, can necessarily be said to *waive* it. In any event the Director, called later, has his 10B discretion. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 20:27:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:27:04 +1100 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA17746 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:26:57 +1100 Received: from modem66.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.194] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10AsOZ-0002Er-00; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:26:51 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:22:14 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee But Facts are chiels that winna ding An downa be disputed - Robt. Burns ====================================== ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: BLML > Subject: Re: Law 9 > Date: 11 February 1999 04:02 > > > Well, L72A3 is applicable only to duplicate tournaments, as it > says. If it were applicable to all duplicate games, there would be > no need to qualify its effectivity, since the title of the book is > *The Laws of Duplicate Bridge*. The law is merely recognizing that > there would likely be no Director in non-tournament duplicate > games. It permits me as a player to waive a penalty in a home game, > a right that I am unlikely to exercise in other than a friendly > game of DOOP. +++ Your definition of "tournament" is eccentric, or perhaps esoteric. [Both words suited to email - :-)) ]. The dictionary says a tournament is "a contest in a game of skill between a number of competitors"; that means an occasional duplicate in a village hall just as much as a WBF World Championship. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 20:27:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:27:08 +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 UAA17751 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:27:02 +1100 Received: from modem66.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.194] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10AsOX-0002Er-00; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:26:49 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Andre Pion" , "Bridge , List" Subject: Re: How retroactive is Law 40? Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:11:20 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee But Facts are chiels that winna ding An downa be disputed - Robt. Burns =================================== ---------- > From: Andre Pion > To: Bridge , List > Subject: How retroactive is Law 40? > Date: 11 February 1999 06:22 > ----------------------\x/-------------------- > At round 1 , I am called at a table where E/W are complaining that N/S > have coded leads and that it is not written on North CC and unreadable > on South CC. N/S are well seasonned players. ---------\x/--------- > > At round 7, the field was quiet so I was kibitzing at their tables. My > eye caught one of their CC and then the second one. They were not the > CCs from the 1st round nor new CCs but their regular Tournament CC that > they took out of their CC holder. ---------\x/-------- > > What are your advices for future reference? Can adjust score of round 1 > at round 7 on the base of Law 40. > +++++ Yes. The authority for doing so is in Law 81C6. You may perhaps have a worry, too, for players they met on rounds 2 - 6. Just when did they start using the properly set-out cards? This being an experienced pair, a number of questions can be asked about their actions; it does not taste good. Let us hope it was just an aberration, but I am curious whether they agreed with their opponents on the first round that they were using coded leads - did you ask that question? If they said "yes" it is not altogether plain to me why you would not give their opponents the benefit of any doubt (and let the experienced pair appeal if they were bold enough). If they said "no" you might ask some more questions on round 7. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 21:44:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:44:57 +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 VAA17859 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:44:51 +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 KAA01780 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:44:09 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 KAA02911 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:43:02 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990211114506.007bd100@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:45:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: How retroactive is Law 40? In-Reply-To: <36C27736.3CB2B06E@total.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:22 11/02/99 -0500, Andre Pion wrote: > >At round 1 , I am called at a table where E/W are complaining that N/S >have coded leads and that it is not written on North CC and unreadable >on South CC. N/S are well seasonned players. They don't play together at >club meetings but they are regularly seen together in tournaments. >CCs do not match; I told the 2 ladies about law 40 that they do know of >and asked them to have matching CCs and gave them the benefit of the >doubt. > >On rd 1, the NS pair did 3NT +1 and the field did a flat 3NT on that >board; I feel strongly that the EW pair who are good players would have >better defended if they had known the leads were coded. > Could you please give more details about "coded leads". How can NS's leads interfere on a deal in which N is declarer? JP Rocafort >Andre Pion >Quebec City ________________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 11 22:09:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:09:55 +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 WAA17943 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:09:49 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-211.uunet.be [194.7.13.211]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA09845 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:09:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C1C997.91B0FF13@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:01:59 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <199902101623.KAA02295@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: > > > So I propose the following blml-decision : > > > > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner > > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be > > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did > > not seek the same information." > > I dissent. I sometimes do not ask the meaning of a conventional > bid when I am behind it, intending to ask later when the auction has run > its course. If we accept your decision, then if partner happens to ask I > am banned from using the information I was going to ask about later. OK, I agree. Is it possible to amend my proposal to include this ? > > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner > > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be > > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did > > not _actively_ seek the same information, nor actively decided > > not to ask for the information" Rather unwieldy ?? > But, more importantly, I don't think that opponents' explanations > of their methods should be UI, although I might accept an interpretation > that says that partner may not ask question for the purpose of waking me > up. > > > Herman DE WAEL > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 22:50:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:50:16 +1100 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA18102 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:50:09 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA23426 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 06:50:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 06:50:01 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing In-Reply-To: <199902101743.JAA16808@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Marvin L. French wrote: [snip] > > Comments about players' desires are inappropriate. Besides, our La > Jolla & Beach unit (wife Alice president) has been using ATF > combined with in-section ranking for other than overall placement > (an ACBLScore option that few know about), and the players love it. > Someone on rgb reported that a TD told him that this scoring method > is not permitted by the ACBL. He shouldn't believe everything that > TDs say. > Assuming you mean my post, Marv, what I was told was that ATF scoring was not allowed in stratified events by the ACBL. This was relayed to me by our tournament chairman, as information to be relayed to my son who had made a mild protest about in-section scoring/across the field results in our Unit's sectional. I did express surprise, but I did not follow up. -- 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 Thu Feb 11 23:24:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:24:14 +1100 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18255 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:24:07 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA00079 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 07:24:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 07:24:01 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <199902102001.MAA01807@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Marvin L. French wrote: > I propose the following blml-decision: > > "Players should not ask question a call when the answer is clearly > shown on the opposing convention card" > > That's why we have cc's, isn't it? > I hate the idea of this sort of rule. If it's easier to ask, what's the problem with asking? I don't have experience with other convention cards, but the ACBL card only handles most explanations well if you are familiar with the opponents' general methods, and those are fairly "standard" approaches. Apart from anything else, there may be implications that there is not room to put on the card. You sit down at my table. You have before you a pre-alert card listing opening bids and their meanings, and a fairly well filled out convention card. You hear the following sequence 1C* 1H* 1NT* 2C* 2H* 2NT pass The explanations of the 1C, 1NT, and 2C bids are before you (if you know where to look--not many people do). Without going out in the cold to the car I can't tell you if 1H is explained there (I doubt it, any more than a Precision 1C-1H is explained on the convention card). So what do you do? You ask, of course, including about the 1C bid, where you have printed out in front of you the words you will hear. Who cares, and if so, why? Please don't come back with "Alice isn't always good at explaining." -- 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 Thu Feb 11 23:36:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:36:07 +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 XAA18339 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:35:59 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-29.uunet.be [194.7.13.29]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21436 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:35:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C2C7E1.5E0C2406@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:06:57 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <3.0.5.32.19990209093835.007afbd0@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.1.32.19990209231926.00710c5c@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > >>info". If we try the "screen test", it appears to be UI (info. not > >>available when playing with screens). > > An interesting rule. Mannerisms of one opponent is not available with > screens [since you cannot see him]. So, in ordinary play, mannerisms of > LHO are UI and of RHO are AI? No, sorry, your screen test is a flawed > method of deciding UI. > Which is why this is a fictitious screen, placed at the table in either of the two possible positions. So mannerisms of either opponent when answering your questions are AI, but an opponent asking questions from partner are UI. Of course, if you seek the same information, you will, behind screens, receive the same mannerisms, so they are AI after all, but if for some reason you did not seek the information, and cannot prove you would do so later on in the hand, then the reply and mannerisms must be on the other side of the screen ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 23:36:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:36:05 +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 XAA18334 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:35:57 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-29.uunet.be [194.7.13.29]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21423 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:35:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C2C6FC.1E034F5D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:03:08 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's 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 <199902102001.MAA01807@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. > French" writes > >> Herman wrote: > >> > >> > So I propose the following blml-decision : > >> > > >> > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner > >> > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be > >> > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did > >> > not seek the same information." > >> > >I propose the following blml-decision: > > > >"Players should not ask question a call when the answer is clearly > >shown on the opposing convention card" > > > >That's why we have cc's, isn't it? > > > Why slow the game down? It goes 1S, P, 2N* "raise eyebrow at LHO" > "Baron" "tx", 3S* "eyebrow" "H & minor" "tx", 4D* "uh" "Q" "tx", etc > all over in 5 seconds. > > I want to play bridge, not get eyestrain from peering at incompletely > and scruffily filled in ccs. > Indeed. Some attacks on my proposed decision (it is not a regulation!) have neglected to read the second sentence : "when it is clear that the player himself did not seek the same information." adapted somewhat for better english. Any reason why the player did not ask would be enough to have this fail. Perhaps it can be amended : "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did not seek the same information, unless it is clear from his hand that he did not need it at the time he could have sought it." -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 23:36:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:36:03 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18333 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:35:55 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-29.uunet.be [194.7.13.29]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21398 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:35:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C2C494.B6871265@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:52:52 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902091048.aa13130@flash.irvine.com> <36c3cbb7.10317886@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 10:48:04 PST, Adam Beneschan > wrote: > > >I still believe that if there's no UI (e.g. the opponents requested > >before the round that you not alert), the opponents' answer to > >partner's question is authorized. > > I agree with this. > > I play in a club of 16 pairs of which approximately 15 plays 2D > Multi. > > The following could well happen: > > My LHO opens 2D, alerted. I have a weak hand with 2=2=4=5 shape, > and vaguely assumes that this is probably a Multi. > > Now my partner asks what 2D means and is told that it is an > opening hand with a 4441 shape. Yes, of course, this is the pair > that does not play multi. Partner then bids 2H, which is natural > (because we have no special agreement) over the actual call, but > which over a Multi would show hearts and tolerance for the > minors. RHO bids 2S, alerted. > > Now what? If the explanation is AI to me, I will pass; if it is > UI, I will have to bid 3C. > > It may depend: > (a) Perhaps I'm confident that without the explanation I would > have remembered to ask (or look) myself, > (b) Perhaps I'm certain that I would not have asked, but just > have assumed that it was a Multi, > (c) Perhaps I believe I probably would have asked, but just might > not, > (d) Perhaps I consider it likely, but not certain, that I would > have noticed who I was playing against (they've played that > system for more years than I've played bridge, so it should not > really come as a surprise). > The example Jesper gives does not pose any problem with my suggested reading of when it is AI. Since the hand does not suit an overcall over any meaning of 2D (or at least you seem to think so), you have an active reason not to inquire about the meaning. The first time you do need to inquire is when you want to understand partner's bidding. So no UI. I have the mechanism firm in my mind, but perhaps the writing needs to be clear. In any case : - partner second : answer AI - partner fourth : - i have enquired (and misread) : answer UI - i have not enquired because of lack of interest : answer UI - i have not enquired because of lack of cards, but would probably enquire when next to act : answer AI I think the screen test works, and corresponds to this notion. > Do I really have to determine which of these cases apply whenever > partner has asked a question and received an answer? If the > information is UI it seems to me that I can use it only in case > (a), and I would find that quite unreasonable. > If your reason for not asking was that the answer did not matter at the time, and you have every reason to assume that the answer will now matter, then surely you would now ask, and since partner has already asked, you need no more : AI. (snip) > It seems to me that any information about the opponents' system > has to be AI: it is information that I'm entitled to. There is > no way to determine whether I might have asked or read the CC on > my own, and applying the standards normally used for UI would IMO > be quite unreasonable. > > In the original case, there is no way to determine whether the > player would have asked (or checked the CC again) or not. > That is indeed the problem, but I think it does not matter to the discussion. I believe the answer is UI, but I also think that the action of not asking before passing is not a LA. I would not rule against this player, but I would consider it UI. Say if original partner had bid somethig consistent with your action of overcall hearts (a 3S cue perhaps). Then it IS possible the player would not enquire further ! > The ideal is that all players always have the benefit of full > knowledge of the opponents' system. We have procedures (CCs, > questions) that try to get near that ideal. When it accidentally > happens that we get nearer to the ideal by some other means (such > as a reply to partner's question), that is good. So you also allow partners to wake one another up by asking the question the other forgot ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 11 23:36:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:36:11 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18350 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:36:03 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-29.uunet.be [194.7.13.29]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21444 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:35:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C2C953.307400EC@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:13:07 +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: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing References: <199902101743.JAA16808@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: > > A bridge magazine editor has just told me that there has been some > reasoned debate in the past as to whether it is better > to matchpoint by sections or ATF within the same event-- that there > are arguments on both sides-- > > This is not the first time I have heard (or rather, seen) this, but > it's hard for me to believe that there could be a good argument > against ATF. I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention to a few > counter-arguments that were posted on RGB, and I can't find them > now. > Any "good" argument against ATF, please come to me, and I will hammer it to death. Seriously, is this still under discussion ? You Americans are even more conservative that I thought. I have been at only one tournament where we did not score all accross the field : a tournament for beginners was using the same boards. but when all play together why not score all together ? Well, I am waiting for the good arguments. Don't tease me with ease of calculation in these days of over-computerisation. That's the same bunch of people that wanted me to have my computer program round all scores to 1 decimal point because that was easier ! > What is BLML opinion, please? Let's get the matter settled once and > for all, one way or the other. > > Comments about players' desires are inappropriate. Besides, our La > Jolla & Beach unit (wife Alice president) has been using ATF > combined with in-section ranking for other than overall placement > (an ACBLScore option that few know about), and the players love it. > Someone on rgb reported that a TD told him that this scoring method > is not permitted by the ACBL. He shouldn't believe everything that > TDs say. > Players' desires change within two weeks from indignation to indifference to acceptance. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 00:28:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 00:28:51 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [12.15.134.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA20758 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 00:28:44 +1100 Received: from REW(rew[10.2.1.47]) (2235 bytes) by azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:smtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:25:36 -0500 (EST) (Smail-3.2.0.104 1998-Nov-20 #1 built 1998-Dec-3) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:23:36 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE5597.D23EB460.richard.willey@azure-tech.com> From: Richard Willey Reply-To: "richard.willey@azure-tech.com" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:23:36 -0500 Organization: GN Nettest X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 31 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Richard Lighton [SMTP:lighton@idt.net] Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 7:24 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question >I hate the idea of this sort of rule. If it's easier to ask, what's the >problem with asking? I don't have experience with other convention cards, >but the ACBL card only handles most explanations well if you are >familiar with the opponents' general methods, and those are fairly >"standard" approaches. Apart from anything else, there may be >implications that there is not room to put on the card. I will agree completely that the "traditional" ACBL convention card is not well suited to describe anything other than very "standard" systems. In general, players who are using a system have a good understanding of what the "important" aspects of a system are, and how these can be best communicated to other pairs. If a pair can't describe their methods on the existing ACBL card, they have an ethical obligation to provide an alternative representation of this information that does describe the salient portions of their methods. (And, correspondingly if you can't describe your methods to your opponents, I think there is some question about whether they should be allowed) For a couple of my regular partnerships I've had to go an design completely new convention card formats to describe the system that we're playing. During tournaments we provide these in addition to the "standard" ACBL convention cards. We've never gotten any complaints. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 00:44:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 00:44:39 +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 AAA20825 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 00:44:33 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA03588 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:44:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:44:26 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <36C2C494.B6871265@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Failing to quote from anyone, but isn't the simple answer: a) Information about opponents' bidding is always AI. b) It is improper to ask about opponents' bidding for partner's benefit. I'm sure someone will come up with a counterexample to a), but it's probably covered by something else. I personally think that b) would be better otherwise, but the WBFLC disagrees with me. Oh well. I can live with that. And to paraphrase Dany, it's _still_ a game, dammit! -- 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 Fri Feb 12 01:47:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 01:47:55 +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 BAA21308 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 01:47:46 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-128.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.128]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA52079796 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:51:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36C2ED63.B621C89F@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:46:59 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <36C2C6FC.1E034F5D@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman, "unless it is clear from his hand that he did not need it at the time he could have sought it." This definitely will not work because there are players who can and do bid without mannerisms. This includes passing very strong hands. There was the very strong club hand from two weeks ago that some people claimed, because of strength alone, it was impossible to believe its holder did not break tempo- a fallacious premise. Roger Pewick Herman De Wael wrote: > > "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > In article <199902102001.MAA01807@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. > > French" writes > > >> Herman wrote: > > >> > > >> > So I propose the following blml-decision : > > >> > > > >> > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner > > >> > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be > > >> > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did > > >> > not seek the same information." > > >> > > >I propose the following blml-decision: > > > > > >"Players should not ask question a call when the answer is clearly > > >shown on the opposing convention card" > > > > > >That's why we have cc's, isn't it? > > > > > Why slow the game down? It goes 1S, P, 2N* "raise eyebrow at LHO" > > "Baron" "tx", 3S* "eyebrow" "H & minor" "tx", 4D* "uh" "Q" "tx", etc > > all over in 5 seconds. > > > > I want to play bridge, not get eyestrain from peering at incompletely > > and scruffily filled in ccs. > > > > Indeed. > > Some attacks on my proposed decision (it is not a > regulation!) have neglected to read the second sentence : > > "when it is clear that the player himself did not seek the > same information." > > adapted somewhat for better english. > > Any reason why the player did not ask would be enough to > have this fail. > > Perhaps it can be amended : > > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did > not seek the same information, unless it is clear from his > hand that he did not need it at the time he could have > sought > it." > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 02:10:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:10:40 +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 CAA21563 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:10:34 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Axl4-00001B-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:10:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:09:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: 4NT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How do we play the following bidding sequences? 3H x P 4N 1C 3H x P 4N Should they be the same/very similar? Cultural origin requested. Choices offered, others welcome 1) Blackwood 2) Minors (preference in the second sequence) 3) Natural, Invitational Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\_. ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ _) EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 02:10:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:10:50 +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 CAA21570 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:10:43 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Axl7-00015P-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:10:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:35:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <199902110714.XAA03080@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199902110714.XAA03080@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >> From: John (MadDog) Probst >> > "Marvin L. French" >> >> Herman wrote: >> >> >> >> > So I propose the following blml-decision : >> >> > >> >> > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner >> >> > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be >> >> > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did >> >> > not seek the same information." >> >> >> >I propose the following blml-decision: >> > >> >"Players should not ask question a call when the answer is >clearly >> >shown on the opposing convention card" >> > >> >That's why we have cc's, isn't it? >> > >> Why slow the game down? It goes 1S, P, 2N* "raise eyebrow at LHO" >> "Baron" "tx", 3S* "eyebrow" "H & minor" "tx", 4D* "uh" "Q" "tx", >etc >> all over in 5 seconds. >> >> I want to play bridge, not get eyestrain from peering at >incompletely >> and scruffily filled in ccs. >> >Well, what we have here is evidently a cultural difference. In >ACBL-land we have a regulation that requires the two cc's for each >pair to be legible, complete, and in plain view. We can therefore >casually glance at an opposing cc for information without: > >-- slowing the game down >-- revealing particular interest >-- helping partner >-- generating UI >-- eliciting UI >-- creating problems for confused opponents >-- solving problems for confused opponents >-- violating L20F1 > >Uh, that is, in games where the regulation is enforced. Sure, the UK requires the same, but we tend to have much wider ranges of systems played, and the EBU 20A (our expert's cc) does not lend itself to a quick glance. (Have a look at the convention card editors on the net to get an idea of the EBU 20a) To look something up requires picking up the card, opening it and reading it, rather than flickering an eye at a check box which is visible as one can in the ACBL game. > a 2D opener in this country may be a weak 2, or a multi, or something *really bizarre* and there's no way there'd even *be* a check box for some of the things we do here (eg weak 2 in D's or H's for example!) I think culturally we (the Brits) tend to ask rather than look as well. Another problem being that we need to be au fait with the WBF card, and two different EBU cards. A further problem being that the questions only really become significant in late round auctions where one is considering felo de se (suicide) and needs to know what a late round call means - and there's no real space on a card for 3rd round 2NT bids for example. >Let's remember that the great majority of players are not >sophisticated enough to practice the shorthand disclosures that are >mutually appropriate for two experienced pairs. sure, I tend to agree with this. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) >Ceterum, etc. > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ we've got 101 |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. points |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) more than|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\you know who|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 02:33:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:33:14 +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 CAA21708 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:33:08 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA19212 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:33:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:33:01 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <199902110714.XAA03080@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Marvin L. French wrote: [John Probst's stuff on eyestrain etc snipped] > Well, what we have here is evidently a cultural difference. In > ACBL-land we have a regulation that requires the two cc's for each > pair to be legible, complete, and in plain view. We can therefore > casually glance at an opposing cc for information without: > > -- slowing the game down > -- revealing particular interest > -- helping partner > -- generating UI > -- eliciting UI > -- creating problems for confused opponents > -- solving problems for confused opponents > -- violating L20F1 > > Uh, that is, in games where the regulation is enforced. If you look at the convention card, it's usually fairly obvious to anyone at the table that you are doing so. You _might_ speed the game up if the question concerns the first round of bidding, but for most things later than that you probably won't find anything on the ACBL card (there isn't anywhere to put it). If the information isn't there you are going to have to ask. And if you know that my 1NT opening is artificial, where are you going to look on the card for 1C*-1H*; 1NT* even if you know what 1C and 1H mean? Come to that, if I'm playing Standard American, 12-14 NT with one partner, are you going to look in the appropriate place to find the difference between 1H-1S; 1NT* and 1D-1S; 1NT*? I would much rather you asked. Asking questions verbally is often at least as easy as looking at the card, even when the card is fully legible and in clear view. On rare occasions I play EHAA (hi, Eric :-) ) and I use a typed extremely uncluttered convention card AND a pre-alert card. I still prefer opponents to ask. The card is at best a summary. > > Let's remember that the great majority of players are not > sophisticated enough to practice the shorthand disclosures that are > mutually appropriate for two experienced pairs. I disagree. If players are playing a locally common convention set, the shorthand is usually quicker than the "correct" explanation. It's also often clearer! I assert this is true for any player who has played once a week for more than 6 months, and I doubt if it takes that long. The reasons for the Laws on disclosure and for the ACBL regulations are to make sure that opponents have full information as far as possible about what's going on. If you can be reasonably certain that an explanation of 1NT-2C* is going to be understood when you say "Stayman" (an English example) then I hope that's what you would say, not "Asking if I have a four card major, but does not necessarilly have one himself." -- Richard Lighton | It's a game, dammit. (lighton@idt.net)| Wood-Ridge NJ | USA | From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 02:36:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:36:25 +1100 Received: from pablo.total.net (pablo.total.net [205.236.175.128]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA21747 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:36:20 +1100 Received: from total.net (ppp-annex-0329.que.total.net [207.139.25.39]) by pablo.total.net (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA01641 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:36:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36C2F8C7.FC1BD4F9@total.net> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:35:37 -0500 From: Andre Pion X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-CA,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bridge , List" Subject: retroactive LAw 40- correction Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mr Rocafort is right, there is an error EW were playing and NS defending; the field payed 3NT+1 and they played 3NT I wrote the question to the list after the game; I was still frustrated. Sorry. Andre From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 02:51:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:51:47 +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 CAA21826 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:51:38 +1100 Received: from mmsinet1.mms-inc.com ([207.227.69.130] helo=pcmjn) by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10AyPA-0002Ts-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:51:52 -0500 X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:51:33 +0000 To: From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: How retroactive is Law 40? In-Reply-To: <36C27736.3CB2B06E@total.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_3901289==_.ALT" Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_3901289==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:22 AM 2/11/99 , Andre Pion wrote: >This week is a STaC(Sectional Tournament at Club) in our unit. Tonight I >feel I have been had. Would you please tell me how to react next time >and if I can adjust score of round 1 at round 7 on the base of Law 40. > >At round 1 , I am called at a table where E/W are complaining that N/S >have coded leads and that it is not written on North CC and unreadable >on South CC. N/S are well seasonned players. They don't play together at >club meetings but they are regularly seen together in tournaments. >CCs do not match; I told the 2 ladies about law 40 that they do know of >and asked them to have matching CCs and gave them the benefit of the >doubt. > >At round 7, the field was quiet so I was kibitzing at their tables. My >eye caught one of their CC and then the second one. They were not the >CCs from the 1st round nor new CCs but their regular Tournament CC that >they took out of their CC holder. > >On rd 1, the NS pair did 3NT +1 and the field did a flat 3NT on that >board; I feel strongly that the EW pair who are good players would have >better defended if they had known the leads were coded. > >What are your advices for future reference? Can adjust score of round 1 >at round 7 on the base of Law 40. >From what you describe I suspect that the problem may have been that the pair in question forgot to find the matching CCs for their partnership. If I was reasonably certain that was the case I might give them the benefit of the doubt, but I would instruct them to fix the problem either immediately or at least before beginning the next round. As to changing the 3NT +1 hand, how could coded leads affect the results if the pair in question declared the hand? John S. Nichols --=====================_3901289==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

At 06:22 AM 2/11/99 , Andre Pion wrote:
>This week is a STaC(Sectional Tournament at Club) in our unit. Tonight I
>feel I have been had. Would you please tell me how to react next time
>and if I can adjust score of round 1 at round 7 on the base of Law 40.
>
>At round 1 , I am called at a table where E/W are complaining that N/S
>have coded leads and that it is not written on North CC and unreadable
>on South CC. N/S are well seasonned players. They don't play together at
>club meetings but they are regularly seen together in tournaments.
>CCs do not match; I told the 2 ladies about law 40 that they do know of
>and asked them to have matching CCs and gave them the benefit of the
>doubt.
>
>At round 7, the field was quiet so I was kibitzing at their tables. My
>eye caught one of their CC and then the second one. They were not the
>CCs from the 1st round nor new CCs but their regular Tournament CC that
>they took out of their CC holder.
>
>On rd 1, the NS pair did 3NT +1 and the field did a flat 3NT on that
>board; I feel strongly that the EW pair who are good players would have
>better defended if they had known the leads were coded.
>
>What are your advices for future reference? Can adjust score of round 1
>at round 7 on the base of Law 40.

From what you describe I suspect that the problem may have been that the pair in question forgot to find the matching CCs for their partnership.  If I was reasonably certain that was the case I might give them the benefit of the doubt, but I would instruct them to fix the problem either immediately or at least before beginning the next round. 

As to changing the 3NT +1 hand, how could coded leads affect the results if the pair in question declared the hand?



John S. Nichols
--=====================_3901289==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 03:06:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:06:22 +1100 Received: from uno.minfod.com (client-projects.minfod.com [207.227.70.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA21904 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:06:12 +1100 Received: from mmsinet1.mms-inc.com ([207.227.69.130] helo=pcmjn) by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10AydH-0002YD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:06:27 -0500 X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:06:08 +0000 To: Bridge Laws From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing In-Reply-To: <36C2C953.307400EC@village.uunet.be> References: <199902101743.JAA16808@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_4775997==_.ALT" Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_4775997==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:13 PM 2/11/99 , Herman De Wael wrote: >Any "good" argument against ATF, please come to me, and I >will hammer it to death. >Seriously, is this still under discussion ? You Americans >are even more conservative that I thought. > >I have been at only one tournament where we did not score >all accross the field : a tournament for beginners was using >the same boards. but when all play together why not score >all together ? > If the sections are distinctly different in strength (as Herman describes) it would not be fair to either group to combine them for scorring the boards just as you wouldn't combine them for overall awards. But if the sections are equivalent and will be combined for overall awards it just makes sense to score the boards across the field. Of course there are some situations that make scorring the boards ATF impractical (for example, multiple sites) but I don't think that is what we are discussion here. John S. Nichols --=====================_4775997==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 12:13 PM 2/11/99 , Herman De Wael wrote:

>Any "good" argument against ATF, please come to me, and I
>will hammer it to death.
>Seriously, is this still under discussion ?  You Americans
>are even more conservative that I thought.
>
>I have been at only one tournament where we did not score
>all accross the field : a tournament for beginners was using
>the same boards.  but when all play together why not score
>all together ?
>

If the sections are distinctly different in strength (as Herman describes) it would not be fair to either group to combine them for scorring the boards just as you wouldn't combine them for overall awards. 

But if the sections are equivalent and will be combined for overall awards it just makes sense to score the boards across the field.

Of course there are some situations that make scorring the boards ATF impractical (for example, multiple sites) but I don't think that is what we are discussion here.
John S. Nichols
--=====================_4775997==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 03:29:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:29:07 +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 DAA22003 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:29:00 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Ayyv-000424-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:28:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:19:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <36C2C494.B6871265@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: >Failing to quote from anyone, but isn't the simple answer: > >a) Information about opponents' bidding is always AI. > >b) It is improper to ask about opponents' bidding for partner's > benefit. I was just about to post an article that said exactly the above. What I think this thread has done is to make it clear to my mind that there is no alternative as the Laws stand. Furthermore, any suggested alternatives have been shown to be flawed. >I'm sure someone will come up with a counterexample to a), but it's >probably covered by something else. Yes, 'always' is always dangerous! >I personally think that b) would be better otherwise, but the WBFLC >disagrees with me. Oh well. I can live with that. Have you actually thought through what happens if you allow it? You lead a singleton to a bid suit, and good old partner wins - and plays the wrong suit back! Now, before partner gets on lead again, you ask the meaning of the natural bid showing a five-card suit. <> Partner wakes up, and gives you your ruff next time. You do not want communication between partners to be legalised. >And to paraphrase Dany, it's _still_ a game, dammit! ... which are things played to rules. Hands up, how many people here cheat at solitaire/patience? -- 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 Feb 12 03:29:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:29:25 +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 DAA22012 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:29:19 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10AyzF-000424-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:29:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:27:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <199902110728.XAA04685@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199902110728.XAA04685@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: > >> From: David Stevenson >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> Herman wrote: >> >> >> >> > So I propose the following blml-decision : >> >> > >> >> > "Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner >> >> > who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be >> >> > considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did >> >> > not seek the same information." >> >> >> >I propose the following blml-decision: >> > >> >"Players should not ask question a call when the answer is >clearly >> >shown on the opposing convention card" >> > >> >That's why we have cc's, isn't it? >> >> No. >> >Ah, another cultural difference. Over here the cc "is used by >players in duplicate bridge to indicate to opponents the >conventions and special understandings a pair has." (*The Official >Encyclopedia of Bridge*). Also, the ACBL Convention Card regulation >begins: "The ACBL Convention Card is designed to be easier for >players to use by making available pertinent information to >opponents." > >Using the cc merely as a scribbled documentation of one's >understandings for the benefit of the partnership and TD/AC is not >using it for its primary purpose. > >Over here, that is. Yeah, very good, Marv, you know perfectly well. CCs are one of the ways permitted by the Laws of the game to describe the agreements between partners. Questions and answers are another way. Let me explain. If a player asks another player a question at his turn to bid or play he has a right to an answer. To refuse to answer, for example by pushing a CC towards the player, is the height of discourtesy; it is a breach of L74A2. If a player does it knowing the Laws then it is a deliberately unethical practice, and the player should be subject to severe disciplinary penalty. This game should be played subject to the Laws, especially L74A. Players that do not do so by trying to be unfriendly and discourteous for whatever reason are the worst problem. Players who knowingly breach the Proprieties cause the most damage to the game of Bridge. If a player does not answer a legitimately asked question then he should be dealt with severely. If he actually knows that he is required to [as anyone who reads BLML knows, to take an example] then that player is being deliberately unethical. As for your snide remarks about "Over here, that is" the behaviour I am describing would be unethical under *any* jurisdiction. -- 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 Feb 12 03:55:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:55:35 +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 DAA22102 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:55:28 +1100 Received: from p8fs04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.144] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10AzOX-0001cf-00; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:55:18 +0000 Message-ID: <001401be55de$c986ade0$908493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:37:31 -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: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 11 February 1999 02:13 Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > > An interesting rule. Mannerisms of one opponent is not available with >screens [since you cannot see him]. So, in ordinary play, mannerisms of >LHO are UI and of RHO are AI? No, sorry, your screen test is a flawed >method of deciding UI. > ++++ I do not know whether you will consider the thoughts too superficial for blml but it occurs to me that: 1. What is authorised information is specified in Law 16 with the addition of specific matters authorised elsewhere in the laws. The requirement to respond to questions makes the answers AI. 2. Whilst the answers given by opponents are AI any conclusion drawn from the fact that partner asks the question is UI, just as is any information that comes from partner's responses to opponents' questions. 3. Law 40E1gives SOs powers to prescribe and regulate the use of CCs. The powers are unrestricted. There is no prescription to specify the effects of these regulations so there is no surprise when the usages in different places show considerable variations; rather like alerting, no universal standard exists, each regulating authority does what it considers best. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 04:00:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 04:00:51 +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 EAA22134 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 04:00:43 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-180.uunet.be [194.7.13.180]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA16387 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:00:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C302EE.2E3A8164@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:18:54 +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: 4NT References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > How do we play the following bidding sequences? > > 3H x P 4N > > 1C > 3H x P 4N > > Should they be the same/very similar? Cultural origin requested. > > Choices offered, others welcome > 1) Blackwood > 2) Minors (preference in the second sequence) > 3) Natural, Invitational > I think the best agreement to have about this auction is : don't do it. Anyway, my agreement with partner is that 4NT is always ace-asking, except as a direct raise to any descriptive NT bid. However, another agreement I have is that there are always 5 key-cards (6 after double fit), and that the bidding shall tell us what the fifth key-card is. In this case, obviously spades. I think a general response is rather impossible though, because quite dependent on the agreements about the double and the number of spades it promises. This can be assumed to be general Belgian practices too. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 05:49:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 05:49:25 +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 FAA22481 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 05:49:18 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-143.uunet.be [194.7.14.143]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA08996 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:49:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C32534.1842D38A@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:45:08 +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: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing References: <199902101743.JAA16808@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John S. Nichols" wrote: > > > Of course there are some situations that make scorring the > boards ATF impractical (for example, multiple sites) but I > don't think that is what we are discussion here. > John S. Nichols How much more multiple can you get than our ssFinland or Fifth Friday Challenges ? Scoring Accross the World, that is ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 06:10:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 06:10:03 +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 GAA22558 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 06:09:55 +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 OAA51541486 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:13:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36C32AD3.889E52D4@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:09:07 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing References: <199902101743.JAA16808@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is not the purpose of scoring to find the best performance? In an unskillful field, a very large score can be achieved by a very small increment of skill and luck. Not so in a skillful field. This heavily weights unskillful results higher than skillful results. This is one of the strongest arguments possible for scoring across the field when the winner is to be selected from the field. Roger Pewick John S. Nichols wrote: > > At 12:13 PM 2/11/99 , Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Any "good" argument against ATF, please come to me, and I > >will hammer it to death. > >Seriously, is this still under discussion ? You Americans > >are even more conservative that I thought. > > > >I have been at only one tournament where we did not score > >all accross the field : a tournament for beginners was using > >the same boards. but when all play together why not score > >all together ? > > > > If the sections are distinctly different in strength (as Herman > describes) it would not be fair to either group to combine them for > scorring the boards just as you wouldn't combine them for overall > awards. > > But if the sections are equivalent and will be combined for overall > awards it just makes sense to score the boards across the field. > > Of course there are some situations that make scorring the boards ATF > impractical (for example, multiple sites) but I don't think that is > what we are discussion here. > John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 06:24:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 06:24:02 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA22622 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 06:23:56 +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 OAA29018 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:23:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id OAA02852 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:23:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:23:56 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902111923.OAA02852@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John S. Nichols" > Of course there are some situations that make scorring the boards ATF > impractical (for example, multiple sites) but I don't think that is what we > are discussion here. Once you have scored a board across a couple of sections (say 20 or more results), the additional benefit of scoring across more tables is very small. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 06:32:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 06:32:01 +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 GAA22677 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 06:31:55 +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 OAA28176 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:31:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id OAA02865 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:32:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:32:01 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902111932.OAA02865@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >b) It is improper to ask about opponents' bidding for partner's > > benefit. > From: David Stevenson > Have you actually thought through what happens if you allow it? You > lead a singleton to a bid suit, and good old partner wins - and plays > the wrong suit back! Now, before partner gets on lead again, you ask > the meaning of the natural bid showing a five-card suit. <> > Partner wakes up, and gives you your ruff next time. It ought to be possible to devise rules to prevent this, which I agree is not bridge. Right now, the distinction is between questions for one's own benefit and questions to aid partner. Instead, make the distinction between questions that do and do not reveal something about one's own hand, with the latter being illegal. So David's example is still illegal because it reveals one's own singleton, but asking questions about the opponent's bidding in order make sure a less experienced partner is properly informed would become legal. Reasonable people no doubt will disagree about whether the above change would be good or bad, but I don't think it is unworkable. I don't even think it would require a change in the Laws themselves, only in the interpretations. (Some of us even think this is the most natural interpretation of the Laws as they are now written.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 07:08:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:08:07 +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 HAA22746 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:08:01 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA21992 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:07:11 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 11 Feb 99 20:07 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: David Stevenson wrote: > Richard Lighton wrote: > >Failing to quote from anyone, but isn't the simple answer: > > > >a) Information about opponents' bidding is always AI. > > > >b) It is improper to ask about opponents' bidding for partner's > > benefit. > > I was just about to post an article that said exactly the above. What > I think this thread has done is to make it clear to my mind that there > is no alternative as the Laws stand. Furthermore, any suggested > alternatives have been shown to be flawed. > I too was completely amazed that anyone could regard information from opponents, about their bidding system, as UI in any form. > >I'm sure someone will come up with a counterexample to a), but it's > >probably covered by something else. > > Yes, 'always' is always dangerous! > > >I personally think that b) would be better otherwise, but the WBFLC > >disagrees with me. Oh well. I can live with that. > > Have you actually thought through what happens if you allow it? You > lead a singleton to a bid suit, and good old partner wins - and plays > the wrong suit back! Now, before partner gets on lead again, you ask > the meaning of the natural bid showing a five-card suit. <> > Partner wakes up, and gives you your ruff next time. > > You do not want communication between partners to be legalised. "Otherwise" is not the same as non-existent. Absent b) I would have no problem saying "The explanation is AI. The question, indicating interest in the suit, is UI and therefore I adjust." This is very different from the more common situation where one player (perhaps due to greater experience/familiarity with opponents, or perhaps because the only legible CC is on his side of the table) is aware that a particular bid has a meaning that partner is not only unlikely to understand but also likely to think he understands. Personally I don't have a problem if we permit enquiries "for partner's benefit" in this situation, subject to the normal UI rules about questions. Like Richard I can live with a regulation/law which forbids such asking. Another fairly common situation is where you *know* an explanation is incomplete and would rather ask a question to get at the complete explanation than call the TD at the end. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 07:22:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:22:01 +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 HAA22779 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:21:55 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA20472 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:21:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902112021.MAA20472@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:20:09 -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 ---------- > From: Grattan > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > But Facts are chiels that winna ding > An downa be disputed > - Robt. Burns > ====================================== > ---------- > > From: Marvin L. French > > To: magda.thain ; Herman De Wael > ; Bridge Laws > > Subject: Re: Law 9 > > Date: 10 February 1999 17:14 > > > > If the irregularity is subject to any sort of penalty, failure to > > call attention to it is surely tantamount to waiving a penalty, > > forbidden by L72A3: In duplicate tournaments a player may not, on > > his own initiative, waive a penalty for an opponent's infraction... > > > ++++ Not, I would say, as surely as all that. It is not clear to me that > to *forego* the penalty at the time, by not calling the Director, can > necessarily be said to *waive* it. In any event the Director, > called later, has his 10B discretion. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Yes, to cancel a waiver. If you don't consider this a waiver, L11A governs. Then the TD will no impose a penalty if the NOs may have gained through any action taken after the irregularity. I take "any action" literally, which includes playing on in silence. More semantic problems. It is not clear to me that *waiving* a penalty, by not calling the Director, can necessarily be said to *forego* it. One of the meanings of "waive" is to postpone, defer: "Let's waive this question until later." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Who sets line wrap at 68 characters) > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 08:26:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:26:22 +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 IAA22897 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:26:16 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA00107 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:26:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902112126.NAA00107@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:25:06 -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 don't think Richard will mind if I forward the following exchange to BLML: - > Richard Lighton wrote: > > > > On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > Someone on rgb reported that a TD told him that this scoring > method is not permitted by the ACBL. He shouldn't believe everything > that TDs say. > > > > > Assuming you mean my post, Marv, what I was told was that ATF > scoring > > was not allowed in stratified events by the ACBL. This was > relayed to me > > by our tournament chairman, as information to be relayed to my > son who > > had made a mild protest... I did express surprise, but I did not > follow up. > > > Thanks, and sorry that I had misremembered the source, a > prestigious one in this case. > > Tournament chairman are often not well-informed. They are commonly > political appointees who have no training for the job. While the > ACBL *practice* of not using ATF for stratified events is > widespread if not universal, I can find no such regulation > anywhere, either in the ACBL Handbook or ACBLScore on-line help > files, which are extensive. If it were illegal, I am sure that the > very capable Mr. Lopushinsky, chief programmer for the ACBL, would > not have provided the ATF option for stratified games. > > There are three methods offered by ACBLScore: > > 1. Matchpoint each section separately, automatically providing > in-section rankings along with unfair overall rankings. > > 2. ATF with no in-section rankings. The game is treated as if it > were one big section. Logical, and more fair. > > 3. ATF with in-section rankings (illogical, but legal, from what I > can see) and also more fair overall rankings > > No. 1 provides maximum total masterpoint awards > No. 2 provides the fairest game for overall rankings > No. 3 provides both > > I have been assured by TDs at NABCs, regionals, and sectionals in > regard to No. 3 that "No, this is not done." Well, it's done in our > unit. > > As I have explained elsewhere, I believe the absence of ATF in > stratified games is probably due to the belief that No. 3 is not > possible, a belief that is mistaken. > > Also explained elsewhere is that scoring two fields whose pairs > neither compare results with the other field nor compete against > those in their own field results in a two-winner game, not a > one-winner game. Ranking the pairs as if they were all in one field > is grossly unfair. ATF can't fix that sort of unfairness. > > It is just barely possible that "no ATF for stratified games" is an > unpublished instruction to ACBL TDs (not an ACBL regulation) that > is not implemented by ACBLScore. If so, I feel certain it was > prompted by the erroneous belief cited above, and that the writer > of the instruction thought it was the only way to maximize > masterpoint awards for B & C players. If, on the other hand, the > writer was a purist who thinks No. 3 is illogical, then I would > reply that it's better to be a little illogical than to be unfair > in overall rankings. > > Perhaps some ACBL TD out there can tell us if any such instruction > to TDs has been issued? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 08:48:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:48:32 +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 IAA23054 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:48:27 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA02967; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:48:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902112148.NAA02967@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:46:13 -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 ---------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 11:32 AM > > > >b) It is improper to ask about opponents' bidding for partner's > > > benefit. > > > From: David Stevenson > > Have you actually thought through what happens if you allow it? You > > lead a singleton to a bid suit, and good old partner wins - and plays > > the wrong suit back! Now, before partner gets on lead again, you ask > > the meaning of the natural bid showing a five-card suit. <> > > Partner wakes up, and gives you your ruff next time. > > It ought to be possible to devise rules to prevent this, which I agree > is not bridge. There is, sort of. L20F2, which applies after the final pass. As with L20F1, which applies during the auction, the law was changed in 1987: 1975: L20F1--"a full explanation of any call made by an opponent opposing call" L20F2--"an explanation of opposing calls 1987/1997: L20F1--"a full explanation of the opponents' auction" L20F2--"an explanation of opposing auction." I am told that Edgar Kaplan pushed for these changes because he felt that there was too much questioning of individual calls. > Right now, the distinction is between questions for one's own benefit > and questions to aid partner. Instead, make the distinction between > questions that do and do not reveal something about one's own hand, > with the latter being illegal. So David's example is still illegal > because it reveals one's own singleton, but asking questions about the > opponent's bidding in order make sure a less experienced partner is > properly informed would become legal. Contrary to the spirit of the game, IMO. Partners should take care of themselves. > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 09:14:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:14:50 +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 JAA23287 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:14:42 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10B4NX-0002we-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:14:36 +0000 Message-ID: <6$EXefCknxw2EwUG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:56:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 9 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > So, I have just played in the North Wales Area heat of the WBU Men's >Pairs. Owing to my partner's inability to cash the defence's suit >against 3NT and other similar things, it is now an agonised wait to find >out whether 4th out of 12 is good enough to progress! > > Anyway, a question for you all: > > Suppose five cards are played to a trick. It is discovered at the end >of the hand when a player has a card short. After the TD is summoned, >he wants to know where the card went. "It happened at trick 3" says >Declarer, "RHO led, and at the end followed with another card." > > Do we have a problem with this ruling? OK, let's summarise. Some people misunderstood the question. Declarer *knew* there was an infraction at the time, but decided to say nothing. The basic ruling for a Fifth card when discovered later is L67B1 [try finding it from the index!]. The point that I was trying to make was whether there was a problem because declarer knew there was an infraction but did not draw attention to it. Various Laws were quoted and discarded. L45E1: not relevant: the position has moved on to L67B2. L72A3: not relevant: there is no intention or attempt to waive a penalty. L11A appears to refer to failure to summon after attention is drawn - but no attention was drawn. L60A1 refers to specific situations - not the ones here! David Grabiner wrote: >Here, the declarer gained not through his opponent's ignorance of the >penalty, but through his opponent's ignorance of the infraction. The >fifth card was played at the wrong time, but not out of turn or >prematurely. > >the spirit of these two Lwas suggests that declarer should have called >attention to the irregularity when it happened, and cannot gain a revoke >penalty by refusing to do so. > >It is clear that Law 67 should apply to fifth cards played to a trick. >However, I would be inclined not to allow a declarer who should have >enforced Law 45B1 when the irregularity was claer to everyone at the >table. > >(The case of a revoke is not the same, because a revoke is a normally >hidden infraction. If Declarer finds that the five outstanding trumps >have broken 2-2, he has no obligation to inquire about the revoke. And >I would not expect declarer to rely on a count of the hand, since a >revoke destroys the normal functioning of a count.) It is not clear to me why David says a revoke is *different*. What we have here is an infraction that one player knows has occurred: does it make a difference what type of infraction? Need he draw attention to it? Exactly what Law are you using to disallow L67B2? > >> From: Herman De Wael > >> >Do I gather from your wording that declarer knew this had > >> >happened at the time but had said nothing ? Yes. > >> >Now that's tricky ! > >> > > >> >A player is not obliged to draw attention to an > >> >irregularity, but is it fair not to do so ? > >> > > >> >I don't like it, but I cannot quickly find anything wrong > >> >with it. I suppose this is the point. Is there a requirement to draw attention to an irregularity? If so, which Law applies? If so, what do we do when someone does not? It is well known that it is not required to call attention to a revoke. Does that not show we do not need to draw attention to any infraction? If not, in what way are other infractions different? Come on, fellas, let's hear from everyone! -- 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 Feb 12 09:14:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:14:50 +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 JAA23288 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:14:42 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10B4NX-0002wd-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:14:38 +0000 Message-ID: <+$FWObCgixw2Ew0g@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:51:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 9 References: <36BFACAE.29D5@xtra.co.nz> <36C24953.3D8E@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <36C24953.3D8E@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B A Small wrote: >Agreed and this raises the ethical/moral dilemia alluded to in other >replies. In which case does 11B apply? Errr - ahhh. Are you using the 1985 Laws? In 1987 Law 11B is to do with kibitzers! 1985 Law 11B was an unfortunate Law, and was in effect ignored because of various situations where it was 'known' to be inapplicable. -- 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 Feb 12 09:21:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:21:03 +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 JAA23350 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:20:57 +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 <19990211222049.BTBX6903.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:20:49 -0800 Message-ID: <36C358AD.D4A269C@home.com> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:24:46 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst , blml Subject: Re: 4NT References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > How do we play the following bidding sequences? > > 3H x P 4N > > 1C > 3H x P 4N > > Should they be the same/very similar? Cultural origin requested. > > Choices offered, others welcome > 1) Blackwood > 2) Minors (preference in the second sequence) > 3) Natural, Invitational Brought up on swedish style 4cM and - contrary to HdW apparently - using Ace-ask very sparingly and only when a trumpsuit agreed. I'd assume both sequences are "pick a minor", whereby the second shows 4 cd D and longer C. My philosophy is that exploration for strain always has priority in jammed auctions. Finding the "best contract possible" rather than the "best possible contract", and all that. How often do we have a hand where we can decide the the no. of aces is the only info we need to place the contract, early in the bidding when pard has only made a T/O double? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 11:47:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:47:47 +1100 Received: from fw-es06.hac.com (fw-es06.HAC.COM [128.152.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA23875 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:47:41 +1100 From: mbartusek@west.raytheon.com Received: from pmdf1.es.hac.com ([147.17.103.50]) by fw-es06.hac.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA12231 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:47:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mime.mail.hac.com by mail.hac.com (PMDF V5.1-12 #26580) id <0F7000M01NB7EY@mail.hac.com> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:44:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: 4NT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0F7000M16NDPEY@mail.hac.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="Boundary_(ID_rEaWwsPcdugbF2zJug372w)" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --Boundary_(ID_rEaWwsPcdugbF2zJug372w) Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT (origin for the following responses is based upon many years of reading MSC in the BridgeWorld magazine in addition to Standard American w/5-card majors experience in ACBL-land) I believe that the normal interpretation of the first sequence is minors. There does not appear to exist any alternative sequence to put forth the same message. A cuebid of 4 Hearts would tend to emphasize spades as trumps unless vigorously corrected later in the auction. Thus, I would treat 3H - X - P - 4H, p - 4S - p - 4NT as RKC for spades. I do agree with John Probst in this sequence that the primary objective is game before slam. I wouldn't hesitate to use the sequence to show minors with an expert partner. The second sequence would tend to create more controversy. I personally would treat it as natural and invitational to slam, but would avoid using the sequence without prior discussion with partner. A good reason for adopting this definition is that it is the only sequence to describe such an invitational type hand. As in the first sequence a 4H cuebid would tend to confirm spade support unless invalidated later in the auction. .....Mark Bartusek (mbartusek@west.raytheon.com) p.s. sorry...no cats nor dogs in my household. _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: 4NT From: john@probst.demon.co.uk at mime Date: 2/11/99 7:09 AM How do we play the following bidding sequences? 3H x P 4N 1C 3H x P 4N Should they be the same/very similar? Cultural origin requested. Choices offered, others welcome 1) Blackwood 2) Minors (preference in the second sequence) 3) Natural, Invitational Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\_. ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ _) EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk --Boundary_(ID_rEaWwsPcdugbF2zJug372w) Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT RFC-822-headers: Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON by mail.hac.com (PMDF V5.1-12 #26580) id <0F7000F010JA74@mail.hac.com> for "mark j bartusek"@mime.mail.hac.com; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:31:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from PROCESS-DAEMON by mail.hac.com (PMDF V5.1-12 #26580) id <0F7000E010HHVE@mail.hac.com> for "mark j bartusek"@mime.mail.hac.com; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:30:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from fw-es05.hac.com by mail.hac.com (PMDF V5.1-12 #26580) with ESMTP id <0F7000CDC0HCUU@mail.hac.com> for "mark j bartusek"@mime.mail.hac.com; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:29:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au ([150.203.5.35]) by fw-es05.hac.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA08029 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:32:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:10:40 +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 CAA21563 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:10:34 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Axl4-00001B-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:10:26 +0000 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:09:33 +0000 From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: 4NT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Reply-to: John Probst Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Precedence: bulk --Boundary_(ID_rEaWwsPcdugbF2zJug372w)-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 11:49:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:49:10 +1100 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA23889 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:49:04 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10B6mq-0005Rw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 01:48:52 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990212014847.00b3a9a0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 01:48:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing In-Reply-To: References: <36C2C953.307400EC@village.uunet.be> <199902101743.JAA16808@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:06 11-02-99 +0000, you wrote: >>>> At 12:13 PM 2/11/99 , Herman De Wael wrote: >Any "good" argument against ATF, please come to me, and I >will hammer it to death. >Seriously, is this still under discussion ? You Americans >are even more conservative that I thought. > >I have been at only one tournament where we did not score >all accross the field : a tournament for beginners was using >the same boards. but when all play together why not score >all together ? > If the sections are distinctly different in strength (as Herman describes) it would not be fair to either group to combine them for scorring the boards just as you wouldn't combine them for overall awards. But if the sections are equivalent and will be combined for overall awards it just makes sense to score the boards across the field. <<<<<<<< we do that on the FF tournaments from herman :), so that agrument is beaten to deathe easily :) It looks like that works fine. >>>> Of course there are some situations that make scorring the boards ATF impractical (for example, multiple sites) but I don't think that is what we are discussion here. John S. Nichols <<<<<<<< Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 11:57:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:57:28 +1100 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA23908 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:57:21 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10B6us-0005le-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 01:57:10 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990212015705.00b303a0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 01:57:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Law 9 In-Reply-To: <199902112021.MAA20472@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:20 11-02-99 -0800, you wrote: >---------- >> From: Grattan >> >> Grattan >> Secretary, WBF Laws Committee >> >> But Facts are chiels that winna ding >> An downa be disputed >> - Robt. Burns > >> ====================================== >> ---------- >> > From: Marvin L. French >> > To: magda.thain ; Herman De Wael >> ; Bridge Laws > >> > Subject: Re: Law 9 >> > Date: 10 February 1999 17:14 >> >> >> > If the irregularity is subject to any sort of penalty, failure >to >> > call attention to it is surely tantamount to waiving a penalty, >> > forbidden by L72A3: In duplicate tournaments a player may not, >on >> > his own initiative, waive a penalty for an opponent's >infraction... >> > >> ++++ Not, I would say, as surely as all that. It is not clear to >me that >> to *forego* the penalty at the time, by not calling the Director, >can >> necessarily be said to *waive* it. In any event the Director, >> called later, has his 10B discretion. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > >Yes, to cancel a waiver. If you don't consider this a waiver, L11A >governs. Then the TD will no impose a penalty if the NOs may have >gained through any action taken after the irregularity. I take "any >action" literally, which includes playing on in silence. > >More semantic problems. It is not clear to me that *waiving* a >penalty, by not calling the Director, can necessarily be said to >*forego* it. One of the meanings of "waive" is to postpone, defer: >"Let's waive this question until later." > I disagree. For instance, if you know a revoke is established, you can say that to opps and say, OK lets call the TD after the game. Opps then have the chance to call the TD immediately. If you waive, you explicitly say, I dont want to penalize the offence. That is something completely different regards, anton >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) >(Who sets line wrap at 68 characters) > >> > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 12:22:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:22:31 +1100 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA23948 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:22:20 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10B7J9-0006g5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:22:15 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990212022210.00b3c100@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:22:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Law 9 In-Reply-To: <6$EXefCknxw2EwUG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:56 11-02-99 +0000, you wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> So, I have just played in the North Wales Area heat of the WBU Men's >>Pairs. Owing to my partner's inability to cash the defence's suit >>against 3NT and other similar things, it is now an agonised wait to find >>out whether 4th out of 12 is good enough to progress! >> >> Anyway, a question for you all: >> >> Suppose five cards are played to a trick. It is discovered at the end >>of the hand when a player has a card short. After the TD is summoned, >>he wants to know where the card went. "It happened at trick 3" says >>Declarer, "RHO led, and at the end followed with another card." >> >> Do we have a problem with this ruling? > > OK, let's summarise. Some people misunderstood the question. >Declarer *knew* there was an infraction at the time, but decided to say >nothing. The basic ruling for a Fifth card when discovered later is >L67B1 [try finding it from the index!]. The point that I was trying to >make was whether there was a problem because declarer knew there was an >infraction but did not draw attention to it. > > Various Laws were quoted and discarded. L45E1: not relevant: the >position has moved on to L67B2. L72A3: not relevant: there is no >intention or attempt to waive a penalty. L11A appears to refer to >failure to summon after attention is drawn - but no attention was drawn. >L60A1 refers to specific situations - not the ones here! > > >David Grabiner wrote: > >>Here, the declarer gained not through his opponent's ignorance of the >>penalty, but through his opponent's ignorance of the infraction. The >>fifth card was played at the wrong time, but not out of turn or >>prematurely. >> >>the spirit of these two Lwas suggests that declarer should have called >>attention to the irregularity when it happened, and cannot gain a revoke >>penalty by refusing to do so. >> >>It is clear that Law 67 should apply to fifth cards played to a trick. >>However, I would be inclined not to allow a declarer who should have >>enforced Law 45B1 when the irregularity was claer to everyone at the >>table. >> >>(The case of a revoke is not the same, because a revoke is a normally >>hidden infraction. If Declarer finds that the five outstanding trumps >>have broken 2-2, he has no obligation to inquire about the revoke. And >>I would not expect declarer to rely on a count of the hand, since a >>revoke destroys the normal functioning of a count.) > > It is not clear to me why David says a revoke is *different*. What we >have here is an infraction that one player knows has occurred: does it >make a difference what type of infraction? Need he draw attention to >it? Exactly what Law are you using to disallow L67B2? > > >> >> From: Herman De Wael > >> >> >Do I gather from your wording that declarer knew this had >> >> >happened at the time but had said nothing ? > > Yes. > >> >> >Now that's tricky ! >> >> > >> >> >A player is not obliged to draw attention to an >> >> >irregularity, but is it fair not to do so ? >> >> > >> >> >I don't like it, but I cannot quickly find anything wrong >> >> >with it. > > I suppose this is the point. Is there a requirement to draw attention >to an irregularity? If so, which Law applies? If so, what do we do >when someone does not? > > > > It is well known that it is not required to call attention to a >revoke. Does that not show we do not need to draw attention to any >infraction? If not, in what way are other infractions different? > > Come on, fellas, let's hear from everyone! > in the fist place, whats wrong with 72a4. The problem is if you can use this law to your advantage by not calling the TD. I think it is allowed. On the other hand, if you are to known to know the rules and opps are beginners then you are in a catch situation by 11A (i suppose eventually the TD was called, so it is an appropriate law). Perhaps even the heading of 16 is applicable. But the bottom line is perhaps that it isnt forbidden not to draw attention to an irregularity. What happens afterwards is probably a bit misty. TD can alsways give some pp using 90a. >-- >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 Feb 12 13:06:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:06:54 +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 NAA24221 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:06:44 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.83] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10B7zt-0000hE-00; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:06:26 +0000 Message-ID: <199902120206300310.004EE056@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: <36C2C494.B6871265@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:06:30 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 11/02/99, at 14:19, David Stevenson wrote: >Richard Lighton wrote: >>Failing to quote from anyone, but isn't the simple answer: >> >>a) Information about opponents' bidding is always AI. >> >>b) It is improper to ask about opponents' bidding for partner's >> benefit. > > I was just about to post an article that said exactly the above. What >I think this thread has done is to make it clear to my mind that there >is no alternative as the Laws stand. Furthermore, any suggested >alternatives have been shown to be flawed. Not sure about the last part of that, since I have not looked closely at= all the "suggested alternatives". But I am not at all clear in my own mind= about a) above. In the case in point, a player made a false assumption= about the opponents' bidding, on the basis of which he acted [made a= "takeout" 2H bid over a 2D opening that he assumed was Flannery but was in= fact mini-Roman, so that his partner assumed 2H to be natural.] Now: (a) in the case in point, his partner did not alert 2H. The player would= know from this that partner assumed 2H to be natural, and hence that= either he or his partner did not actually know what the 2D opening meant.= [The assumption here is that the partnership both knew that 2H over a= Flannery 2D was takeout, but that 2H over a mini-Roman 2D was natural, an= assumption with which we may as well live for the moment.] As far as I can= see in the context of a) above, the player now has UI (from failure to= alert) that gives him AI (about the opponents' bidding). Can he use this= information? I don't see why he should - it is, after all, unauthorised. (b) the auction developed: (2D) - 2H - (Pass) - "what was 2D?" "It showed= some 11-15 3-suiter" "Thank you - 4H". Now, the player knows for sure that= his partner is raising his [the player's] hearts, not bidding 4H on the= basis that this was where he [the partner] wanted to play opposite a 2H= takeout of Flannery. Can the player use this information? According to a)= above, the information is AI. I am not happy with this at all - had the= question-and-answer session not taken place, the player would have been= left to ponder the meaning of this auction: S W N E 2D 2H P 4H on the basis of his continued mistaken impression that 2D was Flannery. I= think that if you asked any expert what he thought that 4H bid would mean= without discussion, facing another expert partner, you would not receive= any answer other than that it was natural, and that the player should pass= it with the hand he held (a sub-minimum 2H "takeout" in the first place). As a general principle, it seems important to me that a player should= always ask himself: "What would I have done if my partner had not asked a= question, but had just made the call that he in fact has made?" This is= because, among other things, I hold L16A to mean that my opponents' answer= to my partner's question is always UI to me. Of course, the problem would not arise if, as I have previously suggested,= all alerts had to be followed by a question and an explanation. Nor would= a number of other problems which currently plague the game. However, now= as when I made the suggestion in the first place, I do not expect to sell= this idea to anyone. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 13:27:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:27:57 +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 NAA24299 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:27:51 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa29405; 11 Feb 99 18:27 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:06:30 PST." <199902120206300310.004EE056@mail.btinternet.com> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:27:16 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > On 11/02/99, at 14:19, David Stevenson wrote: > > >Richard Lighton wrote: > >>Failing to quote from anyone, but isn't the simple answer: > >> > >>a) Information about opponents' bidding is always AI. > >> > >>b) It is improper to ask about opponents' bidding for partner's > >> benefit. > > > > I was just about to post an article that said exactly the above. What > >I think this thread has done is to make it clear to my mind that there > >is no alternative as the Laws stand. Furthermore, any suggested > >alternatives have been shown to be flawed. > > Not sure about the last part of that, since I have not looked closely at= > all the "suggested alternatives". But I am not at all clear in my own mind= > about a) above. In the case in point, a player made a false assumption= > about the opponents' bidding, on the basis of which he acted [made a= > "takeout" 2H bid over a 2D opening that he assumed was Flannery but was in= > fact mini-Roman, so that his partner assumed 2H to be natural.] Now: > > (a) in the case in point, his partner did not alert 2H. The player would= > know from this that partner assumed 2H to be natural, and hence that= > either he or his partner did not actually know what the 2D opening meant.= > [The assumption here is that the partnership both knew that 2H over a= > Flannery 2D was takeout, but that 2H over a mini-Roman 2D was natural, an= > assumption with which we may as well live for the moment.] As far as I can= > see in the context of a) above, the player now has UI (from failure to= > alert) that gives him AI (about the opponents' bidding). Can he use this= > information? I don't see why he should - it is, after all, unauthorised. Question: Suppose the failure to alert was not UI (i.e. the opponents had requested before the hand that no alerts be used---I don't know if this is allowed in the EBU but it definitely is in the ACBL). Would you come to the same conclusion, i.e. that the opponents' explanation is also UI? And . . . > As a general principle, it seems important to me that a player should= > always ask himself: "What would I have done if my partner had not asked a= > question, but had just made the call that he in fact has made?" This is= > because, among other things, I hold L16A to mean that my opponents' answer= > to my partner's question is always UI to me. would this general principle still apply? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 13:45:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:45:40 +1100 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA24332 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:45:33 +1100 Received: from modem35.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.163] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10B8be-0007pi-00; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:45:27 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:41:43 -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 "Education has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading" - G.M.Trevelyan ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Law 9 > Date: 11 February 1999 17:56 > > David Stevenson wrote: ------------- \x/ ----------- > > > Anyway, a question for you all: > > > > Suppose five cards are played to a trick. It is discovered at the end > >of the hand when a player has a card short. After the TD is summoned, > >he wants to know where the card went. "It happened at trick 3" says > >Declarer, "RHO led, and at the end followed with another card." > > ---------- \x/ ----------- > > David Grabiner wrote: > > >Here, the declarer gained not through his opponent's ignorance of the > >penalty, but through his opponent's ignorance of the infraction. The > >fifth card was played at the wrong time, but not out of turn or > >prematurely. > > > >the spirit of these two Lwas suggests that declarer should have called > >attention to the irregularity when it happened, and cannot gain a revoke > >penalty by refusing to do so. > ++++ Something of a novelty here. It is being suggested the Director should enforce not only the law but also something called "the spirit of the law" and, notwithstanding the final statement in Law 67B2, refuse to apply the revoke law should it be relevant. Now which law enables the Director to do that? ++++ > > >It is clear that Law 67 should apply to fifth cards played to a trick. > >However, I would be inclined not to allow a declarer who should have > >enforced Law 45B1 when the irregularity was claer to everyone at the > >table. > > ++++ Declarer "should" have enforced Law 45B1 at an earlier stage? Do I read that as 45E1? Declarer, of course, does not 'enforce' anything; he is allowed to draw attention to an irregularity whereupon the Director does whatever he does. The operative Law is Law 9A1 and I do not see the word "should" there at all (nor "must"). The word I see is "may"; so let me quote the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws at the front of the book: = "When these laws say that a player "may" do something ("any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction"), the failure to do it is not wrong". = Now the discussion should perhaps start from that point, especially as Kaplan chose an extract from 9A1 for his example. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 14:14:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:14:36 +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 OAA24406 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:14:30 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA25698; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:14:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902120314.TAA25698@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:12:11 -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 DWS wrote: > B A Small wrote: > > >Agreed and this raises the ethical/moral dilemia alluded to in other > >replies. In which case does 11B apply? > > Errr - ahhh. > > Are you using the 1985 Laws? In 1987 Law 11B is to do with kibitzers! > 1985 Law 11B was an unfortunate Law, and was in effect ignored because > of various situations where it was 'known' to be inapplicable. > > Is 1985 for 1987? Is 1987 a typo for 1997? 1975 had 11B1 and 11B2, having to do with a call (B1) or a play (B2) by player to offender's left, after an irregularity. 1987 merely combined 11B1 and 11B2 into a single 11B: B. Call or Play before Imposition of Penalty The right to penalize an irregularity is forfeited if offender's LHO calls or plays after the irregularity, and before a legal penalty has been instated and imposed. Nothing about kibitzers. This was replaced in 1997 by moving the old 11C, having to do with kibitzers, to 11B. So what happened to the old 11B? The lawmakers felt that 11A was sufficient, and therefore deleted it, moving 11C to 11B and 11D to 11C. The current 11B is a prime example of unnecessary redundancy. 11B1 says the right to penalize may be forfeited if attention is first drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at the table the non-offending side is responsible. 11B2 says *exactly* the same thing except that "non-offending" is replaced by "offending." Surely these two laws could be combined in 2007, just as 11B1 and 11B2 were combined in 1987. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 14:42:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:42:19 +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 OAA24449 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:42:13 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10B9UR-0005Cg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:42:06 +0000 Message-ID: <3kSk46A9D6w2Ewkf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:33:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 4NT References: <0F7000M16NDPEY@mail.hac.com> In-Reply-To: <0F7000M16NDPEY@mail.hac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark wrote: >.....Mark Bartusek (mbartusek@west.raytheon.com) >p.s. sorry...no cats nor dogs in my household. Welcome anyway! >How do we play the following bidding sequences? > >3H x P 4N Minors. > 1C >3H x P 4N Long clubs, short diamonds. >Should they be the same/very similar? Cultural origin requested. ACBL, but only with .... [aaargh!] -- 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 Feb 12 14:42:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:42:20 +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 OAA24450 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:42:13 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10B9US-0005Cd-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:42:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:28:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing References: <199902101743.JAA16808@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <36C32534.1842D38A@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36C32534.1842D38A@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >"John S. Nichols" wrote: >> Of course there are some situations that make scorring the >> boards ATF impractical (for example, multiple sites) but I >> don't think that is what we are discussion here. >> John S. Nichols >How much more multiple can you get than our ssFinland or >Fifth Friday Challenges ? > >Scoring Accross the World, that is ! I am pleased that one of my BLML friends held a heat of my Hughes Simultaneous Pairs in Holland. Someone in the USA was interested, but has not yet held one. Of course, my scoring is slow and Herman's is fast, but both are ATF! -- 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 Feb 12 15:12:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:12:55 +1100 Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA24574 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:12:51 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME ([202.27.177.120]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990212041229.XDWH682101.mta1-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:12:29 +1300 Message-ID: <36C4D15A.2141@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:11:54 -0800 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ethical? References: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Paul Lippens wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am a new in the arbitration circuit and need help with the following. > > N/all > > North: > A2 > KT9 > AJ65 > AQ73 > > East: > KT9 > AJ8764 > T > JT5 > > South: > Q873 > - > Q8732 > K942 > > West: > J654 > Q532 > K94 > 86 > > Bidding: > 1NT 2H ...pass pass > 2NT > > Is this 2NT bid allowed, or did North use the thinking time of partner? > Wat should be my decision? > > Thanks for your help. > > Paul Lippens Hi Paul and welcome. I would have thought any bid by North would be highly unethical. In most bidding systems 1NT describes the hand perfectly and the only need to make another bid is if partner forces a bid. In this case there is no bid from partner and his call is out of tempo so there is no need for north to say anything. Rule under 16A and award adjusted score that is most favourable to E/W. Cheers Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 15:31:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:31:04 +1100 Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA24612 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:31:00 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME ([202.27.177.120]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990212043035.XGVX682101.mta1-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:30:35 +1300 Message-ID: <36C4D59A.4F6F@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:30:02 -0800 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 9 References: <36BFACAE.29D5@xtra.co.nz> <36C24953.3D8E@xtra.co.nz> <+$FWObCgixw2Ew0g@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > B A Small wrote: > > >Agreed and this raises the ethical/moral dilemia alluded to in other > >replies. In which case does 11B apply? > > Errr - ahhh. > > Are you using the 1985 Laws? In 1987 Law 11B is to do with kibitzers! > 1985 Law 11B was an unfortunate Law, and was in effect ignored because > of various situations where it was 'known' to be inapplicable. > Oops Sorry. Grabbed old book as new one was at bridge club. Quite correct 1997 law 11B = kibbitzers So does 11A apply?? Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 16:39:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:39:26 +1100 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA24746 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:39:19 +1100 Received: from eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.61.150]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA00625 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 00:39:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 00:39:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902120539.AAA01966@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <6$EXefCknxw2EwUG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> (message from David Stevenson on Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:56:52 +0000) Subject: Re: Law 9 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: >> It is clear that Law 67 should apply to fifth cards played to a trick. >> However, I would be inclined not to allow a declarer who should have >> enforced Law 45B1 when the irregularity was claer to everyone at the >> table. >> (The case of a revoke is not the same, because a revoke is a normally >> hidden infraction. If Declarer finds that the five outstanding trumps >> have broken 2-2, he has no obligation to inquire about the revoke. And >> I would not expect declarer to rely on a count of the hand, since a >> revoke destroys the normal functioning of a count.) > It is not clear to me why David says a revoke is *different*. What we > have here is an infraction that one player knows has occurred: does it > make a difference what type of infraction? Need he draw attention to > it? Exactly what Law are you using to disallow L67B2? A player should not normally be expected to know about a revoke at the moment it occurs, because of the nature of the infraction. Therefore, it is not required to draw attention to a known or suspected revoke. In fact, I would say that a defender should not draw attention to a known (but not yet exposed) revoke during the play, because of the UI problems. Given that there are many times that attention cannot or should not be drawn to a revoke, it seems improper to expect attention to be drawn. If you want a legal basis, I would say that a revoke is not a known infraction until the player who revoked has exposed a card of the suit, and thus there has been no infraction to which attention should be drawn. There isn't really a legal basis for ruling differently; it seems to be against the spirit of the Laws for a player to deliberately turn an opponent's infraction into a more severe infraction. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 21:43:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:43:55 +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 VAA25672 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:43:44 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10BG4J-0007Zf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:43:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 04:25:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 9 References: <199902120314.TAA25698@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199902120314.TAA25698@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: >DWS wrote: > >> B A Small wrote: >> >> >Agreed and this raises the ethical/moral dilemia alluded to in >other >> >replies. In which case does 11B apply? >> >> Errr - ahhh. >> >> Are you using the 1985 Laws? In 1987 Law 11B is to do with >kibitzers! >> 1985 Law 11B was an unfortunate Law, and was in effect ignored >because >> of various situations where it was 'known' to be inapplicable. >> >> >Is 1985 for 1987? Is 1987 a typo for 1997? Yes. Yes. >1975 had 11B1 and 11B2, having to do with a call (B1) or a play >(B2) by player to offender's left, after an irregularity. > >1987 merely combined 11B1 and 11B2 into a single 11B: > >B. Call or Play before Imposition of Penalty > The right to penalize an irregularity is forfeited if offender's >LHO calls or plays after the irregularity, and before a legal >penalty has been instated and imposed. > >Nothing about kibitzers. No, kibitzers was 1997. >This was replaced in 1997 by moving the old 11C, having to do with >kibitzers, to 11B. So what happened to the old 11B? The lawmakers >felt that 11A was sufficient, and therefore deleted it, moving 11C >to 11B and 11D to 11C. > >The current 11B is a prime example of unnecessary redundancy. Isn't the word unnecessary a redundancy? > 11B1 >says the right to penalize may be forfeited if attention is first >drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at the >table the non-offending side is responsible. 11B2 says *exactly* >the same thing except that "non-offending" is replaced by >"offending." Surely these two laws could be combined in 2007, just >as 11B1 and 11B2 were combined in 1987. I agree with this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 22:58:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:58:40 +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 WAA26503 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:58:33 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-26.uunet.be [194.7.13.26]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA20554 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:58:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C40971.9F6115E@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:58:57 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <36C2C494.B6871265@village.uunet.be> <199902120206300310.004EE056@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > (a) in the case in point, his partner did not alert 2H. The player would know from this that partner assumed 2H to be natural, and hence that either he or his partner did not actually know what the 2D opening meant. [The assumption here is that the partnership both knew that 2H over a Flannery 2D was takeout, but that 2H over a mini-Roman 2D was natural, an assumption with which we may as well live for the moment.] As far as I can see in the context of a) above, the player now has UI (from failure to alert) that gives him AI (about the opponents' bidding). Can he use this information? I don't see why he should - it is, after all, unauthorised. While David surely has a point, this should be unimportant to an important discussion. Just modify the example such that 2H is alertable (or non-alertable) against either meaning (with opponents not asking) and there is no UI of this nature. The interesting problem remains. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 22:58:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:58:36 +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 WAA26496 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:58:28 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-26.uunet.be [194.7.13.26]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA20540 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:58:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C40597.9C07F824@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:42:31 +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: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing References: <199902111923.OAA02852@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "John S. Nichols" > > Of course there are some situations that make scorring the boards ATF > > impractical (for example, multiple sites) but I don't think that is what we > > are discussion here. > > Once you have scored a board across a couple of sections (say 20 or > more results), the additional benefit of scoring across more tables is > very small. That is true and not true. It depends on what you call "small". In percentages, the difference does tend to be rather small. I see this quite regularly when I check fifth friday results after adding each additional heat. But a place is a place, and can be important. So while I may accept that some technical problems might discourage from ATF'fing over more than 20 results, I don't see why this should count as an argument against ATF as such. And, as I seem to gather, the problem Marv faces is that of multiple lines, all shorter than 20 tables, all at the same venue. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 22:59:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:59:23 +1100 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26517 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:59:16 +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 10BHFU-0002rD-00; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:59:08 +0000 Message-ID: <003b01be567e$9497d8c0$598a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Anton Witzen" Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:48:42 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 12 February 1999 03:18 Subject: Re: Law 9 > -------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > >in the fist place, whats wrong with 72a4. The problem is if you can use >this law to your advantage by not calling the TD. I think it is allowed. >On the other hand, if you are to known to know the rules and opps are >beginners then you are in a catch situation by 11A (i suppose eventually >the TD was called, so it is an appropriate law). Perhaps even the heading >of 16 is applicable. >But the bottom line is perhaps that it isnt forbidden not to draw attention >to an irregularity. What happens afterwards is probably a bit misty. TD can >alsways give some pp using 90a. > ++++ For what offence? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 22:58:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:58:37 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26498 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:58:30 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-26.uunet.be [194.7.13.26]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA20547 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:58:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C40811.91ABA3B@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:53:05 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 9 References: <6$EXefCknxw2EwUG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> > > > >> >I don't like it, but I cannot quickly find anything wrong > > >> >with it. > > I suppose this is the point. Is there a requirement to draw attention > to an irregularity? If so, which Law applies? If so, what do we do > when someone does not? > > It is well known that it is not required to call attention to a > revoke. Does that not show we do not need to draw attention to any > infraction? If not, in what way are other infractions different? > > Come on, fellas, let's hear from everyone! > The main reason why we do not "mind" a revoke not being drawn attention to is that it would be totally unworkable. If that were the rule, then the player would simply keep quiet the next time and we would be none the wiser. Better to allow the player to say, "yes, I noticed you revoked in trick 5", which helps the TD quite a lot as well. We may not find it fair, but we dismiss that with "you should not have revoked in the first place". For the same reason, this should apply to all other infractions. I don't like it in this case either, but I can dismiss with the same argument + another one : In the revoke case, partner is not allowed to draw attention to the revoke; in the fifth card example, partner is (even dummy is !); so here, we have two inattentive players at the table. I allow declarer to take advantage of that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 22:59:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:59:30 +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 WAA26526 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:59:23 +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 10BHFX-0002rD-00; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:59:11 +0000 Message-ID: <003c01be567e$962aadc0$598a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:29:40 -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 Subject: Re: Law 9 >The current 11B is a prime example of unnecessary redundancy. 11B1 >says the right to penalize may be forfeited if attention is first >drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at the >table the non-offending side is responsible. 11B2 says *exactly* >the same > > +++++ Disagree. Not "exactly the same thing" at all. To correct is a different action from penalizing. My view is that the law is clear as it is and there are other priorities when we come to make improvements. ~Grattan~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 22:59:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:59:32 +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 WAA26527 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:59:24 +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 10BHFc-0002rD-00; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:59:16 +0000 Message-ID: <003e01be567e$99780400$598a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Anton Witzen" Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:54:22 -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: 12 February 1999 03:20 Subject: Re: Law 9 >At 12:20 11-02-99 -0800, you wrote: >>---------- >>> From: Grattan >>> ====================================== >>> > >>> ++++ Not, I would say, as surely as all that. It is not clear to >>me that >>> to *forego* the penalty at the time, by not calling the Director, >>can >>> necessarily be said to *waive* it. In any event the Director, >>> called later, has his 10B discretion. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ >> >>Yes, to cancel a waiver. If you don't consider this a waiver, L11A >>governs. Then the TD will no impose a penalty if the NOs may have >>gained through any action taken after the irregularity. I take "any >>action" literally, which includes playing on in silence. >> >>More semantic problems. It is not clear to me that *waiving* a >>penalty, by not calling the Director, can necessarily be said to >>*forego* it. One of the meanings of "waive" is to postpone, defer: >>"Let's waive this question until later." >> ++++ Yes, Anton, it is true that meaning does exist; its use in that way is less common and is usually clarified by the addition of such words as "until later". I would be confident that the drafting committee had in view here a meaning of "abandon permanently". The context seems to draw out that meaning from the word. But, in any event, whatever 'waive' means in Law 10A it means the same in 10B. In the meantime you have the difficulty with your argument that I have pointed out in a posting from home much earlier today. ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 22:59:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:59:33 +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 WAA26528 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:59:25 +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 10BHFZ-0002rD-00; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:59:13 +0000 Message-ID: <003d01be567e$97b45b00$598a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Grabiner" , Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:36:35 -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: 12 February 1999 06:00 Subject: Re: Law 9 ------------------------------- \x/ -------------------------- > >There isn't really a legal basis for ruling differently; it seems to be >against the spirit of the Laws for a player to deliberately turn an >opponent's infraction into a more severe infraction. > +++ As, for example, the spirit of Law 72A4 ?? ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 23:26:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:26:24 +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 XAA27013 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:26:15 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.20] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10BHfj-0003dk-00; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:26:16 +0000 Message-ID: <199902121225540770.02860BDD@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: <199902120314.TAA25698@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:25:54 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 9 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 12/02/99, at 04:25, David Stevenson wrote: >>The current 11B is a prime example of unnecessary redundancy. > > Isn't the word unnecessary a redundancy? No. There are certain redundancies in life that are absolutely necessary.= For example, a jet aeroplane has three redundant engines. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 12 23:34:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:34:28 +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 XAA27051 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:34:23 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10BHnQ-0007CY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:34:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:10:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 9 References: <6$EXefCknxw2EwUG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <36C40811.91ABA3B@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36C40811.91ABA3B@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >In the revoke case, partner is not allowed to draw attention >to the revoke; in the fifth card example, partner is (even >dummy is !); Dummy is? I don't think 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 Fri Feb 12 23:44:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:44:31 +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 XAA27164 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:44:19 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.20] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10BHwo-0004b2-00; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:43:54 +0000 Message-ID: <199902121243570960.029693AE@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> References: <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:43:57 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 11/02/99, at 18:27, Adam Beneschan wrote: [snip] [DB] >> (a) in the case in point, his partner did not alert 2H. The player= would=3D >> know from this that partner assumed 2H to be natural, and hence that=3D >> either he or his partner did not actually know what the 2D opening= meant.=3D >> [The assumption here is that the partnership both knew that 2H over= a=3D >> Flannery 2D was takeout, but that 2H over a mini-Roman 2D was natural,= an=3D >> assumption with which we may as well live for the moment.] As far as I= can=3D >> see in the context of a) above, the player now has UI (from failure= to=3D >> alert) that gives him AI (about the opponents' bidding). Can he use= this=3D >> information? I don't see why he should - it is, after all,= unauthorised. [AB] >Question: Suppose the failure to alert was not UI (i.e. the opponents >had requested before the hand that no alerts be used---I don't know if >this is allowed in the EBU but it definitely is in the ACBL). Would >you come to the same conclusion, i.e. that the opponents' explanation >is also UI? It is no longer permitted in this country for players to request that their= opponents do not alert. Even if it were, my position would be the same. I= believe that a player who has misunderstood his opponents' methods through= his own fault may not take advantage of a reply to his partner's question= in order to resolve the misunderstanding, but must continue to act as= though still under his original misapprehension. Of course, this policy= would be difficult to enforce in many cases, but I think that it is how= players should act as a matter of conscience. I am not at all convinced= that the Laws do not admit this position, as DWS seems to me to assert. [DB] >> As a general principle, it seems important to me that a player should=3D >> always ask himself: "What would I have done if my partner had not asked= a=3D >> question, but had just made the call that he in fact has made?" This= is=3D >> because, among other things, I hold L16A to mean that my opponents'= answer=3D >> to my partner's question is always UI to me. > >would this general principle still apply? Yes, it would, for the reasons I have given above. In the case in point,= obviously the player no longer has UI from his partner's failure to alert= 2H, for no such alert would be forthcoming in any case. But I am still= certain in my own mind that the player may not make any adjustments in his= subsequent bidding to cater for the fact that his misunderstanding happens= to have been cleared up by a (random) question from partner. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 00:17:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:17:21 +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 AAA29580 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:17:09 +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 IAA15181 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:16:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990212081801.006fbd84@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:18:01 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 4NT In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:09 PM 2/11/99 +0000, John wrote: >How do we play the following bidding sequences? > >3H x P 4N > > 1C >3H x P 4N > >Should they be the same/very similar? Cultural origin requested. > >Choices offered, others welcome >1) Blackwood >2) Minors (preference in the second sequence) >3) Natural, Invitational I'm sure that the differences between individual partnerships are more significant than the differences between cultural tendencies; in North America there's no "standard" treatment of either auction, and I'd be surprised if there were elsewhere. If you polled the entire ACBL membership, I'm pretty sure you'd get a strong majority for (1), but if you polled only the members who played in reasonably high-level competition it would most likely be a whole different story. My personal preference is for (3) on both auctions. 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 Feb 13 03:57:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 03:57:46 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA11039 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 03:51:09 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA24813 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:50:00 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-26.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.58) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma024760; Fri Feb 12 10:49:24 1999 Received: by har-pa1-26.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE567D.B8548480@har-pa1-26.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:49:17 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE567D.B8548480@har-pa1-26.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Auction or Call Reviews (was RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:58:01 -0500 Encoding: 27 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Marvin L. French[SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] the law was changed in 1987: 1975: L20F1--"a full explanation of any call made by an opponent opposing call" L20F2--"an explanation of opposing calls 1987/1997: L20F1--"a full explanation of the opponents' auction" L20F2--"an explanation of opposing auction." I am told that Edgar Kaplan pushed for these changes because he felt that there was too much questioning of individual calls. ##### These changes have been so roundly ignored in practice that it might be wisest to revert to the 1975 language which conforms to what everyone actually DOES. How do others on list feel about this? I would tend to support it, since to review the entire auction needlessly is cumbersome, time consuming and in most cases downright annoying. In fact any player actually insisting on following the law as written and giving the whole auction every time would risk provoking a zero tolerance call for interfering with his opponents' enjoyment of the game. He would not be popular, but thought of as some kind of pedantic bl at best. Is that too great a price to pay for avoiding the ui potential of enquiry into a specific call? Common practice hints that for most players it is. Craig ##### From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 04:23:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:23:14 +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 EAA11620 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:23:08 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-129.uunet.be [194.7.13.129]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA18343 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:23:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C45386.D18ACC2D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:15:02 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 9 References: <6$EXefCknxw2EwUG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <36C40811.91ABA3B@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >In the revoke case, partner is not allowed to draw attention > >to the revoke; in the fifth card example, partner is (even > >dummy is !); > > Dummy is? I don't think so! > No ? Maybe not, but suppose it happens anyway - L43A1b : you are not allowed to call attention to that L43B1 : give him a PP, OK L43B2 applies only after he has commited the special infraction, and does not apply to the case L43B3 : no penalty shall be imposed on defenders' action, but nothing is said of declarer's action. So it seems the only thing you can do is give him a PP. But you are probably right, dummy is not allowed to draw notice to that. So now we will allow defenders to benefit by not drawing attention to this mistake by declarer? I don't think so. When comparing to the revoke case, the difference is clear. Then there is a specific penalty (equal to the establishment of the revoke). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 04:25:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:25:37 +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 EAA11637 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:25:31 +1100 Received: from ip17.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.17]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990212172524.BWDQ3288.fep4@ip17.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:25:24 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:25:24 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36c36851.1385402@post12.tele.dk> References: <36C2C6FC.1E034F5D@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36C2C6FC.1E034F5D@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, 11 Feb 1999 13:03:08 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >"Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner >who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be >considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did >not seek the same information, unless it is clear from his=20 >hand that he did not need it at the time he could have >sought=20 >it." "From his hand" is not good enough. As I've also said elsewhere, it might be clear from his mind, and we can't read his mind: he just might happen to know what these opponents play. What is the problem in its simply being AI? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 05:29:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 05:29:57 +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 FAA12704 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 05:29:51 +1100 Received: from ip73.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.73]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990212182945.BZYT3288.fep4@ip73.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:29:45 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:29:45 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36cd72a3.4334923@post12.tele.dk> References: <9902091048.aa13130@flash.irvine.com> <36c3cbb7.10317886@post12.tele.dk> <36C2C494.B6871265@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36C2C494.B6871265@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, 11 Feb 1999 12:52:52 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >So you also allow partners to wake one another up by asking >the question the other forgot ? No, but is because of the UI transmitted when partner only asks in situations where it matters - i.e., the UI that partner found it necessary to ask. Information about the opponents system should IMO never be UI, no matter how it is obtained. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 05:54:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 05:54:12 +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 FAA12748 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 05:53:39 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.125]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA03825; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 20:53:01 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36C478AB.5BB622E8@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 20:53:31 +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: Ethical? References: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David I wonder why none of you didn't ask what the N-S system is ??? For example , I play the 2NT in this position (18 HCP) as a kind of Lebenshol..... it means S must bid 3 best minor . I don't think that N would be forbidden to bid when - WITH or WITHOUT South's hesitation - he knows S should have some minors.......... As much as I understand Laws - the hesitation doesn't compel the partner to pass or do anything specific and he is allowed to apply the system . The TD MUST let the bidding finish and then , and ONLY THEN , to check if North's action could be ("....could have known" isn't relevant here IMO) influenced or not by South's hesitation. Do we want to let the players play ?? If YES , I don't mind to agree to change the LAWS = "..after an hesitation , the partner must pass until the doomsday...." as the laws are written for a call out of rotation (Law 31B for example). Otherwise , please don't decide before you have all the data about the "potential" offenders' system ...... Is my approach absurd ???? Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Paul Lippens wrote: > > >I am a new in the arbitration circuit and need help with the following. > > Well, everyone else has given you the right answer, so I shall not > repeat it. I just would like to say Hi, hope you enjoy yourself here, > and hope you have a cat or two to show your heart is in the right place > [ok, or a dog ]. > > -- > 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 Feb 13 06:07:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 06:07:15 +1100 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA12778 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 06:06:59 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.125]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA08084; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:06:31 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36C47BD4.85CFCC67@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:07:00 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 4NT References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think both cases ask for the "doubler's" best minor ... As long as there is no special convention (or an extreme distribution hand ) , it denies the Spade game and any slam invitation , which should start with a cue-bid , IMO. Dany John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > How do we play the following bidding sequences? > > 3H x P 4N > > 1C > 3H x P 4N > > Should they be the same/very similar? Cultural origin requested. > > Choices offered, others welcome > 1) Blackwood > 2) Minors (preference in the second sequence) > 3) Natural, Invitational > > Cheers John > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / @\_. ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | /\ _) EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 06:18:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 06:18:55 +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 GAA12822 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 06:18:49 +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 OAA13179 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:18:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id OAA03587 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:18:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:18:56 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902121918.OAA03587@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just clearing up a few technical matters. I don't think there is any big controversy here. Across the field matchpoint is preferred if you want to minimize randomness in the results. [from private email] > agreed, but if you start ATF scoring you need to do it for all pairs who > are in the same competition, otherwise you get imbalances. True. The main problem is that there are bigger statistical fluctuations in a small number of comparisons than in a large number. You would like to avoid anything like matchpointing across sections A and B but matchpointing section C by itself. (I'm referring to sections in a single event. If there's a different event altogether, e.g. a novice game or something, by all means keep the matchpointing completely separate.) If you have to do something like the above for technical reasons, it is probably still better than matchpointing the three sections separately _provided_ you account for the different numbers of results by applying something like the fouled board formula. Neuberg, for example, is fine. If you matchpoint across two sections in one group and across three in another, I'm quite sure that is better than matchpointing each one separately. You should apply Neuberg (or another fouled board formula if you prefer), but you will find the corrections quite small, as they should be. > From: "Marvin L. French" [about two sections being enough] > However, those > who have lost first overall by 1/2 matchpoint when they would have > won by 1/2 matchpoint with ATF might not consider the difference > "very small." Yes, it can happen, but the probability is very small. My point was not to discourage matchpointing across the field whenever it's feasible but to encourage matchpointing across at least two sections when it's not feasible to matchpoint across the whole field. Two sections are significantly better than one and only very slightly worse than across the whole field, no matter how large the field is. (Yes, you read that right. It's a consequence of statistical sampling. As long as the samples are random, the statistical fluctuations depend on the size of the sample, not on the size of the population.) > From: Herman De Wael > So while I may accept that some technical problems might > discourage from ATF'fing over more than 20 results, I don't > see why this should count as an argument against ATF as > such. Right! ATF is best whenever it's feasible. If ATF is not feasible, try to matchpoint in groups as large as possible. Once you are up to twenty or so comparisons, though, going to larger groups is only a modest improvement, so it isn't worth extreme effort or a long delay in posting results to do it, at least in most events. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 06:40:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 06:40:55 +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 GAA12869 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 06:40:46 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.100] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10BORw-0007Eo-00; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:40:28 +0000 Message-ID: <199902121940280780.0413F6F9@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <36c36851.1385402@post12.tele.dk> References: <36C2C6FC.1E034F5D@village.uunet.be> <36c36851.1385402@post12.tele.dk> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:40:28 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:03:08 +0100, Herman De Wael > wrote: >>"Answers to questions about bidding, when asked by partner >>who is fourth behind the person making the call, are to be >>considered UI, when it is clear that the player himself did >>not seek the same information, unless it is clear from his >>hand that he did not need it at the time he could have >>sought >>it." > >"From his hand" is not good enough. As I've also said elsewhere, >it might be clear from his mind, and we can't read his mind: he >just might happen to know what these opponents play. > >What is the problem in its simply being AI? Chiefly this: that under international conditions, it is information that= the player cannot possess. The "impossible" ideal embodied in the Laws= appears to me to be this: that while East may at his turn ask North and= South for explanations of their bidding, such questions should not be= perceptible to West. In other words: the four players are each assumed to= conduct the game in isolation from one another, save that a player may= (when the Laws permit) communicate with his opponents; the results of such= communication (or indeed the fact that it takes place at all) should never= be available to the player's partner. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 06:45:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 06:45:25 +1100 Received: from m4.boston.juno.com (m4.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.198]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA12884 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 06:45:19 +1100 Received: (from paulhar@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id D3AHGN2P; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:45:10 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:49:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing Message-ID: <19990212.144904.-74481.1.paulhar@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,8-9,11-12,14-17 X-Juno-Att: 0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Paul D. Harrington" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Assuming a single site which eliminates the skill discrepancies between sites: Despite the best efforts to seed the event, there will always be stronger and weaker sections. Matchpointing only in your own section will be of the most benefit to the pairs playing IN the weakest section IN THEIR OWN DIRECTION. (the skill of the pairs in the other direction in your section don't matter as all the other pairs in your direction play them also.) Matchpointing ATF will be of the most benefit to the pairs playing AGAINST the weakest section (the OTHER direction in your same section.) Thus it would seem that the fairest comparison would be something between the two. Paul Harrington paulhar@juno.com ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 07:49:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 07:49:20 +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 HAA13025 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 07:49:15 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa07319; 12 Feb 99 12:48 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:40:28 PST." <199902121940280780.0413F6F9@mail.btinternet.com> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:48:39 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902121248.aa07319@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > >What is the problem in its simply being AI? > > Chiefly this: that under international conditions, it is information that= > the player cannot possess. This doesn't seem like a good argument. I assume that by international conditions, you mean "screens"? Is your theory that "information that you can't possess when screens are in use is therefore information that you must treat as UI when screens aren't in use"? If so, then you must treat half of your opponents' mannerisms, facial expressions, etc., as UI, even though the Laws explicitly say you may take advantage of them. So your theory seems to be flawed. So obviously, of the information that you wouldn't have available if screens were in use, some of this information is AI when screens aren't in use, and some is UI. We can all agree that opponents' mannerisms are AI, as are the questions they ask of your partner; and that partner's mannerisms and questions are UI. Also, partner's explanation of your system is UI. So what about opponents' explanations of their system? We can't agree about whether it's AI or UI, but it's pretty clear that this cannot be decided simply by asking whether the information would be available with screens. > The "impossible" ideal embodied in the Laws= > appears to me to be this: that while East may at his turn ask North and= > South for explanations of their bidding, such questions should not be= > perceptible to West. In other words: the four players are each assumed to= > conduct the game in isolation from one another, save that a player may= > (when the Laws permit) communicate with his opponents; the results of such= > communication (or indeed the fact that it takes place at all) should never= > be available to the player's partner. I'd say that the impossible ideal is full disclosure without the opponents having to ask questions. Then again, I just received my Feburary Bridge World and read Rubens' editorial, so full disclosure is fresh in my mind. But to me, if the four players are isolated as you say, the ideal would be for bidders to explain their own bids without being asked. This is the normal practice on OKBridge, where it's easy to accompany your own alertable bid with an explanation so that only the opponents see it and partner has no idea that you even alerted. If this were the case, there would have been no problem with the 2D opener on the hand in question. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 08:35:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 08:35:21 +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 IAA13132 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 08:35:16 +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 QAA19448 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:35:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id QAA03680 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:35:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:35:25 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902122135.QAA03680@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Paul D. Harrington" > Matchpointing ATF will be of the most benefit to the pairs playing > AGAINST the weakest section (the OTHER direction in your same section.) Oh, this is very interesting. Our discussion so far has, I think, implicitly assumed that all sections are of equal strength. What if they aren't? Straightforward ATF is indeed poor if the sections are of unequal strength. In principle, it ought to be possible to devise a scoring system that would account for the strength of the opponents met as well as the results on each board. Movements would also have to be modified to provide direct comparison across sections. The problem is the same as devising a player rating system except that the field of players is much smaller and only a specific number of boards needs to be taken into account. (It also is closely akin to a problem in which I have a professional interest.) As long as the number of contestants is no more than a few tens of thousands, it ought to be possible to find a unique solution, once the rating formula is established. Of course the scoring would have to be done across the field and by computer, and it wouldn't be very transparent to the players. Is it worth the trouble? If I get an average against Meckwell, shouldn't that be worth as much as a top against a weak pair? I don't know, but it's an interesting thought. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 09:00:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:00:29 +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 JAA13215 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:00:23 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka8sb.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.35.139]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA10973 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:00:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:00:11 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <199902121243570960.029693AE@mail.btinternet.com> References: <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:43 PM 2/12/99 +0000, David B wrote: > >It is no longer permitted in this country for players to request that their opponents do not alert. Even if it were, my position would be the same. I believe that a player who has misunderstood his opponents' methods through his own fault may not take advantage of a reply to his partner's question in order to resolve the misunderstanding, but must continue to act as though still under his original misapprehension. Of course, this policy would be difficult to enforce in many cases, but I think that it is how players should act as a matter of conscience. I am not at all convinced that the Laws do not admit this position, as DWS seems to me to assert. > It is an interesting position. Would it apply equally in the following case? LHO opens 2D (alert!), and I mistakenly assume that the opponents are playing Flannery. This misimpression is corrected quickly, however, before I have any chance to act on my misunderstanding, as partner asks for an explanation and the bid is explained as Roman. Are you really prepared to argue that I have some duty to go on treating this as Flannery? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 09:10:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:10:59 +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 JAA13233 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:10:46 +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 <19990212221038.JBFZ23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:10:38 -0800 Message-ID: <36C4A7CB.16348643@home.com> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:14:35 -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: Ethical? References: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> <36C478AB.5BB622E8@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > I wonder why none of you didn't ask what the N-S system is ??? Because if South's pass was forcing, or the 1NT opening unlimited, we all assume the poster would so state, and possibly not even bring the matter to our attention? > For example , I play the 2NT in this position (18 HCP) as a kind of > Lebenshol..... it means S must bid 3 best minor . > I don't think that N would be forbidden to bid when - WITH or WITHOUT > South's hesitation - he knows S should have some minors.......... > As much as I understand Laws - the hesitation doesn't compel > the partner to pass or do anything specific and he is allowed > to apply the system . Then I'm afraid you do *not* understand the laws. Only if pass is not an LA in their system, i.e. that pard's pass was forcing, does the law allow a bid when such bid is demonstrably suggested by the UI. If you don't consider the slow pass suggesting action, then ............. > The TD MUST let the bidding finish and > then , and ONLY THEN , to check if North's action could be > ("....could have known" isn't relevant here IMO) influenced > or not by South's hesitation. > > Do we want to let the players play ?? If YES , I don't mind > to agree to change the LAWS = "..after an hesitation , > the partner must pass until the doomsday...." as the laws > are written for a call out of rotation (Law 31B for example). > Otherwise , please don't decide before you have all the data > about the "potential" offenders' system ...... > > Is my approach absurd ???? Since you're asking, imo - yes:-) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 09:52:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:52:52 +1100 Received: from m4.boston.juno.com (m4.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.198]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA13341 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:52:47 +1100 Received: (from paulhar@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id D3AT6GPL; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:51:50 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:55:36 -0500 Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing Message-ID: <19990212.175538.-250921.0.paulhar@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 5-6,11-12,14-16,20-21,26-29,31-67 X-Juno-Att: 0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Paul D. Harrington" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve - an interesting idea but can you imagine the brewhaha when the poor lower ranked player somehow gets a 186 and loses his section top and corresponding gold points to a pro who got 183 1/2? Of course, the pro who is a one-seed plays all the seeds and thus probably 'earned' the top but it would further instill the notion among the lower-ranked players that tournaments and TD's favor the pros. The point I was making was that we've all played sessions where all the non-seeded pairs can't follow suit and you think you have a monster only to find out that you have a 167 (156 ave) when the four seeds in the section you just played against are all above 200 (and will be again in the evening session!) Of course, matchpointed across a large field, it would be you and the seeds in your section with the undeserved 200's. (like playing in the Alcatel World Pairs againsr a weak field!) I was just suggesting that something in between these two results would be fairest, as it would be a lot to expect of already harried entry-selling directors to make sure that the people that can't follow suit are equally distributed among the sections. Of course, I understand that it might also be desirable to account for the people WITHIN a section playing against different opponents, but I'm not sure how that could be accomplished without offending someone. Of course, in an event like the Blue Ribbon finals, I presume nobody would mind your suggested method. ALL TEXT BELOW THIS QUOTED FROM EARLIER: On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:35:25 -0500 (EST) Steve Willner writes: >> From: "Paul D. Harrington" >> Matchpointing ATF will be of the most benefit to the pairs playing >> AGAINST the weakest section (the OTHER direction in your same >section.) > >Oh, this is very interesting. Our discussion so far has, I think, >implicitly assumed that all sections are of equal strength. What if >they aren't? Straightforward ATF is indeed poor if the sections are >of >unequal strength. > >In principle, it ought to be possible to devise a scoring system that >would account for the strength of the opponents met as well as the >results on each board. Movements would also have to be modified to >provide direct comparison across sections. The problem is the same >as >devising a player rating system except that the field of players is >much smaller and only a specific number of boards needs to be taken >into account. (It also is closely akin to a problem in which I have >a >professional interest.) As long as the number of contestants is no >more than a few tens of thousands, it ought to be possible to find a >unique solution, once the rating formula is established. Of course >the >scoring would have to be done across the field and by computer, and >it >wouldn't be very transparent to the players. > >Is it worth the trouble? If I get an average against Meckwell, >shouldn't that be worth as much as a top against a weak pair? I >don't >know, but it's an interesting thought. > Paul Harrington paulhar@juno.com ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 09:59:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:59:23 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA13371 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:59:17 +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 <19990212225912.JMBT23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:59:12 -0800 Message-ID: <36C4B32A.E7D5A52A@home.com> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:03:06 -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: Auction or Call Reviews (was RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question) References: <01BE567D.B8548480@har-pa1-26.ix.NETCOM.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > ##### These changes have been so roundly ignored in practice that it might > be wisest to revert to the 1975 language which conforms to what everyone > actually DOES. How do others on list feel about this? > > I would tend to support it, since to review the entire auction needlessly > is cumbersome, time consuming and in most cases downright annoying. In fact > any player actually insisting on following the law as written and giving > the whole auction every time would risk provoking a zero tolerance call for > interfering with his opponents' enjoyment of the game. He would not be > popular, but thought of as some kind of pedantic bl at best. I fully agree with all of this and furthermore.... > Is that too great a price to pay for avoiding the ui potential of enquiry > into a specific call? Common practice hints that for most players it is. let's not kid ourselves here. The UI potential is there today anyway since the point at which one asks could give a hint to which of the calls it was that triggered the interest. The "non-askers" have access to protection from UI use even today when the whole auction is explained. N E S W 1C P 1H P 1S P 2S P 3D* P 3S P** * alerted ** W asks abt the auction. No other bids were alerted. Is there any question about which bid W is interested in whether or not NS must now explain the whole auction rather than just the 3D bid? I'm not saying anything abt restrictions on East's leads etc., merely wondering if it matters how many *natural* bids in the preceeding auction are explained? Btw, it just occured to me that the player who'll be on lead should ask (if any), in order to minimize potential lead-problems. Am I over-reaching here? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 10:32:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:32:05 +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 KAA13421 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:31:59 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA23118; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:31:50 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902122331.PAA23118@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: Law 9 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:29:28 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > On 12/02/99, at 04:25, David Stevenson wrote: > > >>The current 11B is a prime example of unnecessary redundancy. > > > > Isn't the word unnecessary a redundancy? > > No. There are certain redundancies in life that are absolutely necessary. For example, a jet aeroplane has three redundant engines. In accordance with the "fail-safe" requirement that is so common in the aerospace industry. However, I don't think the plane will fly very well with just one engine, maybe not at all on takeoff, so just two of the engines, any two, are redundant. My mother used to say, "I'm not going to repeat myself again!" when she had said something only once before. She regarded that redundancy as quite necessary. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 11:45:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:45:24 +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 LAA13591 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:45:14 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.156] by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10BTCs-0002Tk-00; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:45:14 +0000 Message-ID: <199902130044570110.052AC234@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> References: <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:44:57 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 12/02/99, at 17:00, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 12:43 PM 2/12/99 +0000, David B wrote: >> >>It is no longer permitted in this country for players to request that >their opponents do not alert. Even if it were, my position would be the >same. I believe that a player who has misunderstood his opponents' methods >through his own fault may not take advantage of a reply to his partner's >question in order to resolve the misunderstanding, but must continue to act >as though still under his original misapprehension. Of course, this policy >would be difficult to enforce in many cases, but I think that it is how >players should act as a matter of conscience. I am not at all convinced >that the Laws do not admit this position, as DWS seems to me to assert. >> >It is an interesting position. Would it apply equally in the following >case? LHO opens 2D (alert!), and I mistakenly assume that the opponents are >playing Flannery. This misimpression is corrected quickly, however, before >I have any chance to act on my misunderstanding, as partner asks for an >explanation and the bid is explained as Roman. > >Are you really prepared to argue that I have some duty to go on treating >this as Flannery? I am prepared to argue that this is how a saint would behave. Perhaps, therefore, it is how a human being ought to behave. But as a practical matter, I do not believe that anyone actually would behave in that fashion - and, of course, it would be wholly impossible to prove that anyone had so acted. Of course, under ideal conditions, the bidding would go: (2D) 2H (Pass) to me and I would imagine partner's bid to be takeout of hearts, with dire consequences. I think that most people, even the proponents of what we might call the "AI" theory, would believe that I should suffer those dire consequences under those ideal conditions. Why, then, simply because conditions are less than ideal, should I fail to suffer them? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 11:46:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:46:24 +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 LAA13605 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:46:17 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.156] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10BTCx-0004Kj-00; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:45:19 +0000 Message-ID: <199902130045570200.052BAD21@mail.btinternet.com> References: <9902121248.aa07319@flash.irvine.com> <199902130039210740.0525A416@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:45:57 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 12/02/99, at 12:48, Adam Beneschan wrote: >David Burn wrote: > >> >What is the problem in its simply being AI? >> >> Chiefly this: that under international conditions, it is information that= >> the player cannot possess. > >This doesn't seem like a good argument. I assume that by >international conditions, you mean "screens"? Is your theory that >"information that you can't possess when screens are in use is >therefore information that you must treat as UI when screens aren't in >use"? If so, then you must treat half of your opponents' mannerisms, >facial expressions, etc., as UI, even though the Laws explicitly say >you may take advantage of them. So your theory seems to be flawed. I'm not sure that I follow this. One of the consequences of screens, and a highly desirable consequence it is too, is that I cannot hear my partner's questions, nor see his alerts (as it should be in an ideal world). Also, I cannot see the mannerisms of one of my opponents, so I cannot derive any information from them (authorized or otherwise). The fact that I can see the other opponent, and perhaps derive information from his mannerisms, is unfortunate, but it is a fact, and as you say, the Laws permit me to use such information. This does not imply that if I sit East at a table without screens, I can use information from North's mannerisms but not South's - if I have conveyed such an impression, I am sorry, but I think that words may have been put into my mouth that I would not utter. All I am trying to assert is that: I believe information from opponents' replies to partner's questions to be UI to me; and Under international conditions, which are a closer approximation to the "ideal" conditions presupposed by the Laws, such information would never become available to me; and therefore If such information does become available to me under less than ideal conditions, I should not use it. >So obviously, of the information that you wouldn't have available if >screens were in use, some of this information is AI when screens >aren't in use, and some is UI. Indeed. The effect of screens is simply to reduce the amount of information (both AI and UI) that I possess. >We can all agree that opponents' >mannerisms are AI, as are the questions they ask of your partner; and >that partner's mannerisms and questions are UI. Also, partner's >explanation of your system is UI. So what about opponents' >explanations of their system? We can't agree about whether it's AI or >UI, but it's pretty clear that this cannot be decided simply by asking >whether the information would be available with screens. That is a good point. However, screens do not provide ideal conditions; they merely provide a better approximation to them than the absence of screens. Here, screens are a practical way to ensure that I do not get information that I (in my opinion) cannot use. There are other ways, as you say below... >I'd say that the impossible ideal is full disclosure without the >opponents having to ask questions. Then again, I just received my >Feburary Bridge World and read Rubens' editorial, so full disclosure >is fresh in my mind. Very well, but a practical method of achieving this is not easy to envisage. Of course, if the game were played in OKBridge mode, the opponents could put their system file online so that I could read it (but they could not) without my partner knowing that I was doing this. >But to me, if the four players are isolated as >you say, the ideal would be for bidders to explain their own bids >without being asked. This is the normal practice on OKBridge, where >it's easy to accompany your own alertable bid with an explanation so >that only the opponents see it and partner has no idea that you even >alerted. If this were the case, there would have been no problem with >the 2D opener on the hand in question. Exactly so. If this were to happen, then the player in the case under discussion would be under no kind of ethical pressure - but would be forced to bear the consequences of his own folly if he persisted therein. I see no way to mirror this condition in reality - unless, of course, all alerts were accompanied by a mandatory question and explanation... I imagine that those who argue that the information elicited by partner in the case under discussion is AI would consider that on OKBridge, a player should be able to "hear" his partner's questions to the opponents and their replies. I wonder, in that case, why they believe that the game was not designed in that way. However, to design a form of bridge where you cannot hear partner's questions appears to me to be far more in keeping with the spirit of bridge and its Laws than the alternative. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 12:26:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:26:15 +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 MAA13720 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:26:08 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa25946; 12 Feb 99 17:25 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:45:57 PST." <199902130045570200.052BAD21@mail.btinternet.com> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:25:36 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To: dburn@btinternet.com Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:39:21 PST." <199902130039210740.0525A416@mail.btinternet.com> -------- David Burn wrote: > I'm not sure that I follow this. One of the consequences of screens, > and a highly desirable consequence it is too, is that I cannot hear > my partner's questions, nor see his alerts (as it should be in an > ideal world). Also, I cannot see the mannerisms of one of my > opponents, so I cannot derive any information from them (authorized > or otherwise). The fact that I can see the other opponent, and > perhaps derive information from his mannerisms, is unfortunate, but > it is a fact, and as you say, the Laws permit me to use such > information. Hmmm . . . it looks like you think that the ability to see your opponents' mannerisms is unfortunate. I don't think this is a universally held opinion; some feel that it's rightfully a part of the game of bridge. I've read that some people consider things like screens to take some of the humanity away from the game. > This does not imply that if I sit East at a table > without screens, I can use information from North's mannerisms but > not South's - if I have conveyed such an impression, I am sorry, but > I think that words may have been put into my mouth that I would not > utter. No, you didn't say anything of the sort---but the premise on which your argument relies logically *implies* that. That's why I think the premise needs to be questioned. > >. . . We can all agree that opponents' > >mannerisms are AI, as are the questions they ask of your partner; > and > >that partner's mannerisms and questions are UI. Also, partner's > >explanation of your system is UI. So what about opponents' > >explanations of their system? We can't agree about whether it's AI > or > >UI, but it's pretty clear that this cannot be decided simply by > asking > >whether the information would be available with screens. > > That is a good point. However, screens do not provide ideal > conditions; they merely provide a better approximation to them than > the absence of screens. Here, screens are a practical way to ensure > that I do not get information that I (in my opinion) cannot use. > There are other ways, as you say below... However, everything I said applies just as well to the "ideal" conditions as to screens. That is, under the ideal setup you describe, you can't see your opponents' mannerisms, and you can't hear your opponents' questions to your partner---but that information is AI under the Laws. So I can strengthen my last statement to say: "but it's pretty clear that this [AI or UI] cannot be decided simply by asking whether the information would be available with screens or on OKBridge or under the ideal conditions described." > . . . I imagine that those who argue that the information elicited by > partner in the case under discussion is AI would consider that on > OKBridge, a player should be able to "hear" his partner's questions > to the opponents and their replies. I wonder, in that case, why they > believe that the game was not designed in that way. However, to > design a form of bridge where you cannot hear partner's questions > appears to me to be far more in keeping with the spirit of bridge and > its Laws than the alternative. Unfortunately, you seem to have partner's question and the response tied together as if they were a unit. Most of the people in this discussion don't see it that way. I have no problem with saying that partner's question is UI, but that the response is AI. That is, the "spirit of bridge" doesn't want you to get extraneous information about partner's hand, or about how partner has interpreted your calls, and thus any such information conveyed by partner's question is UI; but the information that comes from the opponents' response does not fall into those two categories, and therefore using it does not violate the spirit of the game. Also, if being able to hear the responses to partner's questions violates the spirit of the game, then: (1) LHO, dealer, bids, and partner asks RHO a question about it. Is it violating the spirit of the game to listen to RHO's answer? Is the only way to keep within the spirit of the game to ask RHO the same question when it's your turn? (2) RHO, dealer, bids; you don't know what the bid means, but you have a hand that is going to pass regardless. So, either because you don't want to give the opponents the chance to clear up a misunderstanding, or because your SO's policy says you may not ask questions if the answer won't affect your action, you don't ask anything. Your partner is interested in the meaning of the bid, though, and he asks. Of course, the fact that partner is interested is UI---but is it violating the spirit of the game to remember what the opponents said their bid was showing? Again, I'm just trying to point out that a premise that you seem to be relying on, namely that "listening to opponents' responses to partner's questions violates the spirit of the game", has some logical consequences that seem to be untrue, and that therefore the premise might be incorrect. Reductio ad somewhat absurdum. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 12:35:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:35:31 +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 MAA13751 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:35:26 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA12495; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:35:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902130135.RAA12495@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Paul D. Harrington" Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:33:34 -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 Paul D. Harrington > > Assuming a single site which eliminates the skill discrepancies between > sites: > > Despite the best efforts to seed the event, there will always be stronger > and weaker sections. Matchpointing only in your own section will be of > the most benefit to the pairs playing IN the weakest section IN THEIR OWN > DIRECTION. (the skill of the pairs in the other direction in your > section don't matter as all the other pairs in your direction play them > also.) > > Matchpointing ATF will be of the most benefit to the pairs playing > AGAINST the weakest section (the OTHER direction in your same section.) > > Thus it would seem that the fairest comparison would be something between > the two. > Okay Paul, we will have arrow-switch Mitchells in the first session and interwoven Howells (new opponents) in the second sesssion, all scored ATF, with no need for anyone to change seats or change sections. Is that in accord with your conclusion? Is that a consensus agreement for BLML, or does someone have a better suggestion? Perhaps we could split up the 1/2 sections (lines, to some) into 1/4 sections and mix things up a bit. Or we could move individual pairs randomly, but seeding has to remain intact. And what are the best arrow-switch instructions? And what are the best seeding instructions? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 12:47:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:47:39 +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 MAA13780 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:47:33 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10BUB3-0007Np-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 01:47:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 04:12:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 4NT In-Reply-To: <3kSk46A9D6w2Ewkf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3kSk46A9D6w2Ewkf@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Mark wrote: > >>.....Mark Bartusek (mbartusek@west.raytheon.com) >>p.s. sorry...no cats nor dogs in my household. > > Welcome anyway! > >>How do we play the following bidding sequences? >> >>3H x P 4N > > Minors. > >> 1C >>3H x P 4N > > Long clubs, short diamonds. > >>Should they be the same/very similar? Cultural origin requested. > > ACBL, but only with .... [aaargh!] > I held x x AKQx AKTxxxx 4N was down 6 when 7H and 2S got cashed. 5D is laydown. Well done DWS for getting it right. Does that mean I have to play with you again? -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 13:35:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:35:19 +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 NAA13893 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:35:13 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka84a.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.138]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA27231 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:35:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:35:00 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <199902130044570110.052AC234@mail.btinternet.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I am prepared to argue that this is how a saint would behave. >Perhaps, therefore, it is how a human being ought to behave. But as a >practical matter, I do not believe that anyone actually would behave >in that fashion - and, of course, it would be wholly impossible to >prove that anyone had so acted. Of course, under ideal conditions, >the bidding would go: (2D) 2H (Pass) to me and I would imagine >partner's bid to be takeout of hearts, with dire consequences. I >think that most people, even the proponents of what we might call the >"AI" theory, would believe that I should suffer those dire >consequences under those ideal conditions. Why, then, simply because >conditions are less than ideal, should I fail to suffer them? > Because we are not, in fact, in agreement about what constitutes "ideal" conditions. IMO, the ideal is closer to what happens on OKB, where the bidder is responsible for communicating the nature of his bid to the opponents without any signal to partner to indicate that this has happened. In other words, in _my_ ideal conditions, you would not be responsible for trying to divine the meaning of opponents' actions, either by making risky assumptions or by asking questions which can cause a variety of problems, but would have the information made availabe to you "free of charge". The present system of CC's, alerts and questions is the closest we have been able to come for f2f bridge, given the logistical constraints. Is it contrary to the spirit of the game that you should learn about the opponents' methods as a result of partner's questions? No, you are entitled to that information, period. The Laws say so. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 13:51:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:51:52 +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 NAA13933 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:51:44 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.118] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10BVAy-0007Xc-00; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 02:51:24 +0000 Message-ID: <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 02:51:24 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 12/02/99, at 17:25, Adam Beneschan wrote: >David Burn wrote: > >> I'm not sure that I follow this. One of the consequences of screens, >> and a highly desirable consequence it is too, is that I cannot hear >> my partner's questions, nor see his alerts (as it should be in an >> ideal world). Also, I cannot see the mannerisms of one of my >> opponents, so I cannot derive any information from them (authorized >> or otherwise). The fact that I can see the other opponent, and >> perhaps derive information from his mannerisms, is unfortunate, but >> it is a fact, and as you say, the Laws permit me to use such >> information. > >Hmmm . . . it looks like you think that the ability to see your >opponents' mannerisms is unfortunate. I don't think this is a >universally held opinion; some feel that it's rightfully a part of the >game of bridge. I've read that some people consider things like >screens to take some of the humanity away from the game. Perhaps. But the Laws themselves indicate clearly that my opponents should not in fact exhibit such mannerisms. They are not part of the game itself. Of course, I do not suggest that bridge should be played only by robots, and I am aware that for many players, "table presence" is an important part of bridge. However, I think it sensible for the Laws to presume that as far as possible, such mannerisms should not exist - and if conditions can be created in which information from such mannerisms is simply not available, the question of whether it is authorized or not should not arise, to the benefit of all. This is a side issue, but it may be an important one. >> This does not imply that if I sit East at a table >> without screens, I can use information from North's mannerisms but >> not South's - if I have conveyed such an impression, I am sorry, but >> I think that words may have been put into my mouth that I would not >> utter. > >No, you didn't say anything of the sort---but the premise on which >your argument relies logically *implies* that. That's why I think the >premise needs to be questioned. I don't think so. Since I don't believe that my opponents should actually exhibit any mannerisms, and the Laws appear to agree with me, I am not really concerned with the fact that a screen prevents me from seeing half of my opponents' mannerisms. My argument is not: "information that I have without screens that I would not have with screens is ipso facto unauthorized". My argument is: "information arising from replies to partner's questions is unauthorized - were that not the case, screens would be illegal, for they would prevent me from having access to authorized information." >However, everything I said applies just as well to the "ideal" >conditions as to screens. That is, under the ideal setup you >describe, you can't see your opponents' mannerisms, and you can't hear >your opponents' questions to your partner---but that information is AI >under the Laws. So I can strengthen my last statement to say: "but >it's pretty clear that this [AI or UI] cannot be decided simply by >asking whether the information would be available with screens or on >OKBridge or under the ideal conditions described." You can, but I don't think it's clear at all. The question of mannerisms is, in my view, a red herring as far as the question of whether I am allowed to be woken up to my own misunderstanding by a reply to partner's question is concerned. One of my arguments to support the view that I am not allowed to be woken up is that, under ideal conditions, such waking up would be impossible. If it were to be permitted, then current conditions would have to be revised in order to allow it (for example, the written question by my partner and reply by his screen mate could be passed under the screen on the bidding tray). Moreover, ideal conditions would have to be revised to take into account this permission. Now, I do not believe that anyone actually thinks this should happen. However, it appears to me to be a logical consequence of the position that information arising from such replies is AI. >> . . . I imagine that those who argue that the information elicited by >> partner in the case under discussion is AI would consider that on >> OKBridge, a player should be able to "hear" his partner's questions >> to the opponents and their replies. I wonder, in that case, why they >> believe that the game was not designed in that way. However, to >> design a form of bridge where you cannot hear partner's questions >> appears to me to be far more in keeping with the spirit of bridge and >> its Laws than the alternative. > >Unfortunately, you seem to have partner's question and the response >tied together as if they were a unit. Most of the people in this >discussion don't see it that way. I have no problem with saying that >partner's question is UI, but that the response is AI. Well, suppose instead of asking "What was 2D?" and receiving the reply "Roman", my partner simply said to his RHO: "Your 2D was Roman". What kind of information would that be? And what is the qualitative difference between his doing that and his asking a question? We have all agreed, I think, that for partner to ask a question for the sole purpose of waking me up is not legal. If we go on to say that when partner asks a "genuine" question, the reply becomes AI to me, we will be forced in some cases to decide what was actually in the mind of the questioner. As you will know by now, I am implacably opposed to such subjectivity on the part of the TD or referee. Far simpler, and in my view far more consonant with the actual Laws, is to say that information arising from the response to any question, however motivated, is UI to the questioner's partner. >That is, the >"spirit of bridge" doesn't want you to get extraneous information >about partner's hand, or about how partner has interpreted your calls, >and thus any such information conveyed by partner's question is UI; >but the information that comes from the opponents' response does not >fall into those two categories, and therefore using it does not >violate the spirit of the game. It is true that it falls into neither of the categories you describe. It is, in my view, false to say that using such information is not a violation of the spirit of the game. I suppose that my basic objection to the "AI school" is that the question of whether the information will actually arise or not is more or less random, or at any rate outside the control of the player who will be prevented from suffering the consequences of his own folly thereby. I don't think that a player who treats an opposing Roman 2D as if it were Flannery because that player is careless should be in a position to be rescued by the happy circumstance that his partner also has an interest in knowing the meaning of 2D, and is a more careful player into the bargain. It is in the spirit of the game that if you make mistakes, you live with them; it is not in the spirit of the game that if you make mistakes, you don't have to live with them because of some arbitrary piece of legislation. >Also, if being able to hear the responses to partner's questions >violates the spirit of the game, then: > >(1) LHO, dealer, bids, and partner asks RHO a question about it. Is > it violating the spirit of the game to listen to RHO's answer? Is > the only way to keep within the spirit of the game to ask RHO the > same question when it's your turn? I have dealt with this question in a reply to Michael Dennis. I repeat: in principle, I should not be allowed to hear partner's questions or the opponents' replies to them. So in principle, if I required the information that my partner has been given, I would have to ask the question that he asked. This is what happens in practice when screens are in use. It does not happen when screens are not in use because in practice, it does not need to happen. In principle, however, my view is that it should happen, which is why it would have to happen under ideal conditions. >(2) RHO, dealer, bids; you don't know what the bid means, but you have > a hand that is going to pass regardless. So, either because you > don't want to give the opponents the chance to clear up a > misunderstanding, or because your SO's policy says you may not ask > questions if the answer won't affect your action, you don't ask > anything. Your partner is interested in the meaning of the bid, > though, and he asks. Of course, the fact that partner is > interested is UI---but is it violating the spirit of the game to > remember what the opponents said their bid was showing? No. When it becomes in my interests to learn what the bid meant, then of course I will ask a question. If that question has already been asked, it would be foolish in practice (though correct in principle) for me to have to ask it again. >Again, I'm just trying to point out that a premise that you seem to be >relying on, namely that "listening to opponents' responses to >partner's questions violates the spirit of the game", has some logical >consequences that seem to be untrue, and that therefore the premise >might be incorrect. Reductio ad somewhat absurdum. My logical conclusions are not, as I hope I have explained above, untrue. They are impractical, but that is not at all the same thing. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 14:23:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:23:50 +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 OAA14005 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:23:41 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10BVg4-0001qL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 03:23:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 01:35:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ethical? References: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> <36C478AB.5BB622E8@internet-zahav.net> In-Reply-To: <36C478AB.5BB622E8@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >Is my approach absurd ???? No, your approach is fine. However, it is unsuitable for this hand. I do not believe that after opening a strong no-trump, hearing an overcall followed by two passes, that pass is not an LA, even if you do play 2NT as the minors [as i do, and I think is standard]. -- 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 Feb 13 14:23:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:23:52 +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 OAA14006 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:23:42 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10BVg4-0001qK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 03:23:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 01:31:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121248.aa07319@flash.irvine.com> <199902130039210740.0525A416@mail.btinternet.com> <199902130045570200.052BAD21@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902130045570200.052BAD21@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Under international conditions, which are a closer approximation to >the "ideal" conditions presupposed by the Laws, such information >would never become available to me; and therefore >If such information does become available to me under less than ideal >conditions, I should not use it. This is the critical part of the argument [as I see it] and is not correct. The Laws are designed for use in all forms of duplicate bridge [perhaps excluding OLB which is new and probably needs adjustments to the Laws]. You define UI by what the Laws say is Unauthorised Information: you do not define UI by what is treated as UI in one form of the game, and then extend it to other forms of the game. There is no reason to suppose that because screens provide a better environment as far as UI is concerned that this defines what is or should be UI: in fact, the reverse seems more reasonable. I would say that a better method is to define UI by the form of the game with least protection against UI [no screens, no bidding boxes, no written bidding] and see where that gets you. The ideal conditions referred to are what a perfect game would be, but the UI law deals with infractions, not a perfect game. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 14:23:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:23:52 +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 OAA14004 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:23:41 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10BVg4-0001qM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 03:23:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 02:22:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Auction or Call Reviews (was RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question) References: <01BE567D.B8548480@har-pa1-26.ix.NETCOM.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE567D.B8548480@har-pa1-26.ix.NETCOM.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >From: Marvin L. French[SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] > > the law was changed in 1987: >1975: L20F1--"a full explanation of any call made by an opponent >opposing call" > L20F2--"an explanation of opposing calls >1987/1997: L20F1--"a full explanation of the opponents' auction" > L20F2--"an explanation of opposing auction." >I am told that Edgar Kaplan pushed for these changes because he >felt that there was too much questioning of individual calls. > >##### These changes have been so roundly ignored in practice that it might >be wisest to revert to the 1975 language which conforms to what everyone >actually DOES. How do others on list feel about this? > > I would tend to support it, since to review the entire auction needlessly >is cumbersome, time consuming and in most cases downright annoying. In fact >any player actually insisting on following the law as written and giving >the whole auction every time would risk provoking a zero tolerance call for >interfering with his opponents' enjoyment of the game. He would not be >popular, but thought of as some kind of pedantic bl at best. > > Is that too great a price to pay for avoiding the ui potential of enquiry >into a specific call? Common practice hints that for most players it is. Well, the EBU read it differently. Part of L20F1 says "... [questions may be asked about calls actually made ..." and we have interpreted it that this gives us the right to ask about individual calls. Now I know that Grattan says that this is not the WBFLC's interpretation: this is probably the biggest difference that Grattan and I have over the Laws. I believe it to be clear: I think you can see from the addition of this clause that the Law has been weakened to allow individual calls to be asked about. I do not think an interpretation is required because it is clear. I understand that Kaplan did not agree but we can no longer discuss it with him. Furthermore, I believe that if the WBFLC continues to support the position that one may not ask about individual calls then this is one area that they are totally and completely wrong. When the change was made in the Laws in 1987 it was found to be totally unworkable, and I do not believe that a totally unworkable method should be continued in defiance of common-sense. Let me remind you what the Kaplan approach means legally. 1H 1S 2C 2Da 2H 3Ha 3S 4Ca 4Da 4H 4Na 5Da 6Ca 6H P You want to know what form of Blackwood they are playing, specifically what 5D means. The CC is uninformative. Is it really good for the game to say "What does the auction mean?" and get the following reply: "1H is natural, about 10 to 20 points, well, it could be 9, but it is usually unbalanced if it is less than 12, and 20 is rare, i suppose." "1S is natural. Actually, there could be a longer minor in a weak hand, or even in a stronger hand if he had a weak suit." "2C is natural. He did bid it on a 3-card suit once, and he might have by-passed a weak four card suit and bid 2H, so it is probably not too weak - though with 15 points he might still have bid 2C even if it is weak." "2D is Fourth Suit forcing. It does not show anything except about 11 points, and asks partner to bid no-trumps with a stop, well, unless he has something really worthwhile to show, like 6 hearts or something." "2H is minimum with a rebiddable heart suit. He probably does not have three spades." "3H is forcing!" "3S is natural - but it is likely to be only honour-doubleton because he did not ..." "MOVE FOR THE NEXT ROUND PLEASE - HURRY IT UP THERE AT TABLE FOUR!" It is my view that the wording of L20F1 allows questions to be asked about specific calls during the auction, and the wording of L41B allows questions to be asked about specific calls during the play. I believe that it would be unwise of any authority, no matter how distinguished, to challenge this interpretation, because it has found to be unworkable, impractical and deleterious to the game of bridge solely to allow questions of the whole auction. -- 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 Feb 13 14:23:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:23:50 +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 OAA14003 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:23:41 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10BVg3-0001qJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 03:23:33 +0000 Message-ID: <$TdWFpAFPNx2EweI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 01:22:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <199902121940280780.0413F6F9@mail.btinternet.com> <9902121248.aa07319@flash.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <9902121248.aa07319@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >I'd say that the impossible ideal is full disclosure without the >opponents having to ask questions. Then again, I just received my >Feburary Bridge World and read Rubens' editorial, so full disclosure >is fresh in my mind. But to me, if the four players are isolated as >you say, the ideal would be for bidders to explain their own bids >without being asked. This is the normal practice on OKBridge, where >it's easy to accompany your own alertable bid with an explanation so >that only the opponents see it and partner has no idea that you even >alerted. If this were the case, there would have been no problem with >the 2D opener on the hand in question. However, OKBridge has shown that self-explanations and self-alerts create other problems that explanations and alerts do not. They are certainly not a universal panacea. -- 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 Feb 13 15:45:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA14165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 15:45:41 +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 PAA14160 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 15:45:35 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.138] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10BWxB-0007eg-00; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:45:17 +0000 Message-ID: <199902130445160650.0606D12A@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:45:16 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 12/02/99, at 21:35, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Is it contrary to the spirit of the game that you should learn about the >opponents' methods as a result of partner's questions? No, you are entitled >to that information, period. The Laws say so. Very well. In that case, the player who asks a question solely and entirely for the purpose of waking his partner up to a misunderstanding does no wrong. After all, he is only making sure that his partner has information to which his partner is "entitled, period". Do you believe this? Does anyone? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 16:03:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA14196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 16:03:09 +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 QAA14191 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 16:02:59 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.138] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10BXEN-00052d-00; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 05:03:03 +0000 Message-ID: <199902130502380250.0616B671@mail.btinternet.com> References: <9902121248.aa07319@flash.irvine.com> <199902130039210740.0525A416@mail.btinternet.com> <199902130045570200.052BAD21@mail.btinternet.com> <199902130502170220.0616646E@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 05:02:38 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 13/02/99, at 01:31, David Stevenson wrote: >David Burn wrote: > >>Under international conditions, which are a closer approximation to >>the "ideal" conditions presupposed by the Laws, such information >>would never become available to me; and therefore >>If such information does become available to me under less than ideal >>conditions, I should not use it. > > This is the critical part of the argument [as I see it] and is not >correct. I think "I disagree with it" would be more in keeping with the standards you wish to preserve on this list, David. The Laws are designed for use in all forms of duplicate >bridge [perhaps excluding OLB which is new and probably needs >adjustments to the Laws]. You define UI by what the Laws say is >Unauthorised Information: you do not define UI by what is treated as UI >in one form of the game, and then extend it to other forms of the game. Very well. But if a form of information arises about which the Laws do not provide guidance as to whether it is UI or AI - which certainly appears to be the case here - and if a question arises in practice that makes it important to determine whether such information is UI or AI, then it is reasonable to consider, by reference to all forms of the game, whether the law makers intended that such information should or should not be available to players. It seems to me that if the conditions under which bridge is played at the top level render it impossible for such information to exist, the indication is that the law makers would believe that it is unauthorized when, under less than ideal conditions, it actually comes into being. >There is no reason to suppose that because screens provide a better >environment as far as UI is concerned that this defines what is or >should be UI: in fact, the reverse seems more reasonable. I would say >that a better method is to define UI by the form of the game with least >protection against UI [no screens, no bidding boxes, no written bidding] >and see where that gets you. In this case, it appears to get us precisely nowhere, which is why we are having the debate in the first place. If it were possible to interpret the Laws in such a way that the question could be decided solely by reference to those Laws, then there would be no argument. You may contend that the Laws do in fact provide a basis on which to make a decision; all I can say is that there are people (myself included) who do not believe this to be the case. It may be that I have not fully understood your arguments to the effect that the existing Laws are sufficient to resolve the question. I will re-read them, if I can find them! > The ideal conditions referred to are what a perfect game would be, but >the UI law deals with infractions, not a perfect game. Indeed. However, if in the form of the game presumed to be the "highest" - that is, closest to the ideal - a player is expressly prevented from gaining information of a particular kind, there is at least an assumption that such information is perceived as unauthorized by the people who create the conditions for that form of the game. I do not agree at all with the notion that concepts such as UI (or any other concepts, for that matter) should be defined by reference to the least ideal form of the game. One might as well argue that air shots played during the Open Championship of golf should not count because there are players who don't count them when hacking round the public course at Much Festering under Lyme. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 17:18:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA14356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 17:18:08 +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 RAA14351 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 17:18:02 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-43.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.43]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA54046023 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 01:21:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36C518E9.792C65C1@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:17:14 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ethical? References: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> <36C478AB.5BB622E8@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Food for thought? [a] Such an agreement hardly has sound bridge reasoning behind it unless there comes with it some extraneous information to know when to employ it. [b] It was quite plain there was no need to inquire as to system since the 2N was not alerted. [c] btw, in the auction in this case, did responder in fact bid their best minor? Roger Pewick Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Hi David > > I wonder why none of you didn't ask what the N-S system is ??? > > For example , I play the 2NT in this position (18 HCP) as a kind of > Lebenshol..... it means S must bid 3 best minor . > I don't think that N would be forbidden to bid when - WITH or WITHOUT > South's hesitation - he knows S should have some minors.......... > > As much as I understand Laws - the hesitation doesn't compel > the partner to pass or do anything specific and he is allowed > to apply the system . The TD MUST let the bidding finish and > then , and ONLY THEN , to check if North's action could be > ("....could have known" isn't relevant here IMO) influenced > or not by South's hesitation. > > Do we want to let the players play ?? If YES , I don't mind > to agree to change the LAWS = "..after an hesitation , > the partner must pass until the doomsday...." as the laws > are written for a call out of rotation (Law 31B for example). > Otherwise , please don't decide before you have all the data > about the "potential" offenders' system ...... > > Is my approach absurd ???? > > Dany > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Paul Lippens wrote: > > > > >I am a new in the arbitration circuit and need help with the following. > > > > Well, everyone else has given you the right answer, so I shall not > > repeat it. I just would like to say Hi, hope you enjoy yourself here, > > and hope you have a cat or two to show your heart is in the right place > > [ok, or a dog ]. > > > > -- > > 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 Feb 13 18:30:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA14479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 18:30:15 +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 SAA14474 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 18:30:09 +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 <19990213073003.NYBC23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:30:03 -0800 Message-ID: <36C52AE8.DE56C5B3@home.com> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:34:00 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Far simpler, and in my view far more consonant with the > actual Laws, is to say that information arising from the response to > any question, however motivated, is UI to the questioner's partner. I just hope that you are consistent, and do not impose any obligations on NOS to "protect themselves" however ridiculous an opponents explanation of an alert seems to you. If your attempts at such "protection" would automatically give UI to pard, you are caught in the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" scenario. One reason why I disagree with DB's interpretation is the consequences it would have on other laws. If "full disclosure" is deemed important I feel one should err on the side of allowing the receipt of such disclosure without automatically creating UI problems. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 20:31:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA14751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:31:25 +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 UAA14746 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:31:18 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.105] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10BbPf-000233-00; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:31:00 +0000 Message-ID: <199902130930580510.070C6B93@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <36C52AE8.DE56C5B3@home.com> References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C52AE8.DE56C5B3@home.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:30:58 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 12/02/99, at 23:34, Jan Kamras wrote: >David Burn wrote: >> Far simpler, and in my view far more consonant with the >> actual Laws, is to say that information arising from the response to >> any question, however motivated, is UI to the questioner's partner. > >I just hope that you are consistent, and do not impose any obligations >on NOS to "protect themselves" however ridiculous an opponents >explanation of an alert seems to you. If your attempts at such >"protection" would automatically give UI to pard, you are caught in the >"damned if you do and damned if you don't" scenario. It is my opponents' task to explain their methods fully and correctly. If they fail in that task, there are mechanisms by which my side can obtain redress. It is my task to ensure that I have taken what steps the Laws permit to obtain the information I need on which to base my own calls or plays. If I fail in that task, then I will probably end up with a poor result. It is my partner's task - and no one else's - to ensure that he takes what steps the Laws permit to obtain the information he needs on which to base his calls or plays. It is emphatically not my task to ensure that my partner is provided with information. I had thought we were all agreed that the "professional question" is not part of the game. Perhaps we are not. >One reason why I disagree with DB's interpretation is the consequences >it would have on other laws. If "full disclosure" is deemed important I >feel one should err on the side of allowing the receipt of such >disclosure without automatically creating UI problems. "Full disclosure" does not, in my view, mean that information about my opponents' methods is AI to me however I may come by it. It means that full information should be available to me should I wish to avail myself of it before taking action at my turn. If I don't, however, and I suffer thereby, this is not a failing in terms of disclosure. One might as well argue that because full disclosure is important, players may ask questions when it is not their turn to act, in order to ensure that the opponents' methods have been fully disclosed to partner before he acts. Perhaps there are people who would so argue, but I am not sure that any of them are BLML subscribers. In the vast majority of cases, departures in practice from the procedures I would advocate in principle do not cause UI problems. In the case under discussion, however, what has happened is this. A player whose task was to discover his opponents' methods before making a call failed to do so. There was no question of inadequate disclosure on the part of the opponents - the fault was entirely the player's. As a result, that player made a call which was likely to have a deleterious effect on his side's auction - and would have done so, had he not been alerted to his error by means of a question and answer session between his partner and an opponent. I do not believe that the player is entitled to be alerted in this fashion, any more than I believe he is entitled to be alerted as follows: RHO opens 2D; player reaches for card in bidding box; player's partner says: "You do know that's a Roman 2D, don't you?" It occurs to me that part of the reason for this disagreement may lie in the differing approaches to what players may do in order to prevent their partners from error. In this country, a defender may not attempt to prevent a revoke by his partner by asking "No hearts?" because to do so might transmit UI. In the USA, a defender may ask his partner such a question (as far as I know). By analogy, I suppose, there are those who believe that a player may not be saved from error by his partner's timely question during the bidding, and those who do not. In that case, the chances of resolving this debate are not high. Perhaps it's time for one of Herman's polls. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 21:11:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:11:34 +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 VAA14843 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:11:27 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-150.uunet.be [194.7.13.150]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02246 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:11:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C53FDC.B0BA316C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:03:24 +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: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing References: <19990212.144904.-74481.1.paulhar@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Paul D. Harrington" wrote: > > Assuming a single site which eliminates the skill discrepancies between > sites: > > Despite the best efforts to seed the event, there will always be stronger > and weaker sections. Matchpointing only in your own section will be of > the most benefit to the pairs playing IN the weakest section IN THEIR OWN > DIRECTION. (the skill of the pairs in the other direction in your > section don't matter as all the other pairs in your direction play them > also.) > > Matchpointing ATF will be of the most benefit to the pairs playing > AGAINST the weakest section (the OTHER direction in your same section.) > > Thus it would seem that the fairest comparison would be something between > the two. > You are confusing two distinct problems : fairness of scoring and balance. There are other movements than Mitchell, you know ! However, since this is an ACBL problem, let's stick to ACBL movements : a line of Mitchells. You are right in saying that scoring your section only, is to the benefit of people playing in a weak line, whatever the strength of the opponents. Do you find that such a good idea ? OTOH, ATF (what a lot of abbs) is more influenced by the strength of your opponents. Now this is something which is absolutely impossible to do something about, barring playing longer tournaments. So while indeed both are opposite "problems", one is easily soluble, and the other one isn't. So why not solve that which can be solved ? BTW, while it is not true that both problems are in different direction, they do not cancel one another. If you would find that the one problem solves the other, then indeed you could omit the solution to the one. But that is not the case. There is no suggestion that if you play in a weak line, you will have strong opponents or vice versa. So certainly solve the statistical significance problem by using ATF, and one line prizing, and worry about the fairness of opponents problem only if you want to. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 21:11:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:11:42 +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 VAA14851 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:11:34 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-150.uunet.be [194.7.13.150]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02261 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:11:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C54185.1D795C13@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:10:29 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing References: <199902122135.QAA03680@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Paul D. Harrington" > > Matchpointing ATF will be of the most benefit to the pairs playing > > AGAINST the weakest section (the OTHER direction in your same section.) > > Oh, this is very interesting. Our discussion so far has, I think, > implicitly assumed that all sections are of equal strength. What if > they aren't? Straightforward ATF is indeed poor if the sections are of > unequal strength. > All sections are by definition of unequal strength. What you first need is a system by which the expected strength of all sections is the same. Any non-biased form of seating will accomplish that. Of second importance is to try and have the variance of strength as low as possible. Seeding is there to do that. > In principle, it ought to be possible to devise a scoring system that > would account for the strength of the opponents met as well as the > results on each board. Movements would also have to be modified to > provide direct comparison across sections. The problem is the same as > devising a player rating system except that the field of players is > much smaller and only a specific number of boards needs to be taken > into account. (It also is closely akin to a problem in which I have a > professional interest.) As long as the number of contestants is no > more than a few tens of thousands, it ought to be possible to find a > unique solution, once the rating formula is established. Of course the > scoring would have to be done across the field and by computer, and it > wouldn't be very transparent to the players. > It would be very hard to do, and completely intransparent to the players. Your top there is worth just 85%. Why ? because of 10 minutes of computer iterative calculation. Yeah ... > Is it worth the trouble? If I get an average against Meckwell, > shouldn't that be worth as much as a top against a weak pair? I don't > know, but it's an interesting thought. If Meckwell are the only serious pair in an otherwise club field, then you have a point. But even then, do you expect them to score 70% always? And even then your disadvantage would be of 20% divided by the number of opponents you meet. So don't really worry about that problem and let the laws of big numbers deal with that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 21:11:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:11:49 +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 VAA14857 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:11:37 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-150.uunet.be [194.7.13.150]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02282 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:11:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C5444F.AAE44FEB@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:22:23 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121248.aa07319@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > > > >What is the problem in its simply being AI? > > > > Chiefly this: that under international conditions, it is information that= > > the player cannot possess. > > This doesn't seem like a good argument. I assume that by > international conditions, you mean "screens"? No, he doesn't. Screens are just an slightly more perfect way of achiving the ideal than is a table. The principle that David establishes is a correct one : Bridge should be played in isolation, and only communication with opponents is permitted. It follows that responses to questions by partner are UI, but are treated as AI when it is clear/acceptable, that the player would have asked the same questions. When there is strong evidence that the player would NOT have asked the question, the answer remains UI. > Is your theory that > "information that you can't possess when screens are in use is > therefore information that you must treat as UI when screens aren't in > use"? If so, then you must treat half of your opponents' mannerisms, > facial expressions, etc., as UI, even though the Laws explicitly say > you may take advantage of them. So your theory seems to be flawed. > Again, wrong. The screen test is there to distinguish between things you could also know with them, and those that you could have no way of knowing. A facial expression, in reply to a question you might have asked yourself, could also be seen behind screens, but one that is a response to partner's question cannot. > So obviously, of the information that you wouldn't have available if > screens were in use, some of this information is AI when screens > aren't in use, and some is UI. We can all agree that opponents' > mannerisms are AI, as are the questions they ask of your partner; and > that partner's mannerisms and questions are UI. Also, partner's > explanation of your system is UI. So what about opponents' > explanations of their system? We can't agree about whether it's AI or > UI, but it's pretty clear that this cannot be decided simply by asking > whether the information would be available with screens. > Yes it can, as proven above. > > I'd say that the impossible ideal is full disclosure without the > opponents having to ask questions. Indeed. So you should be in possession of the answers to all the questions you may have, but not of others you don't think of. (All this in accordance with alerting of course) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 21:11:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:11:51 +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 VAA14860 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:11:39 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-150.uunet.be [194.7.13.150]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02289 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:11:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C544AF.686705FE@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:23:59 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > > It is an interesting position. Would it apply equally in the following > case? LHO opens 2D (alert!), and I mistakenly assume that the opponents are > playing Flannery. This misimpression is corrected quickly, however, before > I have any chance to act on my misunderstanding, as partner asks for an > explanation and the bid is explained as Roman. > > Are you really prepared to argue that I have some duty to go on treating > this as Flannery? > Yes, although we shal never know if you don't tell us. In the original case, the 2H bidder can only explain his bid by his misunderstanding, so he shall pay for his carelessness. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 21:11:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:11:56 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA14872 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:11:43 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-150.uunet.be [194.7.13.150]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02296 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:11:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C54854.57BC69BD@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:39:32 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > David Burn wrote: > > > I'm not sure that I follow this. One of the consequences of screens, > > and a highly desirable consequence it is too, is that I cannot hear > > my partner's questions, nor see his alerts (as it should be in an > > ideal world). Also, I cannot see the mannerisms of one of my > > opponents, so I cannot derive any information from them (authorized > > or otherwise). The fact that I can see the other opponent, and > > perhaps derive information from his mannerisms, is unfortunate, but > > it is a fact, and as you say, the Laws permit me to use such > > information. > I am completely in agreement with David on these principles. > Hmmm . . . it looks like you think that the ability to see your > opponents' mannerisms is unfortunate. I don't think this is a > universally held opinion; some feel that it's rightfully a part of the > game of bridge. I've read that some people consider things like > screens to take some of the humanity away from the game. > The ideal of bridge is that there are no mannerisms to draw inferences from. Bridge is not Poker. However, since the Laws do not require players to wear Poker faces, they must make opponent's mannerisms AI. But that does not mean that you have a god given right to have this AI, as you do with opponent's system. If this makes bridge less human, then sorry. > > This does not imply that if I sit East at a table > > without screens, I can use information from North's mannerisms but > > not South's - if I have conveyed such an impression, I am sorry, but > > I think that words may have been put into my mouth that I would not > > utter. > > No, you didn't say anything of the sort---but the premise on which > your argument relies logically *implies* that. That's why I think the > premise needs to be questioned. > The premise does not imply that IMO. > > >. . . We can all agree that opponents' > > >mannerisms are AI, as are the questions they ask of your partner; > > and > > >that partner's mannerisms and questions are UI. Also, partner's > > >explanation of your system is UI. So what about opponents' > > >explanations of their system? We can't agree about whether it's AI > > or > > >UI, but it's pretty clear that this cannot be decided simply by > > asking > > >whether the information would be available with screens. > > > > That is a good point. However, screens do not provide ideal > > conditions; they merely provide a better approximation to them than > > the absence of screens. Here, screens are a practical way to ensure > > that I do not get information that I (in my opinion) cannot use. > > There are other ways, as you say below... > > However, everything I said applies just as well to the "ideal" > conditions as to screens. That is, under the ideal setup you > describe, you can't see your opponents' mannerisms, and you can't hear > your opponents' questions to your partner---but that information is AI > under the Laws. So I can strengthen my last statement to say: "but > it's pretty clear that this [AI or UI] cannot be decided simply by > asking whether the information would be available with screens or on > OKBridge or under the ideal conditions described." > That information is not AI ! It is OAI (Obligatory Available Information). Under ideal circumstances, you will simply have to inquire about that Information yourself. > > . . . I imagine that those who argue that the information elicited by > > partner in the case under discussion is AI would consider that on > > OKBridge, a player should be able to "hear" his partner's questions > > to the opponents and their replies. I wonder, in that case, why they > > believe that the game was not designed in that way. However, to > > design a form of bridge where you cannot hear partner's questions > > appears to me to be far more in keeping with the spirit of bridge and > > its Laws than the alternative. > > Unfortunately, you seem to have partner's question and the response > tied together as if they were a unit. Most of the people in this > discussion don't see it that way. I have no problem with saying that > partner's question is UI, but that the response is AI. That is, the > "spirit of bridge" doesn't want you to get extraneous information > about partner's hand, or about how partner has interpreted your calls, > and thus any such information conveyed by partner's question is UI; > but the information that comes from the opponents' response does not > fall into those two categories, and therefore using it does not > violate the spirit of the game. > It is clear that a ruling under this principle will be quite uncommon, but that does not invalidate the principle. Let me state again : Answers to partners questions are UI. The same information need not be asked a second time to become AI, but player must be able to make clear/acceptable that he would have asked the same question at his turn, in order for the UI to turn into AI. Let's apply this principle to the examples : > Also, if being able to hear the responses to partner's questions > violates the spirit of the game, then: > > (1) LHO, dealer, bids, and partner asks RHO a question about it. Is > it violating the spirit of the game to listen to RHO's answer? Is > the only way to keep within the spirit of the game to ask RHO the > same question when it's your turn? > No, the UI turns into AI at your turn to call. We accept that you would have asked the same question and you would receive the same answer. > (2) RHO, dealer, bids; you don't know what the bid means, but you have > a hand that is going to pass regardless. So, either because you > don't want to give the opponents the chance to clear up a > misunderstanding, or because your SO's policy says you may not ask > questions if the answer won't affect your action, you don't ask > anything. Your partner is interested in the meaning of the bid, > though, and he asks. Of course, the fact that partner is > interested is UI---but is it violating the spirit of the game to > remember what the opponents said their bid was showing? > At the time of his asking, the response is UI. I accept that if he does not ask, there will come a time during either the auction, or before the lead, that you would ask the same question. At that time, the UI turns into AI. > Again, I'm just trying to point out that a premise that you seem to be > relying on, namely that "listening to opponents' responses to > partner's questions violates the spirit of the game", has some logical > consequences that seem to be untrue, and that therefore the premise > might be incorrect. Reductio ad somewhat absurdum. > No, the consequences you state are not untrue. (how many negatives is that? - well, I believe you understand what I mean) Several examples have been given in which the UI would not have been turned into AI (the first one is still the best). Those are the extreme cases we are talking about. The principle David and I are putting forward deals with those difficult cases. Our principle can also deal with simple cases, and there is no reductio ad absurdum. > -- Adam -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 21:12:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:12:04 +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 VAA14885 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:11:50 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-150.uunet.be [194.7.13.150]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02307 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:11:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C54892.A351FC08@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:40:34 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > Is it contrary to the spirit of the game that you should learn about the > opponents' methods as a result of partner's questions? No, you are entitled > to that information, period. The Laws say so. > No they don't. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 21:12:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:12:05 +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 VAA14887 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:11:51 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-150.uunet.be [194.7.13.150]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02316 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:11:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C54A7F.7B276BC8@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:48:47 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C52AE8.DE56C5B3@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > > Far simpler, and in my view far more consonant with the > > actual Laws, is to say that information arising from the response to > > any question, however motivated, is UI to the questioner's partner. > > I just hope that you are consistent, and do not impose any obligations > on NOS to "protect themselves" however ridiculous an opponents > explanation of an alert seems to you. If your attempts at such > "protection" would automatically give UI to pard, you are caught in the > "damned if you do and damned if you don't" scenario. > > One reason why I disagree with DB's interpretation is the consequences > it would have on other laws. If "full disclosure" is deemed important I > feel one should err on the side of allowing the receipt of such > disclosure without automatically creating UI problems. I am quite certain that David (B) in no means intends to make UI out of everyday situations. I certainly don't. Every leeway should be given to a player to be able to treat the UI as AI, because he would also ask the question. Only in such extreme cases as the original, where it can be presumed that the player would not ask again, the UI remains UI. I really don't see the problem. You attack David because he turns something into UI, when at the same time he is saying that it will also become AI in 99.99% of the cases. In the 0.01% it is and will remain UI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 13 21:38:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:38:33 +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 VAA14983 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:38:21 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.194]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id MAA03819; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:38:07 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36C5562D.196E2518@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:38:37 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: axeman CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ethical? References: <36C18A7B.D72D712E@natlab.research.philips.com> <36C478AB.5BB622E8@internet-zahav.net> <36C518E9.792C65C1@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Roger I think that some bidding are not extraneous information . I play bridge with a young Chess champion and our main system is "discipline" . But when I open 1D and LHO bids 3H ,showing 7 cards , holding 4 Cards H , he is allowed to bid 4D , even with 4HCP ; in spite of our agreement he needs 9+ to bid at 4th level..... I think - again - that the automatic "hatchet" method (I hope I remember the correct word..)is not the right one. I can agree with D. Stevenson - this approach is or isn't suitable for the hand described = it is a question of judgment . Maybe I am wrong or bad in judgment , but we agree that it is a question of judgment and bridge skills and expertise and bla bla bla , but these bla bla don't include 100% UI....... I don't know what was the full story at that table , but I think and LET US ALL , to PRESENT THE FULL EVENT NEAR THE TABLE , INCLUDING THE TD's ACTION AND PLAYERS' "SPEECHES" , when we bring the case to public discussion. Thanks again Dany axeman wrote: > > Food for thought? > > [a] Such an agreement hardly has sound bridge reasoning behind it unless > there comes with it some extraneous information to know when to employ > it. > > [b] It was quite plain there was no need to inquire as to system since > the 2N was not alerted. > > [c] btw, in the auction in this case, did responder in fact bid their > best minor? > > Roger Pewick > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > > Hi David > > > > I wonder why none of you didn't ask what the N-S system is ??? > > > > For example , I play the 2NT in this position (18 HCP) as a kind of > > Lebenshol..... it means S must bid 3 best minor . > > I don't think that N would be forbidden to bid when - WITH or WITHOUT > > South's hesitation - he knows S should have some minors.......... > > > > As much as I understand Laws - the hesitation doesn't compel > > the partner to pass or do anything specific and he is allowed > > to apply the system . The TD MUST let the bidding finish and > > then , and ONLY THEN , to check if North's action could be > > ("....could have known" isn't relevant here IMO) influenced > > or not by South's hesitation. > > > > Do we want to let the players play ?? If YES , I don't mind > > to agree to change the LAWS = "..after an hesitation , > > the partner must pass until the doomsday...." as the laws > > are written for a call out of rotation (Law 31B for example). > > Otherwise , please don't decide before you have all the data > > about the "potential" offenders' system ...... > > > > Is my approach absurd ???? > > > > Dany > > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > Paul Lippens wrote: > > > > > > >I am a new in the arbitration circuit and need help with the following. > > > > > > Well, everyone else has given you the right answer, so I shall not > > > repeat it. I just would like to say Hi, hope you enjoy yourself here, > > > and hope you have a cat or two to show your heart is in the right place > > > [ok, or a dog ]. > > > > > > -- > > > 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 Feb 13 22:28:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:28:38 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA15125 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:28:32 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10BdFH-0002M1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:28:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 03:45:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >My argument is: "information >arising from replies to partner's questions is unauthorized - were >that not the case, screens would be illegal, for they would prevent >me from having access to authorized information." There is no rule that you have to have access to all AI. After all, you have indirect access to the information given - you can ask at your turn. You have invented a rule that does not exist to try and prove another rule, so I am afraid this does not prove that the answers to partner's questions are UI. >Well, suppose instead of asking "What was 2D?" and receiving the >reply "Roman", my partner simply said to his RHO: "Your 2D was >Roman". What kind of information would that be? It would be UI. It comes from partner saying something, which is clearly UI. > And what is the >qualitative difference between his doing that and his asking a >question? They are different things, done for different purposes, with different levels of legality. > We have all agreed, I think, that for partner to ask a >question for the sole purpose of waking me up is not legal. If we go >on to say that when partner asks a "genuine" question, the reply >becomes AI to me, we will be forced in some cases to decide what was >actually in the mind of the questioner. As you will know by now, I am >implacably opposed to such subjectivity on the part of the TD or >referee. Far simpler, and in my view far more consonant with the >actual Laws, is to say that information arising from the response to >any question, however motivated, is UI to the questioner's partner. Yes, but what you want is one thing: what the Laws state is another. It may be desirable to avoid all Laws that involve any degree of knowing intent, but we have such Laws. This thread is primarily concerned with whether the answer to partner's question is AI, and not with the other interesting question, namely whether it *should* be AI. >My logical conclusions are not, as I hope I have explained above, >untrue. They are impractical, but that is not at all the same thing. I regret that I believe them to be possibly untrue, and if true you have not produced a convincing argument. Your logic is based on false premises, and the main thing it *proves* is that given the premises then the conclusions are reasonable. -- 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 Feb 13 23:32:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 23:32:15 +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 XAA15337 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 23:32:09 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-84.uunet.be [194.7.9.84]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA15317 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:32:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C56FE2.E9C36FFA@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:28:18 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, it would be too much to ask for DB, HDW _and_ DS to be in agreement, now would it ? David Stevenson wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > > >My argument is: "information > >arising from replies to partner's questions is unauthorized - were > >that not the case, screens would be illegal, for they would prevent > >me from having access to authorized information." > > There is no rule that you have to have access to all AI. After all, > you have indirect access to the information given - you can ask at your > turn. You have invented a rule that does not exist to try and prove > another rule, so I am afraid this does not prove that the answers to > partner's questions are UI. > DS is right - there is no right to some AI, only a rule which says that some I is A. But I side with DB when he says that all bridge (with or without boxes, screens, or on-line) is just an approximation of some form of "ideal" bridge. Even at ideal bridge, you have to actively seek the information you wish. The opponent's system must be _available_, not actively present. So both the fact of partner asking for information, _and_ the reply, are informations you would not have in the ideal game. > >Well, suppose instead of asking "What was 2D?" and receiving the > >reply "Roman", my partner simply said to his RHO: "Your 2D was > >Roman". What kind of information would that be? > > It would be UI. It comes from partner saying something, which is > clearly UI. > > > And what is the > >qualitative difference between his doing that and his asking a > >question? > > They are different things, done for different purposes, with different > levels of legality. > No they would not. In the question DB asks, he intends to mean there is no intention from partner to tell you something, he has just misformulated his question, which should have been "what is 2D ?". The actual wording is unimportant, the question itself may carry no extra information that is significant UI (other than that partner is interested in the bidding), it is rather the information in the answer (either "roman" or "yes") which conveys some information not previously present. You cannot rule this second form UI and not the first ! > > We have all agreed, I think, that for partner to ask a > >question for the sole purpose of waking me up is not legal. If we go > >on to say that when partner asks a "genuine" question, the reply > >becomes AI to me, we will be forced in some cases to decide what was > >actually in the mind of the questioner. As you will know by now, I am > >implacably opposed to such subjectivity on the part of the TD or > >referee. Far simpler, and in my view far more consonant with the > >actual Laws, is to say that information arising from the response to > >any question, however motivated, is UI to the questioner's partner. > > Yes, but what you want is one thing: what the Laws state is another. I don't agree that the Laws state this (or the other). That is what we are trying to decide. So don't use the text of the Laws as an argument, David (S). > It may be desirable to avoid all Laws that involve any degree of knowing > intent, but we have such Laws. This thread is primarily concerned with > whether the answer to partner's question is AI, and not with the other > interesting question, namely whether it *should* be AI. > When the letter of the Laws does not lead us to a single conclusion (and face it, David, with people like us at odds, it does not), then we must try and find the intent of the Laws to guide us. That is still one step removed from "whether it *should* be AI" and absolutely not what we are trying to do. We are not working on the 2007 Laws here, but within the 1997 ones. DB and I believe that within the intent of those laws, if not in the letter, answers to partner's questions are UI, rapidly and simply transferable to AI, but UI to begin with. > >My logical conclusions are not, as I hope I have explained above, > >untrue. They are impractical, but that is not at all the same thing. > > I regret that I believe them to be possibly untrue, and if true you > have not produced a convincing argument. Your logic is based on false > premises, and the main thing it *proves* is that given the premises then > the conclusions are reasonable. > OK, so let's try again to formulate exactly which premises of DB's that you think our arguments are based on, and why you think they are untrue. I believe DB's best argument (premise if you want), is that it is up to a player himself to distill from the Information which is made available to him, those pieces he needs to make an informed decision as to his next action. If you believe that premmise to be untrue, please say so. It follows from that premise that both partner's question and the reply thereto, are UI. If the derivation of this is incomplete or incorrect, please say so too. It is clear to me. I will not poll the list, DavidB, as I dread we'd be in a minority. That has not stopped me in the past. One last question to DavidS : what is your "gut" feeling on a ruling in the original case ? And if it is that player will always work out from the 4He bid, what would you rule if partner had passed 2He, doubled by opener? Do you allow the player to pull ? I hope you understand what I am saying - barring other clues, would you allow the mistaken bidder to be awakened by the response to partner's question ? Gut feeling please ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 00:11:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 00:11:59 +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 AAA16149 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 00:11:41 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Beqz-0007hg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:11:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:38:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> <199902130445160650.0606D12A@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902130445160650.0606D12A@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >On 12/02/99, at 21:35, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>Is it contrary to the spirit of the game that you should learn about >the >>opponents' methods as a result of partner's questions? No, you are >entitled >>to that information, period. The Laws say so. > >Very well. In that case, the player who asks a question solely and >entirely for the purpose of waking his partner up to a >misunderstanding does no wrong. After all, he is only making sure >that his partner has information to which his partner is "entitled, >period". Do you believe this? Does anyone? ... but it is specifically barred by another Law. Just because something is not UI does not mean that it is permitted. -- 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 Feb 14 01:28:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 01:28:25 +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 BAA17862 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 01:28:06 +1100 Received: from [195.99.46.120] [195.99.46.120] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10Bg2i-0003K1-00; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:27:38 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:28:45 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: >David Burn wrote: [DB] >My argument is: "information arising from replies to partner's questions = is unauthorized - were that not the case, screens would be illegal, for = they would prevent me from having access to authorized information." [DWS] There is no rule that you have to have access to all AI. After all, you = have indirect access to the information given - you can ask at your turn. = You have invented a rule that does not exist to try and prove another rule, = so I am afraid this does not prove that the answers to partner's questions = are UI. Nor was it intended to. It was simply one of the reasons why I believe that = the intent of the Laws is that such information be UI. Simply put: if the = Laws say (as you assert) that information arising from responses to = partner's questions is AI, then why is there a piece of wood across the = table preventing me from obtaining this information? I suppose you might say: "The legal position is that we do not think it = desirable for you to be in a position to obtain this information, so where = possible, we will try to prevent it from reaching you. However, if this is = not practicable because you do not play with screens at the local club, = then you may use this information should you acquire it." Now, that would = be (a) a possible legal position, but (b) an absurd one. It is as if one = were to say: "Supplying people with drugs is harmfu to society, so we will = make it illegal, but where we cannot prevent it from happening, it is not a = crime to take the drugs." [DB] >Well, suppose instead of asking "What was 2D?" and receiving the reply = "Roman", my partner simply said to his RHO: "Your 2D was Roman". What kind = of information would that be? [DWS] It would be UI. It comes from partner saying something, which is clearly = UI. [DB] > And what is the qualitative difference between his doing that and his = asking a >question? [DWS] They are different things, done for different purposes, with different = levels of legality. How do you know? If a player asks a question (or a rhetorical question, as = in my example) because he wants the information, then that is a legal = question and he should have the information. But if he asks a question = because he wants his partner to have the information, then that is not a = legal question and his partner should not have the information. Yet in both = cases, he will (unless he is somewhat naive) ask the same question and = receive the same answer. It will not be possible to tell from the outside = whether he asked for his own benefit or his partner's. That being so, in an = ideal world we prevent the information from reaching his partner. In the = real world, we do the next best thing, which is to prevent his partner from = using it. Of course, the problem would not arise if the player knew that his partner = already had the information. But I have already pointed out the obvious way = in which this might be achieved, and it has not found favour. I don't = really mind that, for I can see the arguments on the other side, and they = are good ones. For myself, however, I would rather play a fair game slowly = than an unfair game fast. [DWS] >Yes, but what you want is one thing: what the Laws state is another.=20 That is going too far. I want the game to be played in accordance with the = Laws. It is all very well for you to say smugly that "what the Laws state = is another..." but, it would lend more credence to this if you quoted which = Laws you mean, and pointed out the variance between what they say and what = I say. [DWS] >It may be desirable to avoid all Laws that involve any degree of knowing = intent, but we have such Laws. This thread is primarily concerned with = whether the answer to partner's question is AI, and not with the other = interesting question, namely whether it *should* be AI. Very well. By all means, let us conduct a semantic analysis of the relevant = Laws. But... haven't we done that already? And why did we not reach a = conclusion? [DWS] >I regret that I believe them to be possibly untrue, and if true you have = not produced a convincing argument. Your logic is based on false premises, = and the main thing it *proves* is that given the premises then the = conclusions are reasonable. Oh, well. At least in that case I didn't make any mistakes in my logic. Let = us, then examine the premises. But we'll leave that for another time. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 02:17:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:17:27 +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 CAA18159 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:17:20 +1100 Received: from michael (user-38lcisj.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.147]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA25674 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:17:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990213101706.00714fb4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:17:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <199902130445160650.0606D12A@mail.btinternet.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:45 AM 2/13/99 +0000, David B wrote: >On 12/02/99, at 21:35, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>Is it contrary to the spirit of the game that you should learn about >the >>opponents' methods as a result of partner's questions? No, you are >entitled >>to that information, period. The Laws say so. > >Very well. In that case, the player who asks a question solely and >entirely for the purpose of waking his partner up to a >misunderstanding does no wrong. After all, he is only making sure >that his partner has information to which his partner is "entitled, >period". Do you believe this? Does anyone? > > Well, yes, now that you ask,I do! I understand that this is contrary to the current position of the WBFLC, but so be it. I will happily rely on the judgement of Mr. Kaplan in this respect, who performed exactly this maneuver in a major match some years ago, IIRC. You are entitled to full disclosure of the opponents' methods, and the Laws make no distinction as to whether you garner that information via a response to your own inquiry or that of partner. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 02:21:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:21:10 +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 CAA18180 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:21:03 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10BgsK-0004nS-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 15:20:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:26:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C56FE2.E9C36FFA@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36C56FE2.E9C36FFA@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: >But I side with DB when he says that all bridge (with or >without boxes, screens, or on-line) is just an approximation >of some form of "ideal" bridge. I cannot agree with this. >> >Well, suppose instead of asking "What was 2D?" and receiving the >> >reply "Roman", my partner simply said to his RHO: "Your 2D was >> >Roman". What kind of information would that be? >No they would not. In the question DB asks, he intends to >mean there is no intention from partner to tell you >something, he has just misformulated his question, which >should have been "what is 2D ?". In the case David Burn mentions he asked no question so my reply was predicated on him asking no question. You have made it a question - no doubt that changes my answer, unsurprisingly. If partner makes an assertion, such assertion is UI. Now, I am not going to guess what DALB meant - I went by what he wrote. > The actual wording is >unimportant, The actual wording made it an assertion not a question. I do not see how that can be unimportant when we are dealing with answers to questions and none was made. >So don't use the text of >the Laws as an argument, David (S). ?????????????????????????? >I believe DB's best argument (premise if you want), is that >it is up to a player himself to distill from the Information >which is made available to him, those pieces he needs to >make an informed decision as to his next action. > >If you believe that premmise to be untrue, please say so. This is fine. >It follows from that premise that both partner's question >and the reply thereto, are UI. > >If the derivation of this is incomplete or incorrect, please >say so too. This does not follow at all. >One last question to DavidS : what is your "gut" feeling on >a ruling in the original case ? And if it is that player >will always work out from the 4He bid, what would you rule >if partner had passed 2He, doubled by opener? Do you allow >the player to pull ? >I hope you understand what I am saying - barring other >clues, would you allow the mistaken bidder to be awakened by >the response to partner's question ? Gut feeling please ! The original case had too many other things in it to be of much interest. Unfortunately partner's failure or otherwise to alert the 2H overcall means that while this discussion is interesting and probably important it does not apply to the original hand. The 2H bidder has UI - whether he has other UI or AI does not affect 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 Sun Feb 14 02:51:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:51:24 +1100 Received: from cshore.com (term.cshore.com [206.165.153.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA18264 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:51:15 +1100 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.117]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.08/64) id 7807800 ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:49:25 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990213105158.007e6ae0@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:51:58 -0500 To: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Internet simulcast (IB) Cc: robin@wigdor.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bills@cshore.com In-Reply-To: <199902102239.3373500@cshore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chyah wrote: >3) But here comes the real problem that no one is considering: > > All of us organize information in our brains in different ways. > When I learned to play bridge I couldn't remember all the cards, > so eventually I created a map/form/array that was filled in as > the cards were played. > > Then came the first time I played online bridge. It was an > absolutely stressful situation when I found out I couldn't > remember all the cards that had been played. I had to add to > my brain a 2nd way to remember cards. > > This takes practice to have your brain make this new map. Chyah took the words right out of my mouth; this description of the mapping of information in the brain is remarkably similar to what you'd almost certainly see if you did a brain activity scan on bridge players. We almost certainly don't all map things the same way, so some people's mapping processes may be more flexible than others, but I personally find it takes a substantial amount of extra concentration to go back and forth between different methods of taking in information. If I don't play f2f for a prolonged period, it just doesn't feel right. When I first started using the Windows graphic interface, after years of using a telnet textual interface, I felt the same way Chyah felt. The map in my brain was accustomed to seeing text characters in a certain array in black and white. When it switched to a color graphic interface with various new windows (bid box, e.g.) popping in an out of my screen, I literally felt dizzy the first several times. I already knew the mechanics of it cold, but the map was all wrong. One only has to look over the accounts of any given world championship to realize that, even at the highest levels, championships are usually won and lost on mistakes, many of which are almost certainly attributable to lapses in concentration. In an event such as a world championship, I would think it highly undesirable to have conditions of contest which preferentially distract some of the contestants (see below) or which require that they divert some of their attention to tasks which are sufficiently unfamiliar as to not be automatic. Craig S wrote (marked with #s): ##### Cannot this problem best be eliminated by making the conditions of contest known some months in advance, allowing all potential serious competitors ample time to practice under the match conditions? [snip] ##### I honestly don't know the answer to this; it depends on the resources available to all potential serious competitors and upon the amount of time that it takes to make these mental adjustments. Others may have a better idea of the answers to the first question. Superficially, the resources would appear to be minimal compared with travel costs, etc. Otoh, the answer to the second question is a major unknown, and I have doubts that we will be able, in the near future, to make a better estimate than that of the individual player as to what constitutes ample time. This is not to say I don't support the development of computer play as a paradigm for high level play. I have, in fact, long favored this model for a variety of reasons, including the ability to bring people together at supervised satellite sites for global play at much reduced cost. There are a number of major international events which could currently be conducted with computers, imo, either at satellite sites or all at one site. However, I think it's important to evaluate carefully the effect of computer play when we're talking about the world championships. Until we can be reasonably sure that n months of practice will be sufficient to negate any unfamiliarity effects, I would be sympathetic to the concerns of any player who said he preferred to play with cards. ### [snip] You do not need to learn a computer program to play online bridge. You just need to learn how to point and click a mouse and type a little bit. My 7 year old has no problem with this, and is mostly self-taught. Many people who couldn't place sixth in a seven table novice game have no problem whatever with the mechanics of most online programs once the software is downloaded and their computer is set up. This is not rocket science. Anyone who could not master it swiftly would certainly lack the intelligence to play in a high level game.### Just to reiterate, it's not the mechanics, which are trivial. It's the map. Cheers, Bill Segraves From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 04:46:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 04:46:17 +1100 Received: from m4.boston.juno.com (m4.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.198]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18536 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 04:46:11 +1100 Received: (from paulhar@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id D3CUWVHV; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:43:38 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:47:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing Message-ID: <19990213.124719.-91899.0.paulhar@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-5,7-15,18-23,27,31-35 X-Juno-Att: 0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Paul D. Harrington" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French writes: >Okay Paul, we will have arrow-switch Mitchells in the first session >and interwoven Howells (new opponents) in the second sesssion, all >scored ATF, with no need for anyone to change seats or change >sections. Is that in accord with your conclusion? ATF depends on the skill of your opponents. How could arrow switching possibly help? > >Is that a consensus agreement for BLML, or does someone have a >better suggestion? > >Perhaps we could split up the 1/2 sections (lines, to some) into >1/4 sections and mix things up a bit. Or we could move individual >pairs randomly, but seeding has to remain intact. Moving pairs randomly would diminish the chances that a whole section has an advantage but would vastly increase the advantage owned by the single pair who gets the weakest draw, IMO. >And what are the best arrow-switch instructions? > >And what are the best seeding instructions? In the ACBL, where they are trying to give away masterpoints, they probably aren't interested in the best seeding anyway; it is in their best interest to randomize the results so that everyone places once in a while to keep 'em coming. So quite honestly, this is probably a moot point since any improvement in fairness or seeding would work at cross-purposes with the ACBL. It is an interesting theoretical problem however, and I will continue to contemplate it. Paul Harrington paulhar@juno.com ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 04:52:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 04:52:15 +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 EAA18565 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 04:52:08 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA11288 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 17:51:17 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 13 Feb 99 17:51 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Ethical? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: David Stevenson wrote: > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > >Is my approach absurd ???? > > No, your approach is fine. However, it is unsuitable for this hand. > > I do not believe that after opening a strong no-trump, hearing an > overcall followed by two passes, that pass is not an LA, even if you do > play 2NT as the minors [as i do, and I think is standard]. I wouldn't consider the agreement standard but if it is your agreement it is hard to imagine a more suitable hand on which to employ it. Not only that but knowing that this agreement is in use a hand like Kxxx,8xxx,xxx,xx is just the sort to give partner pause for thought. Of course this makes the facts completely different to those stated in the original problem. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 04:57:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 04:57:34 +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 EAA18585 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 04:57:26 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.210]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA10432; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:57:13 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36C5BD17.1C2BB773@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:57:43 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 9 References: <7J4feCCtLkv2Ew+r@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk dear John You should be happy I am not British..... You asked for NYPD instead of my friend Sherlock's Scotland Yard ?????????? The gallows is nothing for what I should do... Cheers Dany John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In article , David Stevenson > writes > > > > So, I have just played in the North Wales Area heat of the WBU Men's > >Pairs. Owing to my partner's inability to cash the defence's suit > >against 3NT and other similar things, it is now an agonised wait to find > >out whether 4th out of 12 is good enough to progress! > > > > Anyway, a question for you all: > > > > Suppose five cards are played to a trick. It is discovered at the end > >of the hand when a player has a card short. After the TD is summoned, > >he wants to know where the card went. "It happened at trick 3" says > >Declarer, "RHO led, and at the end followed with another card." > > > > Do we have a problem with this ruling? > > > let's assume that this is what actually happened. > L67A does not apply. 67B2 does. The fifth card is deemed to have > belonged continuously etc, and we may get a revoke out of it. > > However it is clear that declarer knew RHO had played a fifth card to > the third trick, and L45E1 has something to say about this. Is declarer > in contravention of L72A3 I wonder? If he calls in the NYPD then all > he's going to get is a penalty card, his way he might get a revoke. > Nah, he's allowed to let the oppo revoke without drawing their attention > to it. *We* don't have a problem. :) Cheers John > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ we've got 101 |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. points |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | /\ __) more than|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\you know who|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 04:58:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 04:58:07 +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 EAA18599 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 04:57:54 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.210]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA10518; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:57:35 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36C5BD31.496506E@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:58:09 +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: Law 9 References: <36BFACAE.29D5@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't think that the declarer MUST draw attention to that irregularity by any law..... If the director , after inspecting all tricks , finds there was a possible revoke, he MUST decide about that revoke...... Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > B A Small wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> Suppose five cards are played to a trick. It is discovered at the end > >> of the hand when a player has a card short. After the TD is summoned, > >> he wants to know where the card went. "It happened at trick 3" says > >> Declarer, "RHO led, and at the end followed with another card." > > >Question: Did declarer know at the end of trick three that there had > >been an irregularity? > > It is difficult to see how declarer could have said this if he did not > know at the 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 Sun Feb 14 04:58:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 04:58:19 +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 EAA18613 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 04:58:12 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.210]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA10560; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:57:44 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36C5BD39.41A4974E@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:58:17 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "magda.thain" CC: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 9 References: <000201be54de$94286220$4bb259c3@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcome If the players act as if nothing happened , it's OK. But if they decide to "rule" by themselves it is a very bad rather educational behavior ..... The players should be taught (and "educated" , if it isn't a chinese communist expression..) to summon the TD when an irregularity occurs ,as part of their first bridge course. Cheers Dany magda.thain wrote: > > cookbury@purplenet.co.uk > > In our community hall I told the players that if something happens but they > do not want a ruling they should say nothing and go on with the game. I > thought that was what the law allowed. Are you saying I am wrong? They > like to call me or my mother only for bigger problems. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Date: 08 February 1999 16:06 > Subject: Re: Law 9 > > >> > >Do I gather from your wording that declarer knew this had > >happened at the time but had said nothing ? > > > >Now that's tricky ! > > > >A player is not obliged to draw attention to an > >irregularity, but is it fair not to do so ? > > > >I don't like it, but I cannot quickly find anything wrong > >with it. > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 05:08:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 05:08:58 +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 FAA18637 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 05:08:49 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.210]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA13626; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:07:54 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36C5BF99.12DD215D@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:08:25 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: mlfrench@writeme.com, "magda.thain" , Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 9 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe that Grattan's remark says all about the "mechanical" procedure. The answer which I am interested is about the "ethical behavior" if any at all... Still my basic opinion is that any player is entitled to take advantage of any irregularity of his opponents...... Right or wrong ????? Dany Grattan wrote: > > But Facts are chiels that winna ding > An downa be disputed > - Robt. Burns > ====================================== <.......> > ++++ Not, I would say, as surely as all that. It is not clear to me that > to *forego* the penalty at the time, by not calling the Director, can > necessarily be said to *waive* it. In any event the Director, > called later, has his 10B discretion. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 06:09:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 06:09:48 +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 GAA18755 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 06:09:41 +1100 Received: from ip90.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.90]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990213190933.FBOH3288.fep4@ip90.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:09:33 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:09:32 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36d1cdc4.8329897@post12.tele.dk> References: <9902121248.aa07319@flash.irvine.com> <199902130039210740.0525A416@mail.btinternet.com> <199902130045570200.052BAD21@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902130045570200.052BAD21@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 Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:45:57 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >I imagine that those who argue that the information elicited by >partner in the case under discussion is AI would consider that on >OKBridge, a player should be able to "hear" his partner's questions >to the opponents and their replies. No. I have no problem with any way of playing the game where I could not hear partner's questions or the opponents' answers to them. I would be responsible for getting what information I need from the CC or by asking, and I would not be burdened by UI. That would be fine. But as bridge is played in practice without screens I happen to be able to hear partner's questions and the opponents' answers. I would find it unreasonable that I should be burdened with UI just because I happen to hear some information to which I'm entitled anyway - having some information as UI puts me in a much worse position than not having the information at all. (The fact that partner needed to ask is of course UI.) The ideal situation is one where all players by some magic know their opponents' system perfectly. We cannot achieve this ideal, but when it happens that we "accidentally" get closer to it by receiving information that we really ought to have had all the time, then that is IMO a good thing - certainly not something that we should lean over backwards to avoid using. What is your opinion about one partner telling the other "Notice that these opponents are playing Flannery, so we have to remember our defense to that" _before_ the round? It seems to me that if the information in the original case here is UI, then that would be UI too. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 06:10:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 06:10:04 +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 GAA18777 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 06:09:59 +1100 Received: from ip90.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.90]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990213190953.FBOZ3288.fep4@ip90.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:09:53 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:09:52 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36cdcda4.8297340@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> <199902130445160650.0606D12A@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902130445160650.0606D12A@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 Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:45:16 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >Very well. In that case, the player who asks a question solely and >entirely for the purpose of waking his partner up to a >misunderstanding does no wrong. After all, he is only making sure >that his partner has information to which his partner is "entitled, >period". No, he is also informing partner that right now it seems relevant to him to emphasize that part of the opponents' system. And that is, I believe, the reason it is not allowed. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 06:10:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 06:10:00 +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 GAA18771 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 06:09:54 +1100 Received: from ip90.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.90]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990213190946.FBOU3288.fep4@ip90.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:09:46 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:09:46 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36cbb99b.3168365@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, 13 Feb 1999 14:28:45 +0000, David Burn wrote: >How do you know? If a player asks a question (or a rhetorical question, = as in my example) because he wants the information, then that is a legal = question and he should have the information. But if he asks a question = because he wants his partner to have the information, then that is not a = legal question and his partner should not have the information. I still believe that the interpretation that you must not ask for partner's benefit is intended to avoid partner getting the information that you found this part of the opponents' system relevant now - not to avoid partner getting the actual information about the opponents' system. So my version of what you wrote at the end above would be: it is not a legal question and partner should not have the information that you found it relevant to ask, but he should have all relevant information about the opponents' system. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 06:09:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 06:09:54 +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 GAA18761 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 06:09:46 +1100 Received: from ip90.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.90]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990213190940.FBOO3288.fep4@ip90.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:09:40 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:09:39 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36c9b976.3131592@post12.tele.dk> References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@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 Sat, 13 Feb 1999 02:51:24 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >One of my arguments to >support the view that I am not allowed to be woken up is that, under >ideal conditions, such waking up would be impossible. It seems that Adam is right: the basic difference of opinion here is a disagreement as to what "ideal conditions" are. Under my version of ideal conditions there would be no need to be woken up, since under those conditions you would know the opponents' system perfectly already. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 06:10:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 06:10:29 +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 GAA18786 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 06:10:20 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA27542; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:10:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902131910.LAA27542@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:08:30 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > >Is it contrary to the spirit of the game that you should learn about > the > >opponents' methods as a result of partner's questions? No, you are > entitled > >to that information, period. The Laws say so. > > Very well. In that case, the player who asks a question solely and > entirely for the purpose of waking his partner up to a > misunderstanding does no wrong. After all, he is only making sure > that his partner has information to which his partner is "entitled, > period". Do you believe this? Does anyone? Not I. It is contrary to the spirit of the game to assist partner during the bidding and play in any way whatsoever. In the old days players (at least here in California) would have partner leave the table while they asked or answered a question, if the question or an answer might help partner in some way. A pleasant custom that I still practice occasionally, although I seem to be the only one doing so. I believe the ACBL discouraged this means of blocking UI some years ago, without giving a reason. Perhaps some tall players were breaching security while away from the table. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) O tempora, O mores From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 07:04:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 07:04:59 +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 HAA18933 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 07:04:53 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA06510; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:04:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902132004.MAA06510@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Craig Senior" , Subject: Re: Auction or Call Reviews (was RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:02:59 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > the law was changed in 1987: > 1975: L20F1--"a full explanation of any call made by an opponent > opposing call" > L20F2--"an explanation of opposing calls > 1987/1997: L20F1--"a full explanation of the opponents' auction" > L20F2--"an explanation of opposing auction." > I am told that Edgar Kaplan pushed for these changes because he > felt that there was too much questioning of individual calls. > > ##### These changes have been so roundly ignored in practice that it might > be wisest to revert to the 1975 language which conforms to what everyone > actually DOES. How do others on list feel about this? > > I would tend to support it, since to review the entire auction needlessly > is cumbersome, time consuming and in most cases downright annoying. An explanation of the auction is not a review of the auction. > In fact > any player actually insisting on following the law as written and giving > the whole auction every time An explanation of the auction is not a review of the auction. > would risk provoking a zero tolerance call for > interfering with his opponents' enjoyment of the game. He would not be > popular, but thought of as some kind of pedantic bl at best. > > Is that too great a price to pay for avoiding the ui potential of enquiry > into a specific call? Common practice hints that for most players it is. > ##### Get the law changed then. These and similar comments are a source of great mystery to me. I follow L20F1/F2 to the letter, and it has never inconvenienced either me or the opponents. An explanation of the auction is not a review of the auction. Opponents need only explain calls about which they have a special understanding, not calls whose meaning comes from their general knowledge and experience (L75C). They need not explain calls that they have explained previously, after an Alert or otherwise. In ACBL-land, the extensive Alert requirements leave me with few questions I might want to ask. I don't choose to ask questions for partner's benefit, so that eliminates some more. My infrequent "Please explain your auction" comes usually when I am on lead, less often as third hand after dummy comes down. It takes up a lot less time than the continual barrage of usually unnecessary questions that opponents impose on us: "Is that natural?" after an unAlerted bid that has to be natural "Is that weak?" after an unAlerted bid that has to be weak "What is the range?" after a 2NT response to 1C or 1D when the range is prominently shown on the cc "Is that Jacoby?" after an unAlerted 2NT response to 1H or 1S "Is that a penalty double?" after an unAlerted double that has to be for penalties "What did the diamond bid show?" two rounds after the diamond bid was Alerted and no explanation was requested I do run into a catch-22 situation quite frequently. For instance, an opponent makes a double of 2S that sounds like an Alertable one, but there is no Alert. I have no need to know what the double means, at least for the moment, so I pass. I could ask for partner's benefit, but I don't do that. It turns out that the double (not a normal negative double) was for takeout, even though the doubler's partner had previously acted. Partner, intimidated by the double, and not realizing that it wasn't penalty (because not Alerted) sells out for 3H. After the hand is over I realize that partner probably would not have sold out if the meaning of the double had been disclosed, so I call the TD. "What is it?" "This person doubled for takeout after his partner had acted, and the double was not Alerted." "So what?" "So I think my partner would have taken another bid if the double had been Alerted and explained as non-penalty." "You could have asked." Not me. Some further considerations: Like the majority of ACBLers, my usual game is one in which the General Convention Chart applies, with an occasional Mid-Chart event, and I've never played in a Super-Chart event. Moreover, it is seldom that I encounter a pair whose system is unfamiliar to me. As a result, I rarely have a need to know the meaning of a particular call during the auction, provided the cc and Alert regulations have been followed by the opponents. Accordingly, I can follow 20F1/2 with very little inconvenience to either me or the opponents. I can see that in a playing environment with possibly inadequate Alert requirements, multiple artificial calls, and unrestricted conventions, that 20F1/2 might be too much of a burden. The solution for that, IMO, is to add a footnote to the effect that a sponsoring organization can relax the 20F1/2 restrictions at its discretion. Don't throw the baby out with the bath. As to the idea that the 1997 changes to 20F1 were aimed at a relaxation of the law, it is my understanding that the parenthetical part was added because some TDs were ruling that you could ask only for an explanation of the auction that actually occurred, and could not inquire about calls not made. The change merely made clear that the right to an explanation of the auction includes the right to ask about relevant calls that were available but not made. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum, etc From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 07:31:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 07:31:55 +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 HAA18993 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 07:31:47 +1100 Received: from [195.99.45.46] [195.99.45.46] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10Blik-0003WQ-00; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:31:26 +0000 From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:32:31 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Dennis wrote: [DB] >Very well. In that case, the player who asks a question solely and = entirely for the purpose of waking his partner up to a misunderstanding = does no wrong. After all, he is only making sure that his partner has = information to which his partner is "entitled, period". Do you believe = this? Does anyone? [MD] Well, yes, now that you ask,I do! I understand that this is contrary to the = current position of the WBFLC, but so be it. I will happily rely on the = judgement of Mr. Kaplan in this respect, who performed exactly this = maneuver in a major match some years ago, IIRC. You are entitled to full = disclosure of the opponents' methods, and the Laws make no distinction as = to whether you garner that information via a response to your own inquiry = or that of partner. In that case, your position is entirely consistent, and I have no = difficulty with it. As you say it is a minority position, but that does not = make it a wrong one (contrary, perhaps, to the beliefs of certain BLML = subscribers!) It is at variance with what HDW has identified as one of my = main arguments - that players are supposed to look after themselves and not = their partners when it comes to information-gathering. But that argument is = based primarily on my own views of fair play, and is not necessarily = embodied in the Laws.=20 Of course, people who believe that the "professional question" is not = unfair play will side with the view that the information under discussion = is AI. My concern is with those who do not believe the former, but do = believe the latter, since I cannot see that this is a consistent position = at all. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 07:32:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 07:32:29 +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 HAA19008 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 07:32:21 +1100 Received: from [195.99.45.46] [195.99.45.46] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10Blj5-0003WQ-00; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:31:46 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:32:44 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: Herman De Wael wrote: [HDW] But I side with DB when he says that all bridge (with or without boxes, = screens, or on-line) is just an approximation of some form of "ideal" = bridge. [DWS] I cannot agree with this. Oh, go on. Be a sport. Tell us why not. [DB] Well, suppose instead of asking "What was 2D?" and receiving the reply = "Roman", my partner simply said to his RHO: "Your 2D was Roman". What kind = of information would that be? [HDW] No they would not. In the question DB asks, he intends to mean there is no intention from partner to tell you something, he has just misformulated his question, which should have been "what is 2D ?". [DWS] In the case David Burn mentions he asked no question so my reply was = predicated on him asking no question. You have made it a question - no = doubt that changes my answer, unsurprisingly. If partner makes an = assertion, such assertion is UI. Now, I am not going to guess what DALB meant - I went by what he wrote. [HDW] The actual wording is unimportant [DWS] The actual wording made it an assertion not a question. I do not see how = that can be unimportant when we are dealing with answers to questions and = none was made. Sorry, guys. You are both right, and it was my fault for shoddy = punctuation. A rhetorical question still requires a question mark. Thanks = Herman for understanding what I meant anyway, and thanks David for pointing = out my error. The import of what I wrote was that the player _asked_ "That = was Roman?" knowing perfectly well what it was, but attempting to ensure = that his partner was on the same wavelength. In other words, he was in = effect making a statement (illegal) in the form of a question (legal) - the = naive or extreme form of the "professional question". [HDW] So don't use the text of the Laws as an argument, David (S). Pay no attention :) Please, David, use the text of the Laws as an argument, = instead of making lordly statements to the effect that "I cannot agree with = this" without saying why, or "the Laws do not support your argument" = without quoting the Laws that do not support it. [HDW] >I believe DB's best argument (premise if you want), is that >it is up to a player himself to distill from the Information >which is made available to him, those pieces he needs to >make an informed decision as to his next action. That's certainly one of my arguments - if you believe it to be the best, = then the best it shall be. [DWS] This is fine. You're right, Herman - it must be a truly brilliant argument if DWS agrees = with it! [HDW] >It follows from that premise that both partner's question >and the reply thereto, are UI. > >If the derivation of this is incomplete or incorrect, please >say so too. [DWS] This does not follow at all. Because? It seems to me that if an argument is perceived as logical by at = least one of the people to whom it is addressed, then to assert simply that = "this does not follow" is a trifle inadequate in terms of furthering the = progress of the debate. [HDW] >One last question to DavidS : what is your "gut" feeling on >a ruling in the original case? [DWS] The original case had too many other things in it to be of much interest. = Unfortunately partner's failure or otherwise to alert the 2H overcall means = that while this discussion is interesting and probably important it does = not apply to the original hand. The 2H bidder has UI - whether he has = other UI or AI does not affect that. Well, well. I was asked to consider earlier in the discussion whether my = arguments would still follow if 2H did not require an alert. I believe that = they do, and I was prepared to continue on that basis. Are you not prepared = to do the same? Or could it be that the "gut reaction" for which Herman has = asked is at variance with the arguments that you have made? --=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 Feb 14 09:36:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:36:32 +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 JAA19243 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:36:18 +1100 Received: from [195.99.43.66] [195.99.43.66] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10BnfF-0003hW-00; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:35:56 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:37:03 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote (two messages with the same import): >I still believe that the interpretation that you must not ask for partner's benefit is intended to avoid partner getting the information that you found this part of the opponents' system relevant now - not to avoid partner getting the actual information about the opponents' system. >So my version of what you wrote at the end above would be: it is not a = legal question and partner should not have the information that you found = it relevant to ask, but he should have all relevant information about the = opponents' system. This is interesting. Clearly, it is desirable to prevent this kind of = thing: "What was 2C?" "Stayman". "Pass"... club lead against final = contract. And I do not doubt that, as Jesper says, this is the main reason = why the Laws specifically say that information from partner's questions is = UI. It is also why certain SOs have the rule that you may not ask unless = you're interested in the answer. The Laws are (or appear to be) silent on the question of whether = information from opponents' replies to partner's questions is AI or not. As = Herman says, in 99.99% of cases, this would not matter anyway - but a case = has been put in which the question is relevant, and one can easily imagine = others. I would still contend that if partner's reason for asking was not that he = wanted information, but that he thought you needed information for which = you had not bothered to ask yourself, that question should be illegal. In = this case, though, the problem appears to be that partner has asked a = legitimate question (he did want the information), but in so doing he has = inadvertently caused you to acquire some information that you should have = had already, but through your carelessness did not. There are, as far as I can see, two practical solutions to this. One: all = information from replies to questions is AI. That allows the "professional = question", which to my way of thinking is just as undesirable as the = "lead-directine question" - but there are those who do not share this = belief. Two: no information from either partner's questions or the replies = thereto is AI. When screens are not in use, this creates certain practical = anomalies which have already been discussed, but they are not insoluble and = they prevent activities which, whlie perhaps not illegal, are in the = majority view undesirable. Since none of us has been able to point to a passage in the Laws which = resolves the question of whether information of this kind is UI or AI, I = see no alternative (if we want to resolve the question at all, rather than = just working on a case-by-case basis) to making analogies with other Laws = and by considering the position in terms of what we would ideally like to = happen. I am told that this is the wrong approach. I am unconvinced. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 09:36:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:36:48 +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 JAA19251 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:36:39 +1100 Received: from [195.99.43.66] [195.99.43.66] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10BnfX-0003hW-00; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:36:16 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:37:17 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: [DB] >I imagine that those who argue that the information elicited by partner in = the case under discussion is AI would consider that on OKBridge, a player = should be able to "hear" his partner's questions to the opponents and their = replies. [JD] I have no problem with any way of playing the game where I could not hear = partner's questions or the opponents' answers to them. I would be = responsible for getting what information I need from the CC or by asking, = and I would not be burdened by UI. That would be fine. I am pleased about that, at any rate :) [JD] But as bridge is played in practice without screens I happen to be able to hear partner's questions and the opponents' answers. I would = find it unreasonable that I should be burdened with UI just because I = happen to hear some information to which I'm entitled anyway - having some = information as UI puts me in a much worse position than not having the = information at all. (The fact that partner needed to ask is of course UI.) Well, would you find it unreasonable to have to continue the auction under = a false impression if partner had not happened to ask his question? Of = course you are entitled to the information that 2D was Flannery. Ways in = which you might have obtained this information are: by studying your = opponents' CC before the round; by asking a question before acting over 2D; = by remembering that this pair played Flannery last time, and so forth. You = might also, in an ideal world, know "by magic", as you say.... [JD] The ideal situation is one where all players by some magic know their opponents' system perfectly. We cannot achieve this ideal, but when = it happens that we "accidentally" get closer to it by receiving information = that we really ought to have had all the time, then that is IMO a good thing - certainly not something that we should lean over backwards to avoid using. ... but what you may not do is obtain the information from any source at = all and then claim that since you were entitled to it anyway, it is AI. Let = me ask you this. Suppose the player in the example saw his RHO open 2D. He = places the 2H card on the table to make his takeout bid when a puzzled = kibitzer whispers to him: "You knew that was Roman, didn't you?" Would this = be AI to the player? What I am trying to contend is that authorized information must come from = authorized sources. Information that does not come from an authorized = source is not authorized information, even though it would otherwise have = been so. Before DWS tells me that this is not in the Laws, I already know = that. But I think that it might be a helpful way in which we could decide, = where the Laws are silent, questions relating to UI. [JD] What is your opinion about one partner telling the other "Notice that these opponents are playing Flannery, so we have to remember our = defense to that" _before_ the round? It seems to me that if the = information in the original case here is UI, then that would be UI too. As I say, there are authorized and unauthorized sources of information. A = study of the opponents' CC before the round begins is an authorized source = of information, just as partner's prior knowledge of the enemy methods = would be. A question asked by partner in the middle of the auction is not, = in my opinion, an authorized source of any kind of information, so even = though the information itself is the same in both cases, it may be used in = the one and not in the other. Thanks, Jesper, for some helpful and interesting comments. My position is = so far unshaken - after all, I have already admitted once this millennium = that I might be wrong, so it's not likely to happen again. But your points = are certainly valid. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 11:18:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 11:18:01 +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 LAA19459 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 11:17:53 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.178]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id CAA16808; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:17:37 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36C61642.CB924744@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:18:10 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121248.aa07319@flash.irvine.com> <199902130039210740.0525A416@mail.btinternet.com> <199902130045570200.052BAD21@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear and respectable Ladies and Gentlemen I write this message before I (believe..) will be over flood by some other 50...00 messages on this thread. And I write this because : 1. I feel suffocated , trying to play a serious and pleasant bridge. 2. I believe that the UI issue will trap any player who tries to be "ethically correct" (it is modern to speak about politically correct.....). 3. I tried to find the best definition for UI some months ago but none of our colleagues here thought it was an important and serious enough item....... The modern "scientific" & "competitive" & "sophisticated " &..... bidding almost compel us to know what's going on , when 102% of the bids are artificial.... I believe that the present Law 20 isn't tough and clear-cut enough to deal with these bridge developments. I think that a lot of people - Herman , Marv , Jesper (and I apologize if missed others) - felt there is such a need and suggested a new paragraph (or modification)to law 20. I think that WBFLC MUST rewrite this Law , before 2007 , as soon as possible , in order to save the bridge game. But we still need to decide how to handle the other kinds of UI issue , which still threatens (menace is a better bridge wording ?!) the flavor of this game. I suggest to stop this thread now and try to deal with UI issue ...Define how it occurs and appears and which procedures should be revised in order to minimize its non-mannerism appearance. Very tired (after reading 50...0000 messages) Dany is going David Stevenson wrote: > > David Burn wrote: <.......> > I would say > that a better method is to define UI by the form of the game with least > protection against UI [no screens, no bidding boxes, no written bidding] > and see where that gets you. > > The ideal conditions referred to are what a perfect game would be, but > the UI law deals with infractions, not a perfect game. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 11:23:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 11:23:14 +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 LAA19485 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 11:23:08 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10BpKu-0005yI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 00:23:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 15:24:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Simply put: if the Laws say >(as you assert) that information arising from responses to partner's questions >is AI, then why is there a piece of wood across the table preventing me from >obtaining this information? Because of other gains to the conduct of the game. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 12:52:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:52:49 +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 MAA19617 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:52:42 +1100 Received: from modem25.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.153] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10BqjU-00014q-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 01:52:28 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 01:47:30 -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 "human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information" - Thomas Paine ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: 13 February 1999 22:37 --------------- \x/ ------------------ The Laws are (or appear to be) silent on the question of whether information from opponents' replies to partner's questions is AI or not. As Herman says, in 99.99% of cases, this would not matter anyway - but a case has been put in which the question is relevant, and one can easily imagine others. ----------------- \x/ ------------------ Since none of us has been able to point to a passage in the Laws which resolves the question of whether information of this kind is UI or AI, I see no alternative (if we want to resolve the question at all, rather than just working on a case-by-case basis) to making analogies with other Laws and by considering the position in terms of what we would ideally like to happen. I am told that this is the wrong approach. I am unconvinced. ------------------ \x/ -------------------- ++++ Because of unfinished business within the WBFLC I am refraining from speaking to the opinions I have been reading. However, if you take the view some have expressed that opponents' answers to partner's questions are UI, it follows that when partner asks and opponent replies Law 16 applies procedurally to the situation. Depending whether you take the view that the information has been made available by the partner, or whether it has been made available accidentally, the procedure applicable is that in 16A or 16B respectively. If you take the view that it has been made available by the player answering the question Law 16 has no application - and since the question and answer are authorized by Laws 20 and 75C, subject to any regulations in respect of written explanations, screens, disclosure etc. I can find nothing in the laws then which limits use of the information to one member of the side only. The WBFLC decision that it is illegal to ask a question for the purpose of making partner aware of the information in the reply is referable to Law 73B1. There has been no suggestion to now that the response to a question legitimately asked is a communication with partner contrary to this law. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 13:14:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 13:14:02 +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 NAA19651 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 13:13:55 +1100 Received: from modem52.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.180] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Br48-0001M4-00; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:13:48 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:08:54 -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 "human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information" - Thomas Paine ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > Date: 13 February 1999 15:24 > > David Burn wrote: > > >Simply put: if the Laws say > >(as you assert) that information arising from responses to partner's questions > >is AI, then why is there a piece of wood across the table preventing me from > >obtaining this information? > > Because of other gains to the conduct of the game. > ++++ Or perhaps because there are regulations which do not apply when screens are not in use? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 19:41:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA20140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:41:25 +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 TAA20135 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:41:14 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.154]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id KAA10875 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 10:41:06 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36C68C42.22904862@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 10:41:38 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: [Fwd: Fw: A good luck message. . .] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3637BEB00FC06B46E4A5FF99" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3637BEB00FC06B46E4A5FF99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear friends I got hundreds of messages like this , but this one , sent by our greatest pantomim actor is , IMHO , very helpfull for us , according to a lot of "delicate fights" 2-3 weeks ago and the present endless or dead end thread on UI. Enjoy it Dany --------------3637BEB00FC06B46E4A5FF99 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA23340 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:44:22 +0200 (IST) Received: from chagrin (RAS1-p25.tlv.netvision.net.il [62.0.128.27]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAB29005; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:39:56 +0200 (IST) From: "Julian" To: "Reuben" , "Hanan Peled" , "Guy Meroz" , "Lolit" , "Addi Levit" , "Clarus" , "Guy Bavli" , "Arik Bernstein" , "Danny Chaimovitch" , "Annick De Vries" , "Mike Friedson" , "Izzy Gadel" , "Jorge Gureyvitch" Subject: Fw: A good luck message. . . Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:48:34 +0200 Message-ID: <01be5781$7572ad40$1b80003e@chagrin> 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 What the hell, anything helps! > > >-----Original Message----- > >Subject: Re: A good luck message. . . > > > > >The following is Nepali GOOD LUCK TANTRA TOTEM >> \ \ \ | | | | / / / >> ========== >> ^ | O O | >> / \ \ @ / >> # _| |_ >> ( # ) ( ) >> # \ / / | * * | \ \ >> # \ / ( * ) / >> # ===== >> # ( \ | / ) >> # | | | | >> # .- -' | | ' ---. >> # ' - - -' ' - - -' > >This tantra totem has been sent to you for good luck. It has been sent >around >the world >ten times so far. You will receive good luck within four days of relaying >this >tantra totem. >Send copies to people you think need good luck. Don't send money as fate has >no price. >Do not keep this message.The tantra totem must leave your hands in 96 hours. >Send ten copies >and see what happens in four days. You will get a very pleasant surprise. >This >is true, even >if you are not superstitious. > >INSTRUCTIONS FOR LIFE > >1. Give people more than they expect and do it cheerfully. > >2. Memorize your favorite poem. > >3. Don't believe all you hear, spend all you have or sleep all you want. > >4. When you say, "I love you", mean it. > >5. When you say, "I'm sorry", look the person in the eye. > >6. Be engaged at least six months before you get married. > >7. Believe in love at first sight. > >8. Never laugh at anyone's dreams. > >9. Love deeply and passionately. You might get hurt but it's the only way >to >live life completely. > >10. In disagreements, fight fairly. No name calling. > >11. Don't judge people by their relatives. > >12. Talk slowly but think quickly. > >13. When someone asks you a question you don't want to answer, smile and >ask, >"Why do you want to know?" > >14. Remember that great love and great achievements involve great risk. > >15. Call your mom. > >16. Say "bless you" when you hear someone sneeze. > >17. When you lose, don't lose the lesson. > >18. Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for >others;Responsibility >for all your actions. > >19. Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship. > >20. When you realize you've made a mistake, take immediate steps. > >21. Smile when picking up the phone. The caller will hear it in your voice. > >22. Marry a man/woman you love to talk to. As you get older, their >conversational skills > will be as important as anyother. > >23. Spend some time alone. > >24. Open your arms to change, but don't let go of your values. > >25. Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer. > >26. Read more books and watch less TV. > >27. Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and think back, >you'll get >to enjoy it a second time. > >28. Trust in God but lock your car. > >29. A loving atmosphere in your home is so important. Do all you can to >create >a tranquil >harmonious home. > >30. In disagreements with loved ones, deal with the current situation. Don't >bring up the past. > >31. Read between the lines. > >32. Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality. > >33. Be gentle with the earth. > >34. Pray. There's immeasurable power in it. > >35. Never interrupt when you are being flattered. > >36. Mind your own business. > >37. Don't trust a man/woman who doesn't close his/her eyes when you kiss. > >38. Once a year, go someplace you've never been before. > >39. If you make a lot of money, put it to use helping others while you are >living. >That is wealth's greatest satisfaction. > >40. Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a stroke of luck. > >41. Learn the rules, then break some. > >42. Remember that the best relationship is one where your love for each >other >is greater >than your need for each other. > >43. Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it. > >44. Remember that your character is your destiny. > >45. Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon. Now, here's the FUN >part >! > >Send this to at least 5 people and your life will improve. > >0-4 people: Your life will improve slightly. > >5-9 people: Your life will improve to your liking. > >9-14 people: You will have at least 5 surprises in the next 3 >weeks. > >15 and above: Your life will improve drastically and everything >you ever dreamed of will begin to take shape. > > > > > > --------------3637BEB00FC06B46E4A5FF99-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 19:58:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA20184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:58:56 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA20179 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:58:50 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-20.uunet.be [194.7.13.20]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA05708 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:58:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C5A75D.7CFDD96B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 17:25:01 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C56FE2.E9C36FFA@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> David Burn wrote: > > >But I side with DB when he says that all bridge (with or > >without boxes, screens, or on-line) is just an approximation > >of some form of "ideal" bridge. > > I cannot agree with this. Well, I do. Do you realy think we are ruling three different kinds of bridge ? I don't, and I don't think many on blml agree. Of course there are technical differences, which lead to other types of rulings, but the fundamentals on which the Laws are based (and which seem to me quite consistent in most places) are one and the same. > > >> >Well, suppose instead of asking "What was 2D?" and receiving the > >> >reply "Roman", my partner simply said to his RHO: "Your 2D was > >> >Roman". What kind of information would that be? > > >No they would not. In the question DB asks, he intends to > >mean there is no intention from partner to tell you > >something, he has just misformulated his question, which > >should have been "what is 2D ?". > > In the case David Burn mentions he asked no question so my reply was > predicated on him asking no question. You have made it a question - no > doubt that changes my answer, unsurprisingly. If partner makes an > assertion, such assertion is UI. > Well, let me rephrase : three possibilities : 1) partner asks : what is 2D - answer : Roman 2) partner asks : is this Roman ? - answer : Yes 3) partner looks at CC and says : ah, Roman ! While the third may convey UI in some cases, it won't in most, especially if you have yourself already checked the CC. If the three possibilities have been done in the same "careless manner", with no intention of waking you up, then is the fact that it is Roman not the same (AI or UI) in all three cases ? Now maybe you were answering to a different question when you said "UI", in which case I allow you to change your vote to AI in all three cases. Does it now not remain that a player has received information that he did not previously have, and that when he went and looked for it, as he is entitled to do, he mistook ? Seems like UI to me ! > Now, I am not going to guess what DALB meant - I went by what he > wrote. > > > The actual wording is > >unimportant, > > The actual wording made it an assertion not a question. I do not see > how that can be unimportant when we are dealing with answers to > questions and none was made. > see above. > >So don't use the text of > >the Laws as an argument, David (S). > > ?????????????????????????? > You understand very well what I am saying, David. When we are having a discussion on the meaning of the Laws, don't say that the Laws are clear. That is not an argument. > >I believe DB's best argument (premise if you want), is that > >it is up to a player himself to distill from the Information > >which is made available to him, those pieces he needs to > >make an informed decision as to his next action. > > > >If you believe that premmise to be untrue, please say so. > > This is fine. > > >It follows from that premise that both partner's question > >and the reply thereto, are UI. > > > >If the derivation of this is incomplete or incorrect, please > >say so too. > > This does not follow at all. > And why not ? If a player is deemed to do it himself, and in stead partner does it for him, does that not mean it is (or at least should be) UI ? Why do you rule UI if partner asks for my benefit, but not if he asks solely for his, but I happen to pick something up which I had failed to pick up before, for whatever reason ? If you rule that way, you are ruling on the intent of partner, not on the actual information received ! > >One last question to DavidS : what is your "gut" feeling on > >a ruling in the original case ? And if it is that player > >will always work out from the 4He bid, what would you rule > >if partner had passed 2He, doubled by opener? Do you allow > >the player to pull ? > >I hope you understand what I am saying - barring other > >clues, would you allow the mistaken bidder to be awakened by > >the response to partner's question ? Gut feeling please ! > > The original case had too many other things in it to be of much > interest. Unfortunately partner's failure or otherwise to alert the 2H > overcall means that while this discussion is interesting and probably > important it does not apply to the original hand. The 2H bidder has UI > - whether he has other UI or AI does not affect that. > Your Honour, the witness is being nonresponsive. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 21:05:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:05:25 +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 VAA20369 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:05:18 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-156.uunet.be [194.7.13.156]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA11187 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 11:05:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C69730.66D5EF1D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 10:28:16 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <36cbb99b.3168365@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:28:45 +0000, David Burn > wrote: > >How do you know? If a player asks a question (or a rhetorical question, as in my example) because he wants the information, then that is a legal question and he should have the information. But if he asks a question because he wants his partner to have the information, then that is not a legal question and his partner should not have the information. > > I still believe that the interpretation that you must not ask for > partner's benefit is intended to avoid partner getting the > information that you found this part of the opponents' system > relevant now - not to avoid partner getting the actual > information about the opponents' system. > > So my version of what you wrote at the end above would be: it is > not a legal question and partner should not have the information > that you found it relevant to ask, but he should have all > relevant information about the opponents' system. That does not solve the problem, Jesper, of Professional Question. While this question is intended to wake partner up, it can be so easily and completely covered up by a need-to-know himself. The pro, who actually knows all finesses of every system, just refuses to read the CC (which he is entitled to do, after all), and does it all with questions. The professional question is not meant to confer something about the hand, but to tell partner something about opponent's system. I think this is illegal, and the only way you can beat this is by making the answer UI. Now I know that I am using my opinion of illegality as a "proof" of our reading of the Laws, and this should not be done, but surely you can accept that maybe the Lawmakers also intend the illegality of the Professional Question, and that it is thus their intention also to have answers be UI ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 21:05:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:05:21 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA20360 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:05:14 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-156.uunet.be [194.7.13.156]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA11179 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 11:05:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C69574.DA40AD8D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 10:20:52 +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: Auction or Call Reviews (was RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question) References: <199902132004.MAA06510@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 another Marv and Alice story : > > > I do run into a catch-22 situation quite frequently. For instance, > an opponent makes a double of 2S that sounds like an Alertable one, > but there is no Alert. I have no need to know what the double > means, at least for the moment, so I pass. I could ask for > partner's benefit, but I don't do that. It turns out that the > double (not a normal negative double) was for takeout, even though > the doubler's partner had previously acted. Partner, intimidated by > the double, and not realizing that it wasn't penalty (because not > Alerted) sells out for 3H. After the hand is over I realize that > partner probably would not have sold out if the meaning of the > double had been disclosed, so I call the TD. > > "What is it?" > > "This person doubled for takeout after his partner had acted, and > the double was not Alerted." > > "So what?" > > "So I think my partner would have taken another bid if the double > had been Alerted and explained as non-penalty." > > "You could have asked." > > Not me. > Correct. Exactly why I consider answers to questions of partner UI. But Marv, don't you go about protecting your Alice a bit much here ? Should not SHE have called the director, she have explained that the double was misAlerted (was it ?), she have gotten the response "you could have asked", at which point I would allow you to cut in and say, "my partner is not supposed to ask about calls which have only one non-alertable meaning". I don't like it as TD, when one player calls and says, my partner would have bid ... if ... But you are absolutely correct that you should not ask for your partner's benefit. Tell Alice to ask more herself. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 21:05:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:05:18 +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 VAA20358 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:05:12 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-156.uunet.be [194.7.13.156]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA11174 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 11:05:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C6942E.DDC40F39@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 10:15:26 +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: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing References: <19990213.124719.-91899.0.paulhar@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Paul D. Harrington" wrote: > > Marvin French writes: > >Okay Paul, we will have arrow-switch Mitchells in the first session > >and interwoven Howells (new opponents) in the second sesssion, all > >scored ATF, with no need for anyone to change seats or change > >sections. Is that in accord with your conclusion? > > ATF depends on the skill of your opponents. How could arrow switching > possibly help? It helps half-way, in that you also get compared (half) to those you call your opponents. But I don't think the arrow-switching was meant to eliminate the "opponents" problem. That cannot be eliminated but by playing more rounds. There is one other way of improving this problem. If you play Mitchells, and there is one particularly strong line, then a whole set of opponents will complain. Complaints grow when they are voiced by more than one opponent. If you play a Barometer, for example, no two pairs have the same set of opponents. Adjoining pairs may complain about a particularly bad set, but at least one of them will console the other "oh yes, you were hard done by, our last opponents, whom you just missed, could not count to 4". The same can be said for arrow-switching. Without it, pairs will complain about the "bad" hands in north, and these complaints will be echoed and become greater. With arrow-switching, no-one held exactly the same set of cards, and someone who has passed all the day will be consoled at having a lot of bad luck. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 21:20:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:20:42 +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 VAA20430 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:20:35 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.189]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id MAA07979; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:20:15 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36C6A34A.DE0C42AB@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:19:55 +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: Auction or Call Reviews (was RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question) References: <01BE567D.B8548480@har-pa1-26.ix.NETCOM.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Oooops I see that my message about the UI , asking to stop the specific discussion about that 2D (Roman or.....Greek or Budhism..or whatever) was written before I got this one. I truly believe that we arrived at a "dead end" where it will be impossible to play simultaneously ethical and pleasant bridge , using the modern competitive (and all other academic definitions) bidding systems. I suggest again to try to resume a clever approach and update the LAWS in order to eliminate as much as possible that demonic UPI which is not a result of mannerism. Dany Craig Senior wrote: > > From: Marvin L. French[SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] > > the law was changed in 1987: > 1975: L20F1--"a full explanation of any call made by an opponent > opposing call" > L20F2--"an explanation of opposing calls > 1987/1997: L20F1--"a full explanation of the opponents' auction" > L20F2--"an explanation of opposing auction." > I am told that Edgar Kaplan pushed for these changes because he > felt that there was too much questioning of individual calls. > > ##### These changes have been so roundly ignored in practice that it might > be wisest to revert to the 1975 language which conforms to what everyone > actually DOES. How do others on list feel about this? > > I would tend to support it, since to review the entire auction needlessly > is cumbersome, time consuming and in most cases downright annoying. In fact > any player actually insisting on following the law as written and giving > the whole auction every time would risk provoking a zero tolerance call for > interfering with his opponents' enjoyment of the game. He would not be > popular, but thought of as some kind of pedantic bl at best. > > Is that too great a price to pay for avoiding the ui potential of enquiry > into a specific call? Common practice hints that for most players it is. > > Craig > ##### From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 14 21:21:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:21:05 +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 VAA20446 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:20:58 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.189]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id MAA08065; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:20:31 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36C6A391.49F46B4C@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:21:05 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Auction or Call Reviews (was RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question) References: <01BE567D.B8548480@har-pa1-26.ix.NETCOM.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Craig Senior wrote: > >From: Marvin L. French[SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] > > > > the law was changed in 1987: > >1975: L20F1--"a full explanation of any call made by an opponent > >opposing call" > > L20F2--"an explanation of opposing calls > >1987/1997: L20F1--"a full explanation of the opponents' auction" > > L20F2--"an explanation of opposing auction." > >I am told that Edgar Kaplan pushed for these changes because he > >felt that there was too much questioning of individual calls. > > < snoopy !!!!!> > Well, the EBU read it differently. Part of L20F1 says "... [questions > may be asked about calls actually made ..." and we have interpreted it > that this gives us the right to ask about individual calls. Now I know > that Grattan says that this is not the WBFLC's interpretation: this is > probably the biggest difference that Grattan and I have over the Laws. ================ The updated law didn't intend to let ask about an individual or specific call - I learnt it from some outstanding lawmakers; the main intention of the new L20F is to allow questions and/or description of the alternatives for a specific call - this doesn't allow the way to ask only about one specific call. ====================== > I believe it to be clear: I think you can see from the addition of this > clause that the Law has been weakened to allow individual calls to be > asked about. I do not think an interpretation is required because it is > clear. I understand that Kaplan did not agree but we can no longer > discuss it with him. > ============== Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha....... I you insist I can try to ask some very advanced secret services and very high degrees of religious personalities to contact him...... =======Ha Ha Ha Ha > Furthermore, I believe that if the WBFLC continues to support the > position that one may not ask about individual calls then this is one > area that they are totally and completely wrong. ===== I don't think your opinion is right , when I try to avoid UI. But in any case , see my remark above and my message on the original thread. ======= When the change was > made in the Laws in 1987 it was found to be totally unworkable, and I do > not believe that a totally unworkable method should be continued in > defiance of common-sense. <........> > Let me remind you what the Kaplan approach means legally. > about specific calls during the auction, and the wording of L41B allows > questions to be asked about specific calls during the play. I believe > that it would be unwise of any authority, no matter how distinguished, > to challenge this interpretation, because it has found to be unworkable, > impractical and deleterious to the game of bridge solely to allow > questions of the whole auction. > > -- > 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 Feb 14 22:14:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:14:24 +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 WAA20549 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:14:16 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.220]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id NAA23313; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 13:14:04 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36C6B01C.C9AF5E1E@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 13:14:36 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andre Pion CC: "Bridge , List" Subject: Re: How retroactive is Law 40? References: <36C27736.3CB2B06E@total.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Servus Andre I am sure Grattan posted the right answer , using his british gentlemenship ....... I will be more "rude" (tough..) and precautious : If there was a mistaken choose of the CC , it may happen and I would only "rectify" the score = I don't use "adjust" because it was an accident. If they acted deliberately in a "not good taste" mode .....then I should use hatchets. Cheers Dany Andre Pion wrote: > > This week is a STaC(Sectional Tournament at Club) in our unit. Tonight I > feel I have been had. Would you please tell me how to react next time > and if I can adjust score of round 1 at round 7 on the base of Law 40. > > At round 1 , I am called at a table where E/W are complaining that N/S > have coded leads and that it is not written on North CC and unreadable > on South CC. N/S are well seasonned players. They don't play together at > club meetings but they are regularly seen together in tournaments. > CCs do not match; I told the 2 ladies about law 40 that they do know of > and asked them to have matching CCs and gave them the benefit of the > doubt. > > At round 7, the field was quiet so I was kibitzing at their tables. My > eye caught one of their CC and then the second one. They were not the > CCs from the 1st round nor new CCs but their regular Tournament CC that > they took out of their CC holder. > > On rd 1, the NS pair did 3NT +1 and the field did a flat 3NT on that > board; I feel strongly that the EW pair who are good players would have > better defended if they had known the leads were coded. > > What are your advices for future reference? Can adjust score of round 1 > at round 7 on the base of Law 40. > > Thank you > > Andre Pion > Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 00:01:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:01:22 +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 AAA20817 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:01:12 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.180]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id PAA23814; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 15:00:57 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36C6C929.31FE9E1D@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 15:01:29 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws , Steve Willner Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing References: <199902101743.JAA16808@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <36C32534.1842D38A@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think it will be better , the best ,....divine to score across the Universe..... But seriously - when we calculate regular IMP - when there are more than 31 results there is no SIGNIFICANT difference if we kick out none or 1 or 2 or 3 extreme results from each side , calculating the average........In large fields there is no significant difference for the winner using any kind of calculations. I think that any calculation ATF is logical better than any other - the question is again (CATO :"... and Cartagina should be rubbed off...) how do we educate players to see the final results . IMO the seeding and balancing sections and lines is more important and have higher weight in the real result , more than any calculation method. The national authorities would consider if they are able to introduce a method or a directive , according to the instruments and skills available to (almost) all clubs in their country. Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > > "John S. Nichols" wrote: > > > > > > Of course there are some situations that make scorring the > > boards ATF impractical (for example, multiple sites) but I > > don't think that is what we are discussion here. > > John S. Nichols > > How much more multiple can you get than our ssFinland or > Fifth Friday Challenges ? > > Scoring Accross the World, that is ! > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 02:18:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 02:18:04 +1100 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23371 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 02:17:56 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA13806 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 10:17:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 10:17:49 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, David Burn wrote: > DWS wrote: > > >David Burn wrote: > > [DB] > >My argument is: "information arising from replies to partner's > questions is unauthorized - were that not the case, screens would be > illegal, for they would prevent me from having access to authorized > information." > Lest we forget, screens were introduced in high level competition as a means of preventing UI from partner and as a method of reducing both the possibility of cheating and the perception of cheating. In the nature of things, it required some changes to the regulations-- in particular the method of alerting had to be changed so that you have to self-alert to your screenmate. This is an artificial extension to what was, in the mid-70s when screens were introduced, a fairly new procedure, that of Alerts. Screens are uncommon. The regulations concerning them are not things most of us meet often, and I would venture to say that well over 90% of people who regard themselves as serious bridge players have never met them. While the "screen test" is a useful gadget for judging whether information available, particularly on partnership misunderstandings, is UI or AI, I believe it to be a mistake to extend this to: "This information would be unavailable with screens, therefore it is UI." > [DWS] > There is no rule that you have to have access to all AI. After all, > you have indirect access to the information given - you can ask at your > turn. You have invented a rule that does not exist to try and prove > another rule, so I am afraid this does not prove that the answers to > partner's questions are UI. > > Nor was it intended to. It was simply one of the reasons why I believe > that the intent of the Laws is that such information be UI. Simply put: > if the Laws say (as you assert) that information arising from responses > to partner's questions is AI, then why is there a piece of wood across > the table preventing me from obtaining this information? > The purpose of the screen is to attempt to conceal hesitations, possible illegal signals, and mannerisms that might inadvertently convey UI. _As a result_ the Alert procedures change. In the original example the problem might not have arisen. Although I've never met a screen at the table, I get the impression that you are much more likely to either ask or be given the explanation directly rather than just an alert as you would get in normal conditions. > [DB, I think, but I've lost track in my deletions :-)] > > How do you know? If a player asks a question (or a rhetorical question, > as in my example) because he wants the information, then that is a legal > question and he should have the information. But if he asks a question > because he wants his partner to have the information, then that is not a > legal question and his partner should not have the information. Yet in > both cases, he will (unless he is somewhat naive) ask the same question > and receive the same answer. It will not be possible to tell from the > outside whether he asked for his own benefit or his partner's. That > being so, in an ideal world we prevent the information from reaching his > partner. In the real world, we do the next best thing, which is to > prevent his partner from using it. > The 1987 Laws turned the section on "Proprieties" into Law. While in the general case this was obviously a good thing, it has led to a situation where ther is no place to put "moral obligations." The WBF says we should not ask for partner's benefit. There is no way of enforcing that, but I find DB's idea that I'm not allowed to receive such information even when partner has a legitimate reason to ask the question is highly artificial and a large step in the direction of making the game unpleasant. Not because this is an example that is going to turn up once a week in the world, but because when the normal person hears of it as a regulation, the entire effect is going to be in the direction of "this game is governed by silly and impractical rules. I want no more part of it." Maybe I will get round to composing my diatribe on the general direction the Laws and regulations ar going in. -- 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 Mon Feb 15 05:03:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 05:03:56 +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 FAA23832 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 05:03:50 +1100 Received: from ip165.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.165]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990214180344.HTHA3288.fep4@ip165.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:03:44 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:03:42 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36cf0fb5.4226837@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, 13 Feb 1999 22:37:03 +0000, David Burn wrote: >There are, as far as I can see, two practical solutions to this. One: = all information from replies to questions is AI. That allows the = "professional question", which to my way of thinking is just as = undesirable as the "lead-directine question" - but there are those who do= not share this belief. I don't see why it allows the "professional question". Asking for the purpose of informing partner is illegal. If you do it anyway, you can be penalized - but the actual reply should still be AI to partner. Yes, it can be difficult to penalize because it can be difficult to determine that the pro asked for that purpose - but this is just one of very many ways of cheating that are easy to get away with if you really want to cheat. >Since none of us has been able to point to a passage in the Laws which = resolves the question of whether information of this kind is UI or AI, I = see no alternative (if we want to resolve the question at all, rather = than just working on a case-by-case basis) to making analogies with other= Laws and by considering the position in terms of what we would ideally = like to happen. Agreed. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 05:04:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 05:04:03 +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 FAA23840 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 05:03:56 +1100 Received: from ip165.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.165]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990214180350.HTHD3288.fep4@ip165.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:03:50 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:03:48 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36d00fd0.4254407@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, 13 Feb 1999 22:37:17 +0000, David Burn wrote: >... but what you may not do is obtain the information from any source at= all and then claim that since you were entitled to it anyway, it is AI. = Let me ask you this. Suppose the player in the example saw his RHO open = 2D. He places the 2H card on the table to make his takeout bid when a = puzzled kibitzer whispers to him: "You knew that was Roman, didn't you?" = Would this be AI to the player? IMO yes. (The kibitzer would be taken out and shot, of course.) The alternative to its being AI is to use L16B, of which the only workable part is probably L16B3: award an artificial assigned score. That seems to me to be a much less satisfactory solution than letting play continue with the information as AI. What about the following situation, which I find analogous: RHO opens 1D, but you see it incorrectly as 1H. You overcall 2D, and when partner alerts, you look down and realize that the opening call was actually 1D. Is it AI or UI that RHO opened 1D? If I remember correctly, we have previously established a widespread agreement on BLML that the calls actually made are always AI, no matter how you find out what those calls were (when not using bidding boxes, the reply to partner's request for a review of the auction, for instance). My position is that information about the opponents' system is analogous and should also have the status of never being UI. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 05:03:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 05:03:53 +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 FAA23826 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 05:03:44 +1100 Received: from ip165.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.165]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990214180337.HTGT3288.fep4@ip165.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:03:37 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:03:36 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36ce0fa9.4214560@post12.tele.dk> References: <36cbb99b.3168365@post12.tele.dk> <36C69730.66D5EF1D@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36C69730.66D5EF1D@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, 14 Feb 1999 10:28:16 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >That does not solve the problem, Jesper, of Professional >Question. > >While this question is intended to wake partner up, it can >be so easily and completely covered up by a need-to-know >himself. The pro, who actually knows all finesses of every >system, just refuses to read the CC (which he is entitled to >do, after all), and does it all with questions. If he knows the answer already, then there is no doubt that he is asking for partner's benefit. That is illegal according to the WBFLC interpretation. It he asks for partner's benefit knowing that it is illegal, then he is cheating and should be banned from play. Of course it may be difficult to determine that he knew already, but then it is also difficult to determine whether a player would or would not have asked the same question that his partner has asked. >The professional question is not meant to confer something >about the hand, but to tell partner something about >opponent's system. I think this is illegal, and the only >way you can beat this is by making the answer UI. No, you can beat it by telling these pros (and their clients!) that it is illegal and that they are cheating (and that they are also making it much more difficult for their clients to learn to ask for themselves). If they don't stop, penalize them (L72B2, L90B8) and report them to the relevant Ethics Committee. We should not make rules that are problematic for honest players in order to catch a few cheaters. I must admit that I have some difficulty in understanding this whole pro/client problem, perhaps because pros playing with clients are an (almost completely) unknown situation in Denmark. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 05:11:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 05:11:54 +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 FAA23876 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 05:11:44 +1100 Received: from [195.99.46.20] [195.99.46.20] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10C60k-0005NV-00; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:11:22 +0000 From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:12:26 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: Screens are uncommon. The regulations concerning them are not things most = of us meet often, and I would venture to say that well over 90% of people who regard themselves as serious bridge players have never met = them. While the "screen test" is a useful gadget for judging whether information = available, particularly on partnership misunderstandings, is UI or AI, I believe it to be a mistake to extend this to: "This information would be unavailable with screens, therefore it is UI." Perhaps. But it is a great deal simpler than any alternative, which of = necessity involves arbitrary distinctions which are not easy to understand = and not easy to administer. [RL] The purpose of the screen is to attempt to conceal hesitations, possible = illegal signals, and mannerisms that might inadvertently convey UI. Quite so. One might almost say: the purpose of a screen is to prevent any = communication between partners other than by authorized means. And one coul = easily imagine extending this to a definition of "authorized means": that = communication which is possible across a screen is authorized; other = communication is not. Now, I know that in this case, the relevant "communication" came not from = partner, but from an opponent. But it arose as a result of an action by = partner. I see no difficulty, therefore, in placing it in the same category = as communication from partner. [RL] I find DB's idea that I'm not allowed to receive such information even when = partner has a legitimate reason to ask the question is highly artificial = and a large step in the direction of making the game unpleasant. Not = because this is an example that is going to turn up once a week in the world, but because when the normal person hears of it as a regulation, the entire effect is going to be in the=20 direction of "this game is governed by silly and impractical rules. I want no more part of it." I am not sure about this. I think that the average player would be happy = with a simple rule: "Information that you obtain by means of your own = side's calls and plays is authorized, as is any information that you obtain = by permitted questions to your opponents or by their disclosure to you of = their methods. All other information is not authorized." The alternative: = "this information arising from partner's actions is authorized, that is = not, and we are unable to make our minds up about this other", is in my = view far more likely to cause confusion and unhappiness. = From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 06:04:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 06:04:39 +1100 Received: from m4.boston.juno.com (m4.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.198]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA23961 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 06:04:33 +1100 Received: (from paulhar@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id D3FKWY8H; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 14:04:08 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 13:36:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing Message-ID: <19990214.140759.-92497.1.paulhar@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 6-13,15-16,18-19,32-33,38-39,42-43,52-53,57-60 X-Juno-Att: 0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Paul D. Harrington" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I apologize to those who think that this is not a bridge-laws discussion. I joined the list to learn, and found a topic which I think I can intelligently discuss. There may have been discussion on the same topic in RGB or other forums, I just don't happen to belong to any bridge lists except this one. Also, before the nit-pickers get me, the scores of 200 in ATF (clearly a very low score!) should be read to be '63+% games' or the like. >> Marvin French writes: >> >Okay Paul, we will have arrow-switch Mitchells in the first session >> >and interwoven Howells (new opponents) in the second sesssion, all >> >scored ATF, with no need for anyone to change seats or change >> >sections. Is that in accord with your conclusion? >> >> I worte: ATF depends on the skill of your opponents. How could arrow switching possibly help? > >Herman wrote: It helps half-way, in that you also get compared (half) to those you call your opponents. > Let's clear up this misconception. You have an expectation of positive or negative matchpoints relative to the field due to the strength of your opposition, in both your direction and in the people against whom you play. The lower the number of comprisons, the higher the expected deviation for this expectation from zero. If you played in a 13 table section in a large field, matchpointed only in your section, BUT each pair in your section played vs. 13 different pairs, I would expect the expected positive deviation from playing IN the weakest section to be equivalent to the expected positive deviation from playing AGAINST similarly weak opponents (who your section-mates didn't get to play.) Playing in a 13-table section scored in the section only where you play vs. the same opponents nullifies the strength of your opponents since everyone else who you are scored against plays them also. In a huge field (lets use 104 tables as an example) scored ATF, you have the expectation for positive or negative matchpoints exists based on the 104 table N/S field vs. the 104 table E/W field, but with such a high sample, the expectation rates to be very small. However, you still have the relatively large deviation based on the 13 opponents you play. Arrow switches WILL NOT help half-way; you will still be comparing with 103 other people; your expected deviation from the norm based on strength of opponents will still be mostly based on the 13 pairs you play against. In fact, it will be WORSE, since before you would never be COMPARED to any of your 13 direct opponents, now you will have some of your scores compared with them as well! However, the amount that arrow-switches make fair comparison worse is so slight that it hardly matters. (For those non-believers, imagine a pair so bad that they always get a zero by bidding 7nt on every hand and playing double-dummy bad. You will get your two tops when you play them but now with arrow switches you will occasionally pick up an extra matchpoint for playing a board the same way they do.) Taking only sections into account and not whom you skip or don't reach IN the section (or assuming only 13 table sections), perhaps the fairest thing to do is to adjust each section's score based on how the section they just played against did in the ATF. Paul Harrington paulhar@juno.com ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 06:04:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 06:04:36 +1100 Received: from m4.boston.juno.com (m4.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.198]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA23957 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 06:04:30 +1100 Received: (from paulhar@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id D3FKWZAA; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 14:04:08 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 14:07:58 -0500 Subject: Seeding (was Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing) Message-ID: <19990214.140759.-92497.2.paulhar@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 5-6,10-11,13,15,27-28,35-36,40-41,43-46 X-Juno-Att: 0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Paul D. Harrington" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is an interesting problem - given the usual constraints of long lines clamoring for entries five minutes before game-time. It's a somewhat easier problem with pre-registration or for sessions other than the first. No seeding methods can be perfect, but to attempt to minimize the expected matchpoint differential from playing in different sections, here are some ideas: We went to sectionals where the seeding was done on a method half-weighted by masterpoints and half-weighted by average points won per sectional event. Clearly better than masterpoints themselves, but harder to implement and suffers from the following defects: (1) Flight B pairs who came in overall in Flight B events would be seeded higher than equal-strength Flight A players (2) Similarly, people who get to play in the huge women's pairs event would be seeded higher (and if we had them, the seniors' events too). (3) Pairs who play a risky strategy and have lots of 65% games and lots of 35% games would be ranked more highly than their more straight-forward counterparts despite the fact that they wouldn't increase the strength of the section they were placed in. A similar effect can come from a pair in which one of the partners is particularly obnoxious and the pair usually places well when he can remain calm but is giving away matchpoints like crazy when he has his tantrums. Another reason good seeding is nearly impossible, you may expect to get an extra 15 matchpoints in a two-session game if one of these volitile pairs is having an off day and is in your section; with everybody in this section getting this free gift (perhaps from a seeded pair!) it's likely that the overall winner will come from this section. However, seeding the 'free masterpoint givers' IMO is just as important as seeding the good players (which frequently means a pro playing with an awful client, another detriment) but short of a good rating system, I'm not sure how one tells whether someone with 100 masterpoints is a promising up-and-comer or free masterpoints. Perhaps an average percentage game would be much better than masterpoints per session played; somehow adjusted for flighted events. After the first session, actual scores are IMO a fair method of seeding. An unheralded pair who has a big game is probably playing well enough to deserve the 'seeded' spot; and it would have the advantage of giving each section an equal number of '120 on a 156 average' pairs. I'm sure there are a lot of better ideas out there - I'm looking forward to hearing about them. Paul Harrington paulhar@juno.com ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 07:23:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 07:23:42 +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 HAA24116 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 07:23:35 +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 <19990214202329.IRJ23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:23:29 -0800 Message-ID: <36C731AE.479E9C2@home.com> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:27:26 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> <199902130445160650.0606D12A@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > >Very well. In that case, the player who asks a question solely and > >entirely for the purpose of waking his partner up to a > >misunderstanding does no wrong. After all, he is only making sure > >that his partner has information to which his partner is "entitled, > >period". Do you believe this? Does anyone? > > ... but it is specifically barred by another Law. Just because > something is not UI does not mean that it is permitted. Amen. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 08:19:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:19:05 +1100 Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24192 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:19:01 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn2p60.ozemail.com.au [203.108.217.188]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA21697 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:18:57 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:18:57 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199902142118.IAA21697@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk from DB >I am not sure about this. I think that the average player would be happy with a simple rule: "Information that you obtain by means of your own side's calls and plays is authorized, as is any information that you obtain by permitted questions to your opponents or by their disclosure to you of their methods. Surely this would have the effect of forcing both opponents to ask the meaning of the same alertable bids at their turn - a result devoutly not to be wished Tony > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 08:26:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:26:16 +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 IAA24219 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:26:10 +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 <19990214212604.UMO23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 13:26:04 -0800 Message-ID: <36C74058.5BB17876@home.com> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 13:30:00 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990213101706.00714fb4@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: [DB]: > >Very well. In that case, the player who asks a question solely and > >entirely for the purpose of waking his partner up to a > >misunderstanding does no wrong. (snip) > >Do you believe this? [MD]: > Well, yes, now that you ask,I do! I understand that this is contrary > to the current position of the WBFLC, but so be it. This has nothing to do with what anyone's "position" is. It is simply specifically not allowed be the laws, as opposed to an ambiguous matter on which opinions may differ (even those who disagree with DB/HdW here seem to agree on this). Pls remember this, i.e. next time you ask a question solely for that purpose you are in breach of not only L73B1 and L74C4 but also the most serious of them all, L72B2. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 09:11:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:11:35 +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 JAA24276 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:11:28 +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 <19990214221124.BCWZ23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 14:11:24 -0800 Message-ID: <36C74AF8.8C8663C4@home.com> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 14:15:20 -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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121248.aa07319@flash.irvine.com> <36C5444F.AAE44FEB@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: [MD] > > I'd say that the impossible ideal is full disclosure without the > > opponents having to ask questions. [HdW] > Indeed. So you should be in possession of the answers to > all the questions you may have, but not of others you don't > think of. Maybe this premise of what is "ideal" is the fundamental difference between our positions. Imo, the ideal is if I had access to all info abt the opponents methods without anyone having to ask. It shouldn't matter whether or not I'd have thought of asking a particular question (such as "could it be 4-4-0-5?"). Your position on this "UI or AI" question becomes more understandable to me now that I know that "full disclosure of methods" iyo means "any info that the opponents realize they might need to enquire about". From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 09:11:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:11:35 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA24275 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:11:27 +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 RAA15217 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:11:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id RAA05131 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:11:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:11:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902142211.RAA05131@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > But the Laws themselves indicate clearly that my opponents > should not in fact exhibit such mannerisms. They are not part of the > game itself. Some would say that avoiding giving away information via mannerisms is an important part of the game. Like all aspects, some players are better at it than others. > I am aware that for many players, "table > presence" is an important part of bridge. Yes. > We have all agreed, I think, that for partner to ask a > question for the sole purpose of waking me up is not legal. Not all of us agree with this, depending on exactly what is meant by "waking me up." David's view is probably the majority opinion, but some of us put higher priority on full disclosure of methods. We all, I hope, agree that asking questions to tell partner anything about one's own hand is illegal, but that's not the same thing. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 09:13:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:13:26 +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 JAA24302 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:13:18 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.55] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10C9lZ-0006oN-00; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:11:54 +0000 Message-ID: <199902142212490920.0EEC95B8@mail.btinternet.com> References: <199902142118.IAA21697@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> <199902142212180120.0EEC197C@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:12:49 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 15/02/99, at 08:18, Tony Musgrove wrote: >from DB > > >>I am not sure about this. I think that the average player would be happy >with a simple rule: "Information that you obtain by means of your own side's >calls and plays is authorized, as is any information that you obtain by >permitted questions to your opponents or by their disclosure to you of their >methods. > >Surely this would have the effect of forcing both opponents to ask the >meaning of the same alertable bids at their turn - a result devoutly not to >be wished No, not really. In bridge without screens, it might force an opponent who has just seen an alert to ask the meaning of the bid, something that I think is a good idea, though this position does not have a great deal of support (for many excellent reasons). In bridge with screens, it "forces" exactly what you say - but that happens anyway. I don't have any problem with the 99% of cases in which a player asks a question at his turn, and the information from the reply is then available to all. The problem that I have is with a player who is alerted to his own misunderstanding by a fortuitous question from his partner. After all, "a player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding" (L21A). Why should we give him one? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 09:34:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:34:57 +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 JAA24337 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:34:49 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.55] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10CA6n-0001Lr-00; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:33:49 +0000 Message-ID: <199902142234190350.0F004360@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <36C731AE.479E9C2@home.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> <199902130445160650.0606D12A@mail.btinternet.com> <36C731AE.479E9C2@home.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:34:19 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: gester@globalnet.co.uk Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 14/02/99, at 12:27, Jan Kamras wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> David Burn wrote: > >> >Very well. In that case, the player who asks a question solely and >> >entirely for the purpose of waking his partner up to a >> >misunderstanding does no wrong. After all, he is only making sure >> >that his partner has information to which his partner is "entitled, >> >period". Do you believe this? Does anyone? >> >> ... but it is specifically barred by another Law. Just because >> something is not UI does not mean that it is permitted. > >Amen. Well, it has been said by Grattan and others that this kind of information (the "professional question" kind) is prohibited under L73B1. Perhaps it is time to quote this Law: "Partners shall not communicate through...questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them." Note to Grattan: the word "them" in this clause is, in my opinion, ambiguous when used in conjunction with the passive voice. No doubt the intent is that "players shall not communicate through alerts and explanations that they [the players] give to them [the opponents]". However, since the subject of the sentence is "Players", the pronoun "them" could syntactically be taken to refer to the players "them"selves. Hence, a possible interpretation of the clause is: "Players shall not communicate through alerts and explanations given [by the opponents] to them [the players]." In other words, it is not legal to solicit an explanation from an opponent (who is legally bound to give it) in order to communicate with partner. But that is by the way. The problem I have with DWS's argument is that the "something" of which he speaks is "information", so that it does not make sense to me to say that "just because information is not unauthorized does not mean that it is permitted". When talking about information, the words "authorized" and "permitted" appear to me to be synonymous, so that there is no such thing as information that is unauthorized, and yet permitted. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 09:46:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:46:40 +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 JAA24358 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:46:33 +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 <19990214224628.BJPQ23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 14:46:28 -0800 Message-ID: <36C75331.2F5217EE@home.com> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 14:50:25 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C56FE2.E9C36FFA@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > But I side with DB when he says that all bridge (with or > without boxes, screens, or on-line) is just an approximation > of some form of "ideal" bridge. Even at ideal bridge, you > have to actively seek the information you wish. Certainly not. If it was indeed ideal, you'd not have to actively seek it, so can't accept this premise for any conclusions. > The > opponent's system must be _available_, not actively > present. So both the fact of partner asking for > information, _and_ the reply, are informations you would not > have in the ideal game. Now you are mixing things, namely an imaginary "ideal" game with what today's laws actually cover. Again, imo an incorrect premise thus rendering the conclusions invalid. [DB, I think]: > > > We have all agreed, I think, that for partner to ask a > > >question for the sole purpose of waking me up is not legal. If we go > > >on to say that when partner asks a "genuine" question, the reply > > >becomes AI to me, we will be forced in some cases to decide what was > > >actually in the mind of the questioner. As you will know by now, I am > > >implacably opposed to such subjectivity on the part of the TD or > > >referee. I'm also opposed to subjectivity wherever possible, but both sides' positions require some such judgement. Either one has to judge the asker's intent (DWS, JK, GE, L73B1, etc), or one has to judge the truthfulness of asker's partner asserting he'd have asked the question anyway (HdW, DB, L??). > > When the letter of the Laws does not lead us to a single > conclusion (and face it, David, with people like us at odds, > it does not), then we must try and find the intent of the > Laws to guide us. > DB and I believe that within the intent of those laws, if > not in the letter, answers to partner's questions are UI, > rapidly and simply transferable to AI, but UI to begin with. I find it strange then to oppose GE's position on this matter. He should be a better witness to the "intent of the laws" than the rest of us, I'd say. It would follow that your position may be more of "wishful thinking" (perfectly acceptable if stated as such) than a correct interpretation of the present law. > > I will not poll the list, DavidB, as I dread we'd be in a > minority. > That has not stopped me in the past. This statement is 100% correct! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 09:58:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:58:31 +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 JAA24383 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:58:20 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.55] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10CAUS-0005J0-00; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:58:16 +0000 Message-ID: <199902142257430300.0F15B02E@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <36ce0fa9.4214560@post12.tele.dk> References: <36cbb99b.3168365@post12.tele.dk> <36C69730.66D5EF1D@village.uunet.be> <36ce0fa9.4214560@post12.tele.dk> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:57:43 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 14/02/99, at 19:03, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 10:28:16 +0100, Herman De Wael > wrote: > [HDW] >>That does not solve the problem, Jesper, of Professional >>Question. [snip - HDW continues] >>The professional question is not meant to confer something >>about the hand, but to tell partner something about >>opponent's system. I think this is illegal, and the only >>way you can beat this is by making the answer UI. [JD] >No, you can beat it by telling these pros (and their clients!) >that it is illegal and that they are cheating (and that they are >also making it much more difficult for their clients to learn to >ask for themselves). If they don't stop, penalize them (L72B2, >L90B8) and report them to the relevant Ethics Committee. Perhaps, Jesper. But that solution requires policing over a long period of time, during which innocent opponents will get rotten scores which they would not have got if the whole thing were made explicitly illegal, for then they could obtain redress at once (and the "professionals" would learn far faster that dishonesty does not pay). [JD] >We should not make rules that are problematic for honest players >in order to catch a few cheaters. I am not sure that I agree with this. After all, most of the Laws were originally put in place to catch cheat(er)s, and the consequence of this is that honest players suffer thereby. For example, nobody these days revokes on purpose, nor has anyone done so for a very long time. Originally, the revoke law was created because if a player ruffed when he could follow, he would thereby gain a trick that was not his. Hence, he was penalized two tricks, in order to make it not worth his while. Nowadays, the incentive to revoke deliberately does not exist - but the revoke law still does. It punishes alike those whose revokes make no difference to the outcome of the hand at all, and those who gain tricks by revoking. Moreover - and this is crucial - the average player has no problem with this at all. Declarer makes 7H missing the ace of trumps because someone revokes. Nobody raises a hue and cry because this result is "impossible" - and at least the revoking side has a good story afterwards! I do not think that "rules" of the kind I envisage and with which you disagree would actually be problematic for honest players. Indeed, I think that honest players would be far happier with simple rules that they can understand and easily comply with, than they are with the present position, where they do not know what to do because nobody can tell them what the rules are. It appears simpler to me to have a rule that means, in effect: "Any information that you acquire solely by listening to a conversation between partner and the opponents is information that you may not use" than to have the question of whether you may use it or not debated by learned people - such as you or I - who cannot make up their minds. >I must admit that I have some difficulty in understanding this >whole pro/client problem, perhaps because pros playing with >clients are an (almost completely) unknown situation in Denmark. The problem does not arise only when professionals play with clients; it arises when unscrupulous experts play with partners not in the expert category. Or even when an unscrupulous expert plays with another expert, but careless, partner whom he (the unscrupulous one) knows has a habit of not finding out all he needs to know about enemy methods before making a call. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 10:05:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:05:33 +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 KAA24401 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:05:25 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10CAbB-000688-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 23:05:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 20:31:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C56FE2.E9C36FFA@village.uunet.be> <36C5A75D.7CFDD96B@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36C5A75D.7CFDD96B@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> David Burn wrote: >> >> >But I side with DB when he says that all bridge (with or >> >without boxes, screens, or on-line) is just an approximation >> >of some form of "ideal" bridge. >> >> I cannot agree with this. > >Well, I do. >Do you realy think we are ruling three different kinds of >bridge ? No. >I don't, and I don't think many on blml agree. Nor do I. >Of course there are technical differences, which lead to >other types of rulings, but the fundamentals on which the >Laws are based (and which seem to me quite consistent in >most places) are one and the same. I agree that it is all one game. But I do not agree that the game played in clubs is an inferior sort to some game played where players never see or hear each other and rely on electronics. I have not suggested that it is a different game: I just disagree with what is stated as the "ideal". >Well, let me rephrase : three possibilities : >1) partner asks : what is 2D - answer : Roman >2) partner asks : is this Roman ? - answer : Yes >3) partner looks at CC and says : ah, Roman ! >While the third may convey UI in some cases, it won't in >most, especially if you have yourself already checked the >CC. If the three possibilities have been done in the same >"careless manner", with no intention of waking you up, then >is the fact that it is Roman not the same (AI or UI) in all >three cases ? UI is information whether useful or not that is unauthorised. Thus 3) is a statement by partner, and it is not authorised information to you, so it is UI. It does not matter whether you have checked the CC: it *is* UI. We have talked before about what action a player may take if he has information from two sources, one authorised, one unauthorised. In 2) partner has asked a question, and that question is UI. In 1) partner has asked a question, and that question is UI. The question that led to this thread is whether the answer to partner's question AI. The answer to your question is that partner's questions are UI. However, that does not answer the question as to whether the answer is to such a question is UI. It has been argued that since the question is UI, and the question could include the answer, that the answer is UI even if the question does not include the answer. No doubt I will get told off again, but I do not see this argument. To restate my position: 1 Partner's questions provide UI. 2 Opponents' replies to questions are normally AI. 3 I still have seen no particular reason why opponents' replies to partner's questions are UI. 4 I have no particular position as to whether it is desirable that opponents' replies to partner's questions should be UI. 5 I do not believe that comparing bridge without screens to bridge with screens is necessarily helpful. 6 I do not believe that the pure form of the game is with screens. 7 I do not believe that the Laws should only be applied to one form of the game, and I *certainly* never said so! Now, I know that people are going to misquote me as saying things I have not said. I do not know why they do - it does not seem a productive form of argument to me - so I better mention what I have not said. I have not said that there is a clear and unambiguous Law that says that replies to opponents' questions are AI. >> >I believe DB's best argument (premise if you want), is that >> >it is up to a player himself to distill from the Information >> >which is made available to him, those pieces he needs to >> >make an informed decision as to his next action. >> > >> >If you believe that premmise to be untrue, please say so. >> >> This is fine. >> >> >It follows from that premise that both partner's question >> >and the reply thereto, are UI. >> > >> >If the derivation of this is incomplete or incorrect, please >> >say so too. >> >> This does not follow at all. >> > >And why not ? If a player is deemed to do it himself, and >in stead partner does it for him, does that not mean it is >(or at least should be) UI ? I am sorry, but I really have no idea what you are talking about. I see no connection between the two assertions above. >Why do you rule UI if partner asks for my benefit, but not >if he asks solely for his, but I happen to pick something up >which I had failed to pick up before, for whatever reason ? >If you rule that way, you are ruling on the intent of >partner, not on the actual information received ! I don't rule UI. Who says I rule UI if partner asks for my benefit? Show me where I said that. Look, Herman, the more you quote me as saying things I have not said, the more confused and pointless this argument will be. If partner asks a question specifically for my benefit, the question is UI, the answer is AI, and I take disciplinary action against the player for breach of L73B1. >> >One last question to DavidS : what is your "gut" feeling on >> >a ruling in the original case ? And if it is that player >> >will always work out from the 4He bid, what would you rule >> >if partner had passed 2He, doubled by opener? Do you allow >> >the player to pull ? >> >I hope you understand what I am saying - barring other >> >clues, would you allow the mistaken bidder to be awakened by >> >the response to partner's question ? Gut feeling please ! >> >> The original case had too many other things in it to be of much >> interest. Unfortunately partner's failure or otherwise to alert the 2H >> overcall means that while this discussion is interesting and probably >> important it does not apply to the original hand. The 2H bidder has UI >> - whether he has other UI or AI does not affect that. >> > >Your Honour, the witness is being nonresponsive. What do you want? You want me to lie? You wonder why certain posts sicken me. I answer as honestly as possible. What do I get in return? Completely misquoted. You quote me as saying that different forms of the game are to be ruled differently. I did not. You quote me as saying that opponent's answers to partner's questions become UI if he asked them for my benefit. I did not. I give my best answer about this case - another attack. OK. My gut feeling about the original case is that the overcaller has UI from the failure to alert his 2H bid so he knows that 2D is not Flannery from an unauthorised source. Does this help the thread? -- 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 Feb 15 10:22:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:22:32 +1100 Received: from send101.yahoomail.com (send101.yahoomail.com [205.180.60.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA24448 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:22:27 +1100 Message-ID: <19990214232210.15457.rocketmail@send101.yahoomail.com> Received: from [198.216.206.68] by send101.yahoomail.com; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 15:22:10 PST Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 15:22:10 -0800 (PST) From: Amberfi Subject: remove To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk remove amberfi@yahoo.com _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 10:39:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:39:27 +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 KAA24507 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:39:21 +1100 Received: from ip44.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.44]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990214233911.IYBA3288.fep4@ip44.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:39:11 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: blml Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:39:11 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36c85083.410950@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990213101706.00714fb4@pop.mindspring.com> <36C74058.5BB17876@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36C74058.5BB17876@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 Sun, 14 Feb 1999 13:30:00 -0800, Jan Kamras wrote: >This has nothing to do with what anyone's "position" is. It is simply >specifically not allowed be the laws, as opposed to an ambiguous matter >on which opinions may differ (even those who disagree with DB/HdW here >seem to agree on this). I disagree. L20F gives an unrestricted right to ask questions. It is a matter of interpretation whether asking questions is to be considered communication between partners so that L73B1 limits this right. The WBFLC says that it does, and I have no problem with that. If the WBFLC had said the opposite, I would have no problem with that either (as long as any information about partner's hand that can be deduced from the fact that a question was asked is UI). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 10:39:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:39:31 +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 KAA24512 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:39:24 +1100 Received: from ip44.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.44]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990214233917.IYBO3288.fep4@ip44.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:39:17 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:39:17 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36ca52fb.1042969@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, 13 Feb 1999 22:37:17 +0000, David Burn wrote: >Well, would you find it unreasonable to have to continue the auction = under a false impression if partner had not happened to ask his question? No, I would not. At any time, a bridge player's situation in regard to a specific piece of useful information is one of the following three: (a) He has that information as AI, (b) He does not have that information, (c) He has that information as UI. I assume that we can quickly agree that from the (ethical) player's point of view (a) is preferable to (b) and (b) is preferable to (c). Our lazy player who had not read the CC carefully enough is in situation (b). If left undisturbed, he will either remain in (b) or change to (a) (if, for instance, partner's 4H bid makes him check the CC carefully - which seems very probable to me). This is fine: he has deserved to be in that situation. Now his partner asks a question, and the reply gives the information to the lazy player. For the sake of this discussion let us assume that partner definitely asked because he really needed to know. The lawmakers and -interpreters must now choose whether that should give the lazy player the advantage of situation (a) or the disadvantage of situation (c). Unfortunately there is no position "between" (a) and (c) that we can put him in. (We might of course attempt to define some category of information that is "between" AI and UI, but I am quite certain that it would be impossible to do so in a reasonable way that would be practically manageable by players and TDs.) My choice is (a), because: * (c) is often very much worse than (b), and I don't think his laziness should be penalized that harshly, * If left to himself, I think that he would quite often find out what was going on (and end up in (a)) before it made a great difference to his further bidding, * He might just as well have got the information in some other way: the opponents might have discussed their system before the round or their CC might have been filled out slightly differently so that he would have seen anyway even at a lazy glance. I.e., though he has now received the information by accident through partner's action, it was just as much by accident that he did not know initially, * It seems more consistent with the principle of full disclosure to give players more information about opponents' system than they deserve than to give them "less" than they deserve (useful information as UI is "less" than no information), * It is possible to enforce in practice without mind-reading, * The situation seems analogous with the one in which a player has misheard or misseen a call and later discovers this because of action by partner - and in that case I find it obvious that the discovered call should be AI. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 10:45:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:45:09 +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 KAA24539 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:45:03 +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 SAA19778 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:44:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id SAA05649 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:44:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:44:56 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902142344.SAA05649@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > I will happily rely on the > judgement of Mr. Kaplan in this respect, who performed exactly this > maneuver in a major match some years ago, IIRC. Let's be careful to distinguish three cases: 1. A question that tells something about your own hand. 2. A question that partner should have asked but might not have known to ask. 3. A question after the opponents have already given misinformation in response to a proper question. Number 1 is the "lead-directing question," and I trust we all agree that it's flagrantly illegal. Number 2 is what David B. aptly calls the "pro question." The WBFLC has declared that this kind of question violates L73B1. I accept that, as must we all, but I consider it an unnatural interpretation of the actual text, and I consider it an interpretation that is bad for the game. I believe both of these opinions to be minority ones, but so it goes. At least if the pro question were legal, the rules would be clear, and we wouldn't be having the current discussion. Number 3 we might call "the Kaplan question." While one might argue that it is akin to 2 and therefore illegal, it can occur only if the opponents have first committed an infraction of their own. I suppose some might argue that it would be better to let the TD deal with opponents' infractions, but the Kaplan question seems no worse -- and to my mind makes the game more enjoyable -- than dealing with adjusted scores later on. Anyway, further discussion will be more fruitful if we keep the separate types of questions in mind. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 12:14:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA24714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:14:28 +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 MAA24709 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:14:21 +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 <19990215011416.CLGK23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:14:16 -0800 Message-ID: <36C775D4.FFBD21AA@home.com> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:18:12 -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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C56FE2.E9C36FFA@village.uunet.be> <36C5A75D.7CFDD96B@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Why do you rule UI if partner asks for my benefit, but not > if he asks solely for his, but I happen to pick something up > which I had failed to pick up before, for whatever reason ? Because according to L73B1 the former is specifically disallowed whereas there is no law (if there is, now is a good time to quote it:-)) disallowing the latter. > If you rule that way, you are ruling on the intent of > partner, not on the actual information received ! Since the law tells us to. You are also ruling based on a player's intent (or testimony as to what went on in his head), namely that of questioneer's partner. Don't you see that your position on this forces each player to inquire each time it is his term to bid since, if not, he can always be challenged on whether or not he would have found out something on his own or whether it was the response to pard's subsequent inquiry that clarified the matter. I find this impractical, time-wasting and totally annoying, and beleive I'm not alone. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 14:43:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:43:25 +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 OAA24966 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:43:18 +1100 Received: from claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.22]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA19207 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:43:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:43:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902150343.WAA23258@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: How well may defenders play after a contested claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 70 is fairly clear on the standard of play allowed for declarer after a contested claim, but not for defenders. Swiss teams, neither side vulnerable, hearts trumps. East has just cashed the setting trick. - T - K82 65 - - - - Q5 QT 93 QJ8 - - 7 South claims, "two good spades, CK, and a trump." However, she isn't on lead, and East objects. Director exposes all four hands, and is about to rule one more trick to the defense when East points out that he can lead the DQ on which West unblocks the CT as dummy ruffs, and then, unless North leads a low club (which would endplay West), the CQ falls under the CK, and East gets the last two tricks with the C9 and D5. The bidding marks South with three remaining spades. If West has a good count, he thus knows that the unblock will gain a trick if South's club is the C7 or C3 and declarer doesn't read the play, and lose a trick if South's club is the C9. How would you rule: (a) in an expert game, in which South would be likely to execute the endplay if it happened at the table? (Is this a Law 70E case, so that South can't execute the endplay?) (b) in a weaker game, in which South would be unlikely to execute the endplay but it is unlikely that West would make the play because he may not have kept a good count or may not have been able to work out that the unblock will help? (This was the actual situation; I was East, and West told me he would not have found the play.) (c) if instead, E-W need one more trick to beat the contract, so that the unblock risks letting the contract make for an extra undertrick, and thus would only be found double-dummy? (If E-W are allowed to defend double-dummy, then is declarer allowed to play double-dummy?) -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 15:50:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA25144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:50:55 +1100 Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.114]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA25139 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:50:51 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn14p09.ozemail.com.au [203.108.25.137]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA21486 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:50:47 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:50:47 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199902150450.PAA21486@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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:39 AM 15/02/99 +0100, Jesper wrote >* The situation seems analogous with the one in which a player >has misheard or misseen a call and later discovers this because >of action by partner - and in that case I find it obvious that >the discovered call should be AI. A similar case might be when I read the CC correctly and find opponents are playing Sydney 2s, which I think I know, so I don't ask after the alert. Partner later asks a question which elicits the particular information that for this pair, the bid may be made with a singleton spade. According to the thermonuke position this information is UI to me, but also I think I would not even be permitted to discover this information at my turn. Have I now got em for MI? Tony From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 16:08:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA25173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:08:17 +1100 Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.114]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA25168 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:08:13 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn14p09.ozemail.com.au [203.108.25.137]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA00291 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:08:10 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:08:10 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199902150508.QAA00291@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: L27B2? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following question was discussed in the latest issue of the Australian Director's Bulletin: "North opens 2NT (which is alerted and explained), East passes, South bids 2D!. It is not accepted. Away from the table you ask North what 3D by South would mean. North tells you that it is natural (2NT showing the minors), but that South has given a wrong explanation. South gave the explanation of their old system, in which case 3D would have been artificial." Could someone help sort out the UI and MI issues for me please? Tony From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 17:46:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:46:06 +1100 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA25269 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:45:59 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.122] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10CHm7-00072b-00; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 06:44:59 +0000 Message-ID: <199902150645280910.10C2000D@mail.btinternet.com> References: <36d00fd0.4254407@post12.tele.dk> <199902150644150970.10C0E317@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 06:45:28 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 14/02/99, at 19:03, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:37:17 +0000, David Burn > wrote: > >>... but what you may not do is obtain the information from any source at all and then claim that since you were entitled to it anyway, it is AI. Let me ask you this. Suppose the player in the example saw his RHO open 2D. He places the 2H card on the table to make his takeout bid when a puzzled kibitzer whispers to him: "You knew that was Roman, didn't you?" Would this be AI to the player? > >IMO yes. (The kibitzer would be taken out and shot, of course.) For what crime? Making AI available to the player who ought to have it? That is surely no offence. I venture to think that because you want to shoot the kibitzer, you do not approve of the way in which information has been placed in front of a player who "ought" not to have it. If the kibitzer ought to be shot for making this AI available to a careless player, why should that player's partner not also be shot? >The alternative to its being AI is to use L16B, of which the only >workable part is probably L16B3: award an artificial assigned >score. That seems to me to be a much less satisfactory solution >than letting play continue with the information as AI. Well, you could use L73A1 if you chose (the "real" Law under which the "professional question" is banned, L73B1 being flawed for that purpose, or indeed any other). You could also use L21A: "A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding". Why is he being given the recourse that his partner asked a question, when this Law states that he has no recourse at all? >What about the following situation, which I find analogous: RHO >opens 1D, but you see it incorrectly as 1H. You overcall 2D, and >when partner alerts, you look down and realize that the opening >call was actually 1D. Is it AI or UI that RHO opened 1D? I'd have to think about that one. But, if it happened in practice, I do not believe that the opponents would complain! As I implied in a previous post, I believe that a saint should act as though he had overcalled 1H with 2D. Human players will not be capable of doing this - if they were, then we would have nothing to talk about, for the Laws of bridge and any other game would read as follows: "Law 1. Don't cheat. There is no need for any Law 2." I suppose that the difference between us is that: I think the Laws ought to be constructed for saints, and human beings should try to follow them as best they can; whereas you (and DWS, and others) think the Laws ought to cater for human beings, and the saints can look after themselves. >If I remember correctly, we have previously established a >widespread agreement on BLML that the calls actually made are >always AI, Doubtless it took six months' argument before we were all agreed on that point. >no matter how you find out what those calls were (when >not using bidding boxes, the reply to partner's request for a >review of the auction, for instance). My position is that >information about the opponents' system is analogous and should >also have the status of never being UI. That is a perfectly consistent point of view, with which I would have no difficulty if it were embodied in the Laws. The current Laws support it, as they support the alternative (that any information arising from partner's activities other than calls and plays is not authorized). That the Laws support these diametrically opposing points of view is not our fault, and perhaps something (Ton?) might be done. As to what might be done... well, Jesper has made his case and I have made mine. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 19:55:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA25462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:55:48 +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 TAA25456 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:55:42 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA02103 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:54:52 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 15 Feb 99 08:54 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: David Burn wrote: > ... but what you may not do is obtain the information from any source > at all and then claim that since you were entitled to it anyway, it is > AI. Let me ask you this. Suppose the player in the example saw his RHO > open 2D. He places the 2H card on the table to make his takeout bid > when a puzzled kibitzer whispers to him: "You knew that was Roman, > didn't you?" Would this be AI to the player? Of course not - and we have L16B to deal with it (and in a money game we can make the errant kibitzer pay the difference between the split scores we undoubtedly have to award). But if the player's LHO makes the same statement then it is AI. While it is possible to draw the conclusions about the Law in the way that DB proposes that does not mean that it is either desirable or workable in practice. Some statements: Players are entitled to full disclosure of the opposing system at any time. A player may ask oppos any question which assists him in obtaining full disclosure. Such questions are UI to partner. It is undesirable for the players to receive different explanations of any opposition bid. Some of the above have the force of law, some are restricted by regulation and some are just my feelings for the "spirit of the game". I come to a different conclusion to what is UI/AI than DB but both of us could be kept happy with the regulation "You must inquire if an opposition bid is alerted." Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 20:01:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:01:38 +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 UAA25480 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:01:32 +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 <19990215090127.FTNB23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 01:01:27 -0800 Message-ID: <36C7E354.181ED5FA@home.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 01:05:24 -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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C52AE8.DE56C5B3@home.com> <199902130930580510.070C6B93@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > It is my opponents' task to explain their methods fully and > correctly. But, barring announcements etc, they can only do that in response to questions. > If they fail in that task, there are mechanisms by which > my side can obtain redress. It is my task to ensure that I have taken > what steps the Laws permit to obtain the information I need on which > to base my own calls or plays. If I fail in that task, then I will > probably end up with a poor result. It is my partner's task - and no > one else's - to ensure that he takes what steps the Laws permit to > obtain the information he needs on which to base his calls or plays. > It is emphatically not my task to ensure that my partner is provided > with information. I had thought we were all agreed that the > "professional question" is not part of the game. Perhaps we are not. As far as I'm concerned we are, but from one doesn't neccessarily follow the other. As in life, there are more goals than one and sometimes the ways to achieve one conflict with the ways to achieve another. > Perhaps it's time for one of Herman's polls. It's an easy one this time - you and Herman against the rest! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 20:14:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:14:53 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA25503 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:14:48 +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 <19990215091443.FUWK23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 01:14:43 -0800 Message-ID: <36C7E66F.4FA6DFFB@home.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 01:18:39 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <36C54854.57BC69BD@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Let me state again : Answers to partners questions are UI. You can "state" it 50 times, that still doesn't make it the truth. If this was indeed obvious from the laws, I don't think GE, DS, JD et al would oppose this assertion. Give your opinion and don't state it as a "fact" without specific, unambiguous, reference to a law. > The same information need not be asked a second time to > become AI, but player must be able to make clear/acceptable > that he would have asked the same question at his turn, in > order for the UI to turn into AI. And good luck determining that in an objective manner! You also seem to contradict earlier posts where you implied that the burden was on TD to prove otherwise and that in 99.9% of cases the info would be turned into AI. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 20:51:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:51:59 +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 UAA25544 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:51:54 +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 <19990215095149.FYTR23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 01:51:49 -0800 Message-ID: <36C7EF22.ADB1575D@home.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 01:55:46 -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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <36d00fd0.4254407@post12.tele.dk> <199902150644150970.10C0E317@mail.btinternet.com> <199902150645280910.10C2000D@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > If the > kibitzer ought to be shot for making this AI available to a careless > player, why should that player's partner not also be shot? Maybe because the player's partner is allowed to ask questions at his turn (provided not solely for pard's benefit) whereas the kibitzer is not? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 15 21:53:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:53:00 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA25659 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:52:54 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-65.uunet.be [194.7.9.65]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA06780 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:52:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C7F0F3.AE0128F9@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:03:31 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > > ++++ Because of unfinished business within the WBFLC I am refraining > from speaking to the opinions I have been reading. However, if you > take the view some have expressed that opponents' answers to partner's > questions are UI, it follows that when partner asks and opponent replies > Law 16 applies procedurally to the situation. Depending whether you > take the view that the information has been made available by the > partner, or whether it has been made available accidentally, the procedure > applicable is that in 16A or 16B respectively. If you take the view that it > has been made available by the player answering the question Law 16 > has no application - and since the question and answer are authorized > by Laws 20 and 75C, subject to any regulations in respect of written > explanations, screens, disclosure etc. I can find nothing in the laws then > which limits use of the information to one member of the side only. > The WBFLC decision that it is illegal to ask a question for the > purpose of making partner aware of the information in the reply is > referable to Law 73B1. There has been no suggestion to now that the > response to a question legitimately asked is a communication with > partner contrary to this law. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ I am happy to see that Grattan has taken intrest in this question. He, and some others, take the opinion that it would be wrong to have L16 restrictions on people whose partner has done nothing wrong, and that therefor it should be AI. I don't believe that argument is valid. There is another situation which is quite analogous : partner's answer to opponents' questions. This is clearly understood to be considered UI, although nothing wrong has happened. But we are just as clear that when the I is available at the same time through AI (in that case the fact that the explanation does indeed correspond to the hand), that there are no L16 restrictions. Only when partner's answer does not correspond to the hand we hold, is the I considered UI and are we subject to L16 restrictions. Similarly, I suggest that when the opponent's answer does not correspond to some notion we were haveing about opponent's system, does it become UI and are we subject to restrictions. Do you see the analogy (even if the actual case would be very rare) ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 00:03:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:03:01 +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 AAA25915 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:02:54 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-119.uunet.be [194.7.9.119]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28069 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:02:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C80289.14D4D2A9@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:18:33 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <36cf0fb5.4226837@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:37:03 +0000, David Burn > wrote: > > >There are, as far as I can see, two practical solutions to this. One: all information from replies to questions is AI. That allows the "professional question", which to my way of thinking is just as undesirable as the "lead-directine question" - but there are those who do not share this belief. > > I don't see why it allows the "professional question". Asking > for the purpose of informing partner is illegal. If you do it > anyway, you can be penalized - but the actual reply should still > be AI to partner. Yes, it can be difficult to penalize because > it can be difficult to determine that the pro asked for that > purpose - but this is just one of very many ways of cheating that > are easy to get away with if you really want to cheat. > How do you suggest penalizing the professional question ? by PP's ? That means you have to prove intent ! Or by making the answer UI, if you consider the question professional ? That means you have to prove intent ! Professionals will be qute able to cover up this intent. But if you make the answer itself UI, providing you can turn this into AI when the client would also ask, you only need to prove the failure of the client to ask! Sometimes a case like this might come up. Opponents notice the very fine lead by the client and call the TD. The TD asks the client how he found the lead, and the client duly answers, because of the bidding. The opponents tell that it was the Pro who had asked and The TD asks the client when and if he would have posed the same question, and the client admits that he would probably not have thought of asking the same question. There, you have him ! In your opinion, you would now also need to prove that the Pro intentionally asked the question. This is almost impossible to do. No, certainly if you want to prevent the professional question, you need to rule the answers UI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 00:03:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:03:22 +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 AAA25937 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:03:14 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-119.uunet.be [194.7.9.119]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28146 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:03:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C8122A.7BBC139E@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:25:14 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C56FE2.E9C36FFA@village.uunet.be> <36C5A75D.7CFDD96B@village.uunet.be> <36C775D4.FFBD21AA@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Why do you rule UI if partner asks for my benefit, but not > > if he asks solely for his, but I happen to pick something up > > which I had failed to pick up before, for whatever reason ? > > Because according to L73B1 the former is specifically disallowed whereas > there is no law (if there is, now is a good time to quote it:-)) > disallowing the latter. > L16 ! > > If you rule that way, you are ruling on the intent of > > partner, not on the actual information received ! > > Since the law tells us to. You are also ruling based on a player's > intent (or testimony as to what went on in his head), namely that of > questioneer's partner. > > Don't you see that your position on this forces each player to inquire > each time it is his term to bid since, if not, he can always be > challenged on whether or not he would have found out something on his > own or whether it was the response to pard's subsequent inquiry that > clarified the matter. I find this impractical, time-wasting and totally > annoying, and beleive I'm not alone. I am not forcing such a thing ! I am willing to turn every piece of UI into AI, provided the player has some reason why he did not ask at his turn. That reason can either be because he was (not yet) interested in that piece of information at that time, or because his partner had already asked when it was indeed his turn. I am quite willing to go as far as we currently do in that. I will even accept double negatives. I will not accept clear proof that a player was uninterested because of lack of interest, or sufficient knowledge of the game, or if player had previously misunderstood the same thing. I am not suggesting any different rulings from the ones we have been doing all along. I AM suggesting that this is true, in order to solve extreme cases such as the one this discussion started from. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 00:03:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:03:19 +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 AAA25929 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:03:10 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-119.uunet.be [194.7.9.119]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28117 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:03:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C80E7B.E153DD2F@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:09:31 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C56FE2.E9C36FFA@village.uunet.be> <36C5A75D.7CFDD96B@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote, as usual, several quite poignant replies: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >Well, I do. > >Do you realy think we are ruling three different kinds of > >bridge ? > > No. > Good. We agree on something. > >I don't, and I don't think many on blml agree. > > Nor do I. > Or do we ? > > I agree that it is all one game. > > But I do not agree that the game played in clubs is an inferior sort > to some game played where players never see or hear each other and rely > on electronics. > > I have not suggested that it is a different game: I just disagree with > what is stated as the "ideal". > I agree with you if what you are saying is that they are three different approaches to one ideal, none of which is higher or lower than another, just different. > >Well, let me rephrase : three possibilities : > >1) partner asks : what is 2D - answer : Roman > >2) partner asks : is this Roman ? - answer : Yes > >3) partner looks at CC and says : ah, Roman ! > >While the third may convey UI in some cases, it won't in > >most, especially if you have yourself already checked the > >CC. If the three possibilities have been done in the same > >"careless manner", with no intention of waking you up, then > >is the fact that it is Roman not the same (AI or UI) in all > >three cases ? > > UI is information whether useful or not that is unauthorised. Thus 3) > is a statement by partner, and it is not authorised information to you, > so it is UI. It does not matter whether you have checked the CC: it > *is* UI. We have talked before about what action a player may take if > he has information from two sources, one authorised, one unauthorised. > > In 2) partner has asked a question, and that question is UI. > > In 1) partner has asked a question, and that question is UI. > My point was that it cannot be good for bridge if you rule differently in the three cases, when the player obviously intended them alike. While possibly giving more UI, a player should not be discouraged in his asking "Stayman ?" rather than "What is that ?". > The question that led to this thread is whether the answer to > partner's question AI. The answer to your question is that partner's > questions are UI. However, that does not answer the question as to > whether the answer is to such a question is UI. > > It has been argued that since the question is UI, and the question > could include the answer, that the answer is UI even if the question > does not include the answer. No doubt I will get told off again, but I > do not see this argument. > Well, then your ruling should in fact be : AI in all three cases. If we agree that "Roman ? - yes" is the same as "2D? - Roman" (when it is meant as the same !), then that is what follows. I can agree with that answer, it is consistent and we return to the original question - is the response AI ? > To restate my position: > > 1 Partner's questions provide UI. > 2 Opponents' replies to questions are normally AI. > 3 I still have seen no particular reason why opponents' replies to > partner's questions are UI. > 4 I have no particular position as to whether it is desirable that > opponents' replies to partner's questions should be UI. > 5 I do not believe that comparing bridge without screens to bridge with > screens is necessarily helpful. > 6 I do not believe that the pure form of the game is with screens. > 7 I do not believe that the Laws should only be applied to one form of > the game, and I *certainly* never said so! > > Now, I know that people are going to misquote me as saying things I > have not said. I do not know why they do - it does not seem a > productive form of argument to me - so I better mention what I have not > said. > > I have not said that there is a clear and unambiguous Law that says > that replies to opponents' questions are AI. > OK ! So you are firmly in the camp : "I don't know, I don't care, and I have yet to see an example where it matters". > >> >I believe DB's best argument (premise if you want), is that > >> >it is up to a player himself to distill from the Information > >> >which is made available to him, those pieces he needs to > >> >make an informed decision as to his next action. > >> > > >> >If you believe that premmise to be untrue, please say so. > >> > >> This is fine. > >> > >> >It follows from that premise that both partner's question > >> >and the reply thereto, are UI. > >> > > >> >If the derivation of this is incomplete or incorrect, please > >> >say so too. > >> > >> This does not follow at all. > >> > > > >And why not ? If a player is deemed to do it himself, and > >in stead partner does it for him, does that not mean it is > >(or at least should be) UI ? > > I am sorry, but I really have no idea what you are talking about. I > see no connection between the two assertions above. > Sorry, I have tried to be as clear as I can. > >Why do you rule UI if partner asks for my benefit, but not > >if he asks solely for his, but I happen to pick something up > >which I had failed to pick up before, for whatever reason ? > >If you rule that way, you are ruling on the intent of > >partner, not on the actual information received ! > > I don't rule UI. Who says I rule UI if partner asks for my benefit? > Show me where I said that. Look, Herman, the more you quote me as > saying things I have not said, the more confused and pointless this > argument will be. > I will not try and wade through previous posts, but I was under the impression that you would rule against - I would be very much surprised if you had not said that, or if you hadn't, that you wouldn't. It may well be true that you have not stated that you would rule UI. But since I cannot imagine under what law you would rule against, I assumed it was UI. If I am mistaken, then sorry. but please tell us then how you would rule. > If partner asks a question specifically for my benefit, the question > is UI, the answer is AI, and I take disciplinary action against the > player for breach of L73B1. > > >> >One last question to DavidS : what is your "gut" feeling on > >> >a ruling in the original case ? And if it is that player > >> >will always work out from the 4He bid, what would you rule > >> >if partner had passed 2He, doubled by opener? Do you allow > >> >the player to pull ? > >> >I hope you understand what I am saying - barring other > >> >clues, would you allow the mistaken bidder to be awakened by > >> >the response to partner's question ? Gut feeling please ! > >> > > OK. My gut feeling about the original case is that the overcaller has > UI from the failure to alert his 2H bid so he knows that 2D is not > Flannery from an unauthorised source. Does this help the thread? > So again, you are unresponsive. I wanted to know what you would rule if neither the failure to alert, not the 4H call would matter. Say that both meaning were (non-)alertable, and the next call unhelpful. I realise this is a very theoretical case, but I continue to feel that our solution is the only consistent one (given our opinion - rather unchallenged - of what is good for bridge). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 00:03:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:03:06 +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 AAA25916 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:02:57 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-119.uunet.be [194.7.9.119]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28075 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:02:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C8038D.C6893B80@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:22:53 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <36d00fd0.4254407@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > What about the following situation, which I find analogous: RHO > opens 1D, but you see it incorrectly as 1H. You overcall 2D, and > when partner alerts, you look down and realize that the opening > call was actually 1D. Is it AI or UI that RHO opened 1D? > > If I remember correctly, we have previously established a > widespread agreement on BLML that the calls actually made are > always AI, no matter how you find out what those calls were (when > not using bidding boxes, the reply to partner's request for a > review of the auction, for instance). My position is that > information about the opponents' system is analogous and should > also have the status of never being UI. We did indeed come to that agreement, but I don't think it is analogous. When a bidding sequence continues, a player cannot imagine not knowing the bidding sequence, either because it is in front of him, or because he asks for a review. But a player can easily continue in his belief of what some bid actually means, once he has made his mind up about it. Which is a good distinction : "once he has made up his mind about it". Our original fellow had made up his mind that it was Flannery. All given counterexamples are cases in which the player, for some reason or other, had not yet found it necessary to find out about the meaning. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 00:03:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:03:29 +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 AAA25949 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:03:22 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-119.uunet.be [194.7.9.119]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28153 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:03:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C81763.DEABC473@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:47:31 +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: Across-the-Field (ATF) Matchpointing References: <19990214.140759.-92497.1.paulhar@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Paul D. Harrington" wrote: > > I apologize to those who think that this is not a bridge-laws discussion. Don't worry, Paul, I think it is a very valid topic of discussion among Tournament Directors, and that makes it valuable to this list. > > > >Herman wrote: It helps half-way, in that you also get compared (half) to > those you call your opponents. > > > Let's clear up this misconception. You have an expectation of positive > or negative matchpoints relative to the field due to the strength of your > opposition, in both your direction and in the people against whom you > play. You always have an expectation of a 50% score, provided you are an average player in the field you are in. > The lower the number of comprisons, the higher the expected > deviation for this expectation from zero. That is true, but totally aside the question now. The solution is simple : play more rounds, more boards, more opponents, more sessions, ... > If you played in a 13 table > section in a large field, matchpointed only in your section, BUT each > pair in your section played vs. 13 different pairs, I would expect the > expected positive deviation from playing IN the weakest section to be > equivalent to the expected positive deviation from playing AGAINST > similarly weak opponents (who your section-mates didn't get to play.) You are referring to 13 table sections, but with a fixed number of rounds (what number is that - 7?)? Two problems then are compounded : the selection of the 13 in your line, and the selection of the particular 7 out of 13 you face! The second problem should be discounted - it is just a particular case of the total opponent selection problem. Still, the selection of the 13 pairs in your opposing line is of importance. Or rather that selection, compared to the 13 in your own line. Let me put it this way : you are a 50% player (given the total field). From the draw, you are placed in a 51% (average) line, and you are playing against a 48% (average) line. I calculate that this should lead, in ATF scoring, to an average of 51.5% to this section. When scoring in your section alone, however, the average will be forced to 50% again. When you had expected 50% ATF, you will now score 48.5%. > Playing in a 13-table section scored in the section only where you play > vs. the same opponents nullifies the strength of your opponents since > everyone else who you are scored against plays them also. > But you get 50% when you should have 52% ! > In a huge field (lets use 104 tables as an example) scored ATF, you have > the expectation for positive or negative matchpoints exists based on the > 104 table N/S field vs. the 104 table E/W field, but with such a high > sample, the expectation rates to be very small. However, you still have > the relatively large deviation based on the 13 opponents you play. > That is, as I said, unavoidable. > Arrow switches WILL NOT help half-way; you will still be comparing with > 103 other people; your expected deviation from the norm based on strength > of opponents will still be mostly based on the 13 pairs you play against. > Not true, you will not be compared to 103 people, rather 207 ! But indeed, ATF, 104 tables, I don't recommend arrow-switching. It is far too cumbersome for just a small advantage. > In fact, it will be WORSE, since before you would never be COMPARED to > any of your 13 direct opponents, now you will have some of your scores > compared with them as well! Which is a good thing - as opponents they hinder you, as comparisons, their strength helps you - and vice-versa. In small heats, half the effect of the opponents is cancelled by arrow-switching. > However, the amount that arrow-switches make > fair comparison worse is so slight that it hardly matters. (For those > non-believers, imagine a pair so bad that they always get a zero by > bidding 7nt on every hand and playing double-dummy bad. You will get > your two tops when you play them but now with arrow switches you will > occasionally pick up an extra matchpoint for playing a board the same way > they do.) > Occasionally ? - no : half the time ! > Taking only sections into account and not whom you skip or don't reach IN > the section (or assuming only 13 table sections), perhaps the fairest > thing to do is to adjust each section's score based on how the section > they just played against did in the ATF. > That would not be a valid solution. I don't have time now to go into that thing more thoroughly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 00:03:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:03:21 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA25931 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:03:13 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-119.uunet.be [194.7.9.119]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28136 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:03:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C810CB.2195D427@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:19:23 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <36ca52fb.1042969@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal gave a very good analysis: > > > At any time, a bridge player's situation in regard to a specific > piece of useful information is one of the following three: > > (a) He has that information as AI, > (b) He does not have that information, > (c) He has that information as UI. > > I assume that we can quickly agree that from the (ethical) > player's point of view (a) is preferable to (b) and (b) is > preferable to (c). > > Our lazy player who had not read the CC carefully enough is in > situation (b). If left undisturbed, he will either remain in (b) > or change to (a) (if, for instance, partner's 4H bid makes him > check the CC carefully - which seems very probable to me). > > This is fine: he has deserved to be in that situation. > > Now his partner asks a question, and the reply gives the > information to the lazy player. For the sake of this discussion > let us assume that partner definitely asked because he really > needed to know. > Quite a good assumption, but we also need to check our "interpretation" with the opposite assumption. (*) > The lawmakers and -interpreters must now choose whether that > should give the lazy player the advantage of situation (a) or the > disadvantage of situation (c). > > Unfortunately there is no position "between" (a) and (c) that we > can put him in. (We might of course attempt to define some > category of information that is "between" AI and UI, but I am > quite certain that it would be impossible to do so in a > reasonable way that would be practically manageable by players > and TDs.) > Very good analysis. > My choice is (a), because: Personal opinions coming up, personal replies too. > * (c) is often very much worse than (b), and I don't think his > laziness should be penalized that harshly, Very personal opinion, not valid. > * If left to himself, I think that he would quite often find out > what was going on (and end up in (a)) before it made a great > difference to his further bidding, Indeed quite often. If he does, I will rule that the information has turned from UI into AI. I may actually be very lenient in this ruling So for the "quite often" case, it does not matter whether (a) or (c). What do we rule in the "quite rarely" case is what matters. > * He might just as well have got the information in some other > way: the opponents might have discussed their system before the > round or their CC might have been filled out slightly differently > so that he would have seen anyway even at a lazy glance. I.e., > though he has now received the information by accident through > partner's action, it was just as much by accident that he did not > know initially, Same argument. > * It seems more consistent with the principle of full disclosure > to give players more information about opponents' system than > they deserve than to give them "less" than they deserve (useful > information as UI is "less" than no information), Agreed, but full disclosure is always mentioned in the Laws as "fully abailable". Players are expected to do some searching for themselves. > * It is possible to enforce in practice without mind-reading, Quite untrue, when applied to the opposite case : in the professional question, we really need mind-reading. Any ruling requires some mind reading, and TD's have become quite good at that. > * The situation seems analogous with the one in which a player > has misheard or misseen a call and later discovers this because > of action by partner - and in that case I find it obvious that > the discovered call should be AI. Not so analogous at all, as I have pointed out in another post. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). I conclude that the difference between point-of-view (a) and (c) is totally unimportant in 99% of the cases, and if partner has asked for his own benefit. The regulation we are after should therefor correspond to our notions of fairness in the 1% case or with partner who conceals his intention of finding out in order to wake up opponent. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 01:52:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:52:19 +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 BAA28755 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:52:12 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.203] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10CPNH-0005sf-00; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:51:51 +0000 Message-ID: <199902151451390240.127F2BD2@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <36C7E354.181ED5FA@home.com> References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C52AE8.DE56C5B3@home.com> <199902130930580510.070C6B93@mail.btinternet.com> <36C7E354.181ED5FA@home.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:51:39 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 15/02/99, at 01:05, Jan Kamras wrote: >David Burn wrote: > >> It is my opponents' task to explain their methods fully and >> correctly. > >But, barring announcements etc, they can only do that in response to >questions. Well, they can have a convention card. They did have a convention card. I just didn't read it correctly. >It's an easy one this time - you and Herman against the rest! :-) Now, who will stand on my right hand And keep the bridge with me? If it's of any interest, I gave the problem to various groups of players at the final of our inter-county teams championship, where I was acting as the referee. Not international players all, though one or two were present, but capable performers in the expert category. I asked: "Suppose you have this hand: KQ10xx x QJxx QJx. RHO opens 2D, which you think is Flannery, so you bid 2H for takeout..." Here there was a pause for various exclamations of incredulity, which did not surprise me. "LHO", I continued, "passes, and partner asks what 2D was. He is told that it is Roman - any three suits, 11-15 hcp. He bids 4H. Are you in any way constrained in regard to your next action? For example, suppose 4H is doubled on your right - may you bid 4S?" Of twenty players, nineteen said "No - you must pass 4H doubled" almost immediately. The twentieth said: "Was this a hand from this weekend? If so, I hope you kept the appeal deposit!" Now, I may have mis-stated the problem, though I do not think that my words were different from those I have reported above. And, of course, mere players cannot be expected to understand the higher ramifications of the legal mind. But if I had to adopt one stance or the other on the subject of answers to questions, I am pretty sure that I know which stance would find most favour with expert players. Whether average players would agree is, I am aware, another matter. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 02:03:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 02:03:55 +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 CAA28984 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 02:03:46 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.203] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10CPYQ-0001DL-00; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:03:22 +0000 Message-ID: <199902151503100260.1289B782@mail.btinternet.com> References: <36cbb99b.3168365@post12.tele.dk> <36C69730.66D5EF1D@village.uunet.be> <36ce0fa9.4214560@post12.tele.dk> <199902142257430300.0F15B02E@mail.btinternet.com> <36C7ED89.4CAB6C70@home.com> <199902151502460970.12895C83@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:03:10 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 15/02/99, at 01:48, Jan Kamras wrote: >David Burn wrote: > >> Moreover - and this is crucial - the average player has no problem with >> this at all. > >I always find it amusing when experts pretend to know and represent what >average players think and feel. :-) Well, unlike the vast majority of experts, I was an average player myself once. Indeed, many would say that I still am. Certainly, part of my role within our administration is to try to understand the point of view of the average player. Perhaps I fail, but of this I am sure. The average player does not care very much at all what the rules are. All he cares about is that they are simple enough that he can play in accordance with them, and consistent enough that the same "offence" receives the same "punishment" wherever it occurs. That is not what is happening at the moment, and that is a pity. > It appears simpler to me to have a rule that means, in effect: >> "Any information that you acquire solely by listening to a conversation >> between partner and the opponents is information that you may not use" than >> to have the question of whether you may use it or not debated by learned >> people - such as you or I - who cannot make up their minds. > >I hate this type of "logic" which proves nothing at all but sounds so >convincing. It is not intellectually honest. Of course what you say is >true, but those are not the alternatives. >It is at least as simple if a rule says "All info given by opponents >about their methods is AI" as if it says "All info given by opponents >about their methods, in response to partner's questions, is UI". >I respect your opinion, although I disagree with it, but pls don't >pretend that simplicity is an argument for it. Indeed - either position, the UI one or the AI one, is of the same order of simplicity. If I had believed in the AI theory, I could have used exactly the same argument. Simplicity, which is devoutly to be wished, is a strong argument for either side, and I claim no monopoly on it. I believe, however, that my position is in fact simpler than the alternative, since it means that we do not need different rules for different methods of playing the game. I do not, then, "pretend" that simplicity is an argument for my position, It is one. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 02:22:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 02:22:22 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA29058 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 02:22:16 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-186.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.186]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA57020752 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:25:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36C83B79.53C2E060@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:21:29 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: reply BLML Subject: The Problem with UI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The issues of the 'UI or AI from answer to partner's question' thread are at once both complex and simple. Simple because the law goes to 'some length' to define AI and UI. Complex because it is neither easy to understand nor comply with the written law. Our solution has been to interpret this way and then that way. Our discussion on the matter is evidence of that. The law mandates that the opponents are entitled to have available the other side's methods. The law provides that taking a LA suggested by UI and causing damage is a basis for adjusting the score. The mechanisms chosen by the law and regulations mandate that UI be created in order to comply with the law and regulations. The crux of the discussion is finding the basis for calling AI that which the law mandates is UI- so that the UI laws do not come into force. I have seen many compelling arguments in several different directions and a few arguments that seem to be irrelevant. In any event, I have become convinced that the issue can not be resolved with the current set of laws and regulations. That the current arrangement is unworkable and not practical. As has been pointed out, as players discover the ramifications of the rules under which they are supposed play and the hopelessness of attempting to comply, a large percentage will be inclined to exercise their right to do something else with their time. It seems that the best resolution is to [a] set to paper the ideal game of bridge then [b] set to paper the 'human limitations' of practicality for actually playing bridge in the ideal manner and then [c] compose laws and regulations that will best approximate [b] while keeping [a] in mind- while knowing that a tremendous amount of wisdom is needed to find the best compromise. Roger Pewick From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 03:20:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:20:14 +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 DAA29373 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:20:05 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10CQkX-0005X5-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:19:58 +0000 Message-ID: <2Zmc6dAihEy2EwWS@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:16:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L27B2? In-Reply-To: <199902150508.QAA00291@oznet11.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199902150508.QAA00291@oznet11.ozemail.com.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >The following question was discussed in the latest issue of the Australian >Director's Bulletin: > >"North opens 2NT (which is alerted and explained), East passes, South bids >2D!. It is not accepted. Away from the table you ask North what 3D by South >would mean. North tells you that it is natural (2NT showing the minors), >but that South has given a wrong explanation. South gave the explanation of >their old system, in which case 3D would have been artificial." > >Could someone help sort out the UI and MI issues for me please? > > >Tony > I think the TD must rule that 3D would be artificial, because that is what South believes. South can pot the final contract, which is what he would do and North has UI, which he had all along. Then assuming NS buy the contract North must correct the MI before the opening lead, and the auction can be re-opened if necessary. We get nearest to equity by this route because the TD should have taken South away from the table and established why he bid 2D and what 3D would mean. Then we wouldn't be in this mess! This is what UK Directors are trained to do. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 03:20:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:20:15 +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 DAA29374 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:20:05 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10CQkY-0004Dx-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:19:59 +0000 Message-ID: <7J9fOjAPjEy2EwW2@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:18:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <199902151451390240.127F2BD2@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199902151451390240.127F2BD2@mail.btinternet.com>, David Burn writes > >Now, who will stand on my right hand >And keep the bridge with me? > Dave Stevenson of Upton, by the 9 gods he swore, that the great house of Edgar should suffer wrong no more! -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 03:23:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:23:08 +1100 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA29415 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:22:56 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA11502 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:19:48 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199902151619.KAA11502@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Do you announce an Insufficient Bid? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:19:48 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Okay, I'm sure this is nothing new for most of you, but it was new for me. Matchpoints, using bidding boxes, etc. [Irrelevant, I assume] My RHO opens 2D. Alerted [any 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0]. I have a 17HCP balanced hand, and I overcall 2NT. LHO immediately asks, and is told "Shows the equivalent of a 1NT opener". LHO passes. Partner now bids 2H. Now over a 1NT opener, 2H is a transfer, which I'm supposed to announce per ACBL rules.* And since LHO's question had focussed my partner's mind on "1NT opener", I was pretty sure this was what he thought he was doing. [*: We play 'systems on' over NT overcalls, so 2H would have been a transfer over a 1NT overcall, and 3H would have been a transfer over a 2NT overcall.] 1) What am I supposed to do? a) Announce the transfer, and leave it to RHO to notice that the bid is insufficient? b) Announce the transfer, and note that it is insufficient? c) Call the TD immediately? d) Say nothing, wait until RHO acts, and then say "If that had been sufficient it would have been a transfer"? e) Something else. Having never seen this before, I paused for a second, and before I could figure out what to do RHO slapped a Pass on the table. I then told RHO that it was probably a transfer*, but that the bid was insufficient. Partner said 'Oh' and started to reach for the bidding box to correct the bid, but I stopped him and called the TD. [* RHO grunted as if to indicate that he still wanted to pass.] The TD ruled that since it was an insufficient bid, we could have no agreements as to its meaning, and therefore I could not have announced or alerted its meaning since it had none. He ruled that RHO's pass accepted the insufficient bid, and that the bidding could continue without penalty or restriction on either side. I asked how to make a bid lower than my previous bid using bidding cards, and he told me to pick up my cards from my first bid and bid what I wanted. I "completed the transfer" by bidding 2S. Partner showed up with a 1 point hand and 5 spades, and we promptly went down when RHO showed up [not surprisingly] with a spade void. I don't know whether that turned out to be a good board for us or not. There was no appeal. 2) Did the TD rule correctly? -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 03:33:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:33:58 +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 DAA29479 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:33:50 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa05587; 15 Feb 99 8:33 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 13 Feb 1999 01:22:13 PST." <$TdWFpAFPNx2EweI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:33:18 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902150833.aa05587@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > However, OKBridge has shown that self-explanations and self-alerts > create other problems that explanations and alerts do not. They are > certainly not a universal panacea. Just out of curiosity, what other problems have been created? I'm not doubting you---it's just that I haven't seen or heard about any problems in the limited time I spend playing OKB. -- thanks, Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 03:45:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:45:24 +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 DAA29523 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:45:14 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.154]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA29653; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:43:01 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36C84EB7.FCC7EBA2@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:43:35 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: axeman CC: reply BLML Subject: Re: The Problem with UI References: <36C83B79.53C2E060@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger - I believe you are on the right way. I posted two days ago this kind of suggestion because I am afraid there will be no chance to play pleasant bridge .... I promise to try to put on paper a draft when the main aim is to avoid as much as possible UPI (..possible..) which doesn't arise from mannerism. Dany axeman wrote: > > The issues of the 'UI or AI from answer to partner's question' thread > are at once both complex and simple. Simple because the law goes to > 'some length' to define AI and UI. Complex because it is neither easy > to understand nor comply with the written law. Our solution has been to > interpret this way and then that way. Our discussion on the matter is > evidence of that. > > The law mandates that the opponents are entitled to have available the > other side's methods. The law provides that taking a LA suggested by UI > and causing damage is a basis for adjusting the score. The mechanisms > chosen by the law and regulations mandate that UI be created in order to > comply with the law and regulations. The crux of the discussion is > finding the basis for calling AI that which the law mandates is UI- so > that the UI laws do not come into force. I have seen many compelling > arguments in several different directions and a few arguments that seem > to be irrelevant. > > In any event, I have become convinced that the issue can not be resolved > with the current set of laws and regulations. That the current > arrangement is unworkable and not practical. As has been pointed out, > as players discover the ramifications of the rules under which they are > supposed play and the hopelessness of attempting to comply, a large > percentage will be inclined to exercise their right to do something else > with their time. > > It seems that the best resolution is to [a] set to paper the ideal game > of bridge then [b] set to paper the 'human limitations' of practicality > for actually playing bridge in the ideal manner and then [c] compose > laws and regulations that will best approximate [b] while keeping [a] in > mind- while knowing that a tremendous amount of wisdom is needed to find > the best compromise. > > Roger Pewick From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 04:51:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 04:51:10 +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 EAA29871 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 04:50:59 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10CSAX-0006Nx-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:50:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:49:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <9902150833.aa05587@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9902150833.aa05587@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> However, OKBridge has shown that self-explanations and self-alerts >> create other problems that explanations and alerts do not. They are >> certainly not a universal panacea. > >Just out of curiosity, what other problems have been created? I'm not >doubting you---it's just that I haven't seen or heard about any >problems in the limited time I spend playing OKB. > > -- thanks, Adam I psyche and then explain our agreements, very unpleasant. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 04:53:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 04:53:16 +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 EAA29891 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 04:53:10 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10CSCY-0003ZD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:52:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:51:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Do you announce an Insufficient Bid? In-Reply-To: <199902151619.KAA11502@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199902151619.KAA11502@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu writes > The TD ruled that since it was an insufficient bid, we could have >no agreements as to its meaning, and therefore I could not have announced >or alerted its meaning since it had none. He ruled that RHO's pass >accepted the insufficient bid, and that the bidding could continue without >penalty or restriction on either side. I asked how to make a bid lower >than my previous bid using bidding cards, and he told me to pick up my >cards from my first bid and bid what I wanted. > > I "completed the transfer" by bidding 2S. Partner showed up with >a 1 point hand and 5 spades, and we promptly went down when RHO showed up >[not surprisingly] with a spade void. I don't know whether that turned >out to be a good board for us or not. There was no appeal. > > 2) Did the TD rule correctly? IMO Yes. You are entitled to draw what inferences you wish from your partner's insufficient bid, as you are not in receipt of any unauthorised information. > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 05:02:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 05:02:29 +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 FAA29950 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 05:02:20 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-72.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.72]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA57010627 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:05:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36C860F8.358A3A0F@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:01:28 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C52AE8.DE56C5B3@home.com> <199902130930580510.070C6B93@mail.btinternet.com> <36C7E354.181ED5FA@home.com> <199902151451390240.127F2BD2@mail.btinternet.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 NAA57010627 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David, It might have been more enlightening to first find out what was the action of choice had there been no question until you ask the meaning of 2D at your next turn to call, finding out it was mini roman- in fact, do you even need to ask-[if you really want to bid 4S, asking your question would deliver gratuitous information to partner, and almost certainly will forfeit any potential gain from attempting a rescue]? Just to see, mind you what the bridge judgment was. Personally, I am much more likely to pass the hand altogether than to take action, yes I have significant prospects with the hand pattern, but the opponents have announced an unfair advantage and they too have shape. No wonder the panel apparently 'did not like your' action. I think that there could be disparate interpretations of the law that would lead to the panel conclusion that overcaller 'must pass'. I suspect that the consensus was that overcaller was not permitted to wake up, blah, blah, blah=85 I think that a better reason is that the heart fit could be a lot better than a fit anywhere else and that 4H may be the best of the remaining possible scores, and may result in the opponents getting to a poor contract. I think that the laws call for a pass because it is the best bridge action available at the moment, --not because of mind reading.=20 However, I think that even this approach needs to be improved upon because there is too broad a decision tree as things are now. Roger Pewick David Burn wrote: >=20 > On 15/02/99, at 01:05, Jan Kamras wrote: >=20 > >David Burn wrote: > > > >> It is my opponents' task to explain their methods fully and > >> correctly. > > > >But, barring announcements etc, they can only do that in response to > >questions. >=20 > Well, they can have a convention card. They did have a convention card.= I > just didn't read it correctly. >=20 > >It's an easy one this time - you and Herman against the rest! :-) >=20 > Now, who will stand on my right hand > And keep the bridge with me? >=20 > If it's of any interest, I gave the problem to various groups of player= s at > the final of our inter-county teams championship, where I was acting as= the > referee. Not international players all, though one or two were present,= but > capable performers in the expert category. I asked: >=20 > "Suppose you have this hand: KQ10xx x QJxx QJx. RHO opens 2D, which = you > think is Flannery, so you bid 2H for takeout..." Here there was a pause= for > various exclamations of incredulity, which did not surprise me. "LHO", = I > continued, "passes, and partner asks what 2D was. He is told that it is > Roman - any three suits, 11-15 hcp. He bids 4H. Are you in any way > constrained in regard to your next action? For example, suppose 4H is > doubled on your right - may you bid 4S?" >=20 > Of twenty players, nineteen said "No - you must pass 4H doubled" almost > immediately. The twentieth said: "Was this a hand from this weekend? If= so, > I hope you kept the appeal deposit!" >=20 > Now, I may have mis-stated the problem, though I do not think that my w= ords > were different from those I have reported above. And, of course, mere > players cannot be expected to understand the higher ramifications of th= e > legal mind. But if I had to adopt one stance or the other on the subjec= t of > answers to questions, I am pretty sure that I know which stance would f= ind > most favour with expert players. Whether average players would agree is= , I > am aware, another matter. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 06:04:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 06:04:24 +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 GAA00233 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 06:04:17 +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 <19990215190412.JOVP23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:04:12 -0800 Message-ID: <36C87099.E6E6190E@home.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:08:09 -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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C56FE2.E9C36FFA@village.uunet.be> <36C5A75D.7CFDD96B@village.uunet.be> <36C775D4.FFBD21AA@home.com> <36C8122A.7BBC139E@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Why do you rule UI if partner asks for my benefit, but not > > > if he asks solely for his, but I happen to pick something up > > > which I had failed to pick up before, for whatever reason ? [JK] > > Because according to L73B1 the former is specifically disallowed > > whereas there is no law (if there is, now is a good time to quote > > it:-)) disallowing the latter. > > [HdW] > L16 ! In your opinion, yes. Not unambiguously. Jesper has explained it better, but basically many of us consider the words "by means of ... a question" to refer to the fact that pard asked at that time in the first place, and the words "by means of ....... a reply to a question" to refer to when *pard* replies to a question by an opponent. Based on this equally (at least) logical premise, L16 does not support your interpretation. > I am willing to turn every piece of UI into AI, provided the > player has some reason why he did not ask at his turn. That > reason can either be because he was (not yet) interested in > that piece of information at that time, or because his > partner had already asked when it was indeed his turn. > I am quite willing to go as far as we currently do in that. > I will even accept double negatives. I will not accept > clear proof that a player was uninterested because of lack > of interest, or sufficient knowledge of the game, or if > player had previously misunderstood the same thing. As long as you are willing to accept that the "burden of proof" is indeed on the accuser, the net result of the different approaches will be the same. What I fail to see then is why you want to start with AI and convert to UI 99% of the time. It seems easier, and equally consonant (tks for the word, DB) with the laws, to start from the normal 99% case of AI and only convert to UI in the rare cases. So I'm a bit lazy! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 06:51:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 06:51:46 +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 GAA00375 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 06:51:39 +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 <19990215195134.KAYM23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:51:34 -0800 Message-ID: <36C87BB3.C3F1F825@home.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:55:31 -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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C52AE8.DE56C5B3@home.com> <199902130930580510.070C6B93@mail.btinternet.com> <36C7E354.181ED5FA@home.com> <199902151451390240.127F2BD2@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > "Suppose you have this hand: KQ10xx x QJxx QJx. RHO opens 2D, which you > think is Flannery, so you bid 2H for takeout..." Here there was a pause for > various exclamations of incredulity, which did not surprise me. "LHO", I > continued, "passes, and partner asks what 2D was. He is told that it is > Roman - any three suits, 11-15 hcp. He bids 4H. Are you in any way > constrained in regard to your next action? For example, suppose 4H is > doubled on your right - may you bid 4S?" > > Of twenty players, nineteen said "No - you must pass 4H doubled" almost > immediately. The twentieth said: "Was this a hand from this weekend? If so, > I hope you kept the appeal deposit!" > > Now, I may have mis-stated the problem, though I do not think that my words > were different from those I have reported above. And, of course, mere > players cannot be expected to understand the higher ramifications of the > legal mind. But if I had to adopt one stance or the other on the subject of > answers to questions, I am pretty sure that I know which stance would find > most favour with expert players. Whether average players would agree is, I > am aware, another matter. The problem with this thread has been the specific example that started it. Did you ask those 20 the basis for their decision i.e. were they constrained by (a) knowing the correct meaning of 2D or (b) partner's failure to alert 2H - ie "ME" or (c) having "misbid" with 2H? Even here on BLML i think most have agreed that constrains apply, but due to (b), not (a). Thus the only thing this "study" proves is the familiar concept of "crap in, crap out" :-) Btw, what did the 20 consider as LAs? Put differently, how did they intend to interpret the jump cuebid to 4H in response to the "T/O 2H"? Pls don't say it doesn't matter. If one assumes 4H cannot be natural then pass is not an LA. (I'm not arguing the meaning of 4H, just the principle). Finally, to "prove" that the study was flawed, my first instinct when seeing the original problem was also to enforce a pass, but I still support that "opponent's explanation of their methods are AI until proven UI". From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 07:27:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:27:26 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA00456 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:27:20 +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 <19990215202714.KJTU23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:27:14 -0800 Message-ID: <36C8840F.F29CE821@home.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:31:11 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <36cbb99b.3168365@post12.tele.dk> <36C69730.66D5EF1D@village.uunet.be> <36ce0fa9.4214560@post12.tele.dk> <199902142257430300.0F15B02E@mail.btinternet.com> <36C7ED89.4CAB6C70@home.com> <199902151502460970.12895C83@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > The average player > does not care very much at all what the rules are. All he cares about > is that they are simple enough that he can play in accordance with > them, and consistent enough that the same "offence" receives the same > "punishment" > wherever it occurs. That is not what is happening at the moment, and > that is a pity. With this I fully agree From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 07:56:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:56:45 +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 HAA00545 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:56:36 +1100 Received: from ip62.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.62]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990215205624.NUPD3288.fep4@ip62.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:56:24 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:56:22 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36cd87ce.4668482@post12.tele.dk> References: <36cbb99b.3168365@post12.tele.dk> <36C69730.66D5EF1D@village.uunet.be> <36ce0fa9.4214560@post12.tele.dk> <199902142257430300.0F15B02E@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902142257430300.0F15B02E@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 Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:57:43 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >[JD] >>No, you can beat it by telling these pros (and their clients!) >>that it is illegal and that they are cheating (and that they are >>also making it much more difficult for their clients to learn to >>ask for themselves). If they don't stop, penalize them (L72B2, >>L90B8) and report them to the relevant Ethics Committee. > >Perhaps, Jesper. But that solution requires policing over a long period = of >time, during which innocent opponents will get rotten scores=20 I do not find it important to protects players' right to a good score achieved because their opponents did not understand their system. The "rotten score" you are talking about is IMO the correct bridge result according to the principle of full disclosure. (The not so rotten score that would have been the result if the information had not been available because no question had been asked is another correct bridge result - I consider it accidental whether we get one or the other of those two results, and they are equally "good".) When my opponents miscount trumps or revoke or use UI and get ruled against, I am perfectly happy with my resulting good score because it is based on my opponents committing a "bridge error". But when I get a good score because they have not understood my system, I'm not really happy about it. That is IMO not what bridge should be about. >which they >would not have got if the whole thing were made explicitly illegal, This means making the answer UI, right? Asking for partner's benefit is already explicitly illegal (by WBFLC interpretation). >for >then they could obtain redress at once (and the "professionals" would = learn >far faster that dishonesty does not pay). Could they? How often could you adjust a score based on that kind of UI without mind-reading? You seem to be saying that it is easy to determine whether the partner would have asked for himself or not (which you need in order to adjust the score), but difficult to determine whether the pro asked for the benefit of his partner (which I need in order to give a PP to the pro). I think both are difficult, and that the former is more difficult than the latter. >The problem does not arise only when professionals play with clients; it >arises when unscrupulous experts play with partners not in the expert >category. Most people "not in the expert category" should be able to ask any necessary questions themselves. It still seems to me that you would have to be something like a beginner in order to gain a significant advantage from partner's questions. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 07:56:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:56:44 +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 HAA00546 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:56:37 +1100 Received: from ip62.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.62]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990215205631.NUPM3288.fep4@ip62.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:56:31 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:56:30 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36ce88cc.4922638@post12.tele.dk> References: <36cf0fb5.4226837@post12.tele.dk> <36C80289.14D4D2A9@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36C80289.14D4D2A9@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:18:33 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >How do you suggest penalizing the professional question ?=20 >by PP's ? >That means you have to prove intent ! >Or by making the answer UI, if you consider the question >professional ? >That means you have to prove intent ! >Professionals will be qute able to cover up this intent. Cheaters with just a minimum of intelligence will in general be able to cover up their intent. We cannot solve the problem of cheating by making answers to questions UI. We may be able to solve it by making it very clear to the pros and their clients that it _is_ cheating. >But if you make the answer itself UI, providing you can turn >this into AI when the client would also ask, you only need >to prove the failure of the client to ask! "Only"? How would you "prove" that the client would not ask at his next turn? Or that he did not know in advance? There is another problem with this: other forms of UI generally do not become AI just because it seems plausible that the same information would later become available as AI. If I misbid and get that information as UI by partner's explanation, then it remains UI even if is fairly probable that I would discover my misbid myself, or even if I quite truthfully tell the TD that I had already discovered it before the explanation. You seem to want a much more lenient view of the "reply to partner's question" UI. I can understand that (after all, I want the completely lenient view that it is AI), but I doubt very much if we can handle different types of UI in practice. >Sometimes a case like this might come up. Opponents notice >the very fine lead by the client and call the TD. The TD >asks the client how he found the lead, and the client duly >answers, because of the bidding. The opponents tell that it >was the Pro who had asked and The TD asks the client when >and if he would have posed the same question, and the client >admits that he would probably not have thought of asking the >same question. There, you have him ! I should hope not. Either the pro has asked for his partner's benefit, which is illegal. Or he has asked for his own benefit, which is legal; in that case, his partner certainly has a right to listen to the answer and not need to worry about whether or not he would have asked of his own accord. The TD has no business interrogating players about what they think they would have done in such a completely hypothetical situation. The client has a right to know his opponents' system; he knew his opponents' system; he took advantage of that knowledge; that is ordinary, legal bridge. (What kind of players are these opponents who feel that there is something suspect about their opponents understanding their system? I have about as much sympathy for them as I have for the cheating pro...) Besides, I find it hard to believe that a player who is good enough to find a good lead because of the bidding is not also good enough to find out what he needs to know about the bidding. >In your opinion, you would now also need to prove that the >Pro intentionally asked the question. This is almost >impossible to do. I could ask him. If he lies, then at least _he_ (and quite probably also his client) know that he is blatantly cheating. I could explain to him and to his client that asking for partner's benefit is illegal and, when you know it is illegal, cheating. If they still cheat, I have exactly the same problem as I have with other types of cheaters: it is difficult to prove. I can live with that - there aren't so many cheaters around that I'm willing to make the rules primarily for their sake. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 07:57:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:57:01 +1100 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA00558 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:56:50 +1100 Received: from ip62.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.62]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990215205644.NUQF3288.fep4@ip62.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:56:44 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:56:40 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36cf895f.5069539@post12.tele.dk> References: <36d00fd0.4254407@post12.tele.dk> <199902150644150970.10C0E317@mail.btinternet.com> <199902150645280910.10C2000D@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902150645280910.10C2000D@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 Mon, 15 Feb 1999 06:45:28 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >On 14/02/99, at 19:03, Jesper Dybdal wrote:=20 >>IMO yes. (The kibitzer would be taken out and shot, of course.) > >For what crime? Making AI available to the player who ought to have it? >That is surely no offence. =46or a kibitzer to say anything at all to a player during a round is an offense (L76A3). For a kibitzer to say something that changes the bridge-related events at a bridge table in any way is a serious offense. >I venture to think that because you want to >shoot the kibitzer, you do not approve of the way in which information = has >been placed in front of a player who "ought" not to have it. I do not approve of kibitzers interfering. >If the >kibitzer ought to be shot for making this AI available to a careless >player, why should that player's partner not also be shot? He should, if he asked for the purpose of informing partner. But if he asked for the purpose of getting information for himself, then he is exercising his L20F right. Should he not be allowed to do so? >>The alternative to its being AI is to use L16B, of which the only >>workable part is probably L16B3: award an artificial assigned >>score. That seems to me to be a much less satisfactory solution >>than letting play continue with the information as AI. > >Well, you could use L73A1 if you chose (the "real" Law under which the >"professional question" is banned, L73B1 being flawed for that purpose, = or >indeed any other). You could also use L21A: "A player has no recourse if= he >has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding". Why is he = being >given the recourse that his partner asked a question, when this Law = states >that he has no recourse at all? I don't understand this. You say that the information should be UI. L16 is the law that tells us what to do when there is UI. Surely we cannot call something UI and not use L16 to handle it? >I suppose that the difference >between us is that: I think the Laws ought to be constructed for saints, >and human beings should try to follow them as best they can; whereas you >(and DWS, and others) think the Laws ought to cater for human beings, = and >the saints can look after themselves. I'm glad to see you write that, since I had (mis)understood from something you wrote recently that you believed the laws should be constructed for cheaters. The laws should be constructed for human beings trying to act like saints. We disagree about what the proper behaviour for a saint is. >>If I remember correctly, we have previously established a >>widespread agreement on BLML that the calls actually made are >>always AI,=20 > >Doubtless it took six months' argument before we were all agreed on that >point. I actually think there was agreement immediately. Though I fail to see what difference it does to the current argument. >>no matter how you find out what those calls were (when >>not using bidding boxes, the reply to partner's request for a >>review of the auction, for instance). My position is that >>information about the opponents' system is analogous and should >>also have the status of never being UI. > >That is a perfectly consistent point of view, with which I would have no >difficulty if it were embodied in the Laws. The current Laws support it,= as >they support the alternative (that any information arising from = partner's >activities other than calls and plays is not authorized). That the Laws >support these diametrically opposing points of view is not our fault, = and >perhaps something (Ton?) might be done. As to what might be done... = well, >Jesper has made his case and I have made mine. Yes, it can't be long until we've exhausted the subject - I hope. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 07:57:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:57:13 +1100 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA00580 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:57:01 +1100 Received: from ip62.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.62]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990215205650.NUQQ3288.fep4@ip62.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:56:50 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:56:50 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36d0898f.5117338@post12.tele.dk> References: <36ca52fb.1042969@post12.tele.dk> <36C810CB.2195D427@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36C810CB.2195D427@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:19:23 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal gave a very good analysis: Thanks. >> My choice is (a), because: > >Personal opinions coming up, personal replies too. > >> * (c) is often very much worse than (b), and I don't think his >> laziness should be penalized that harshly, > >Very personal opinion, not valid. "Not valid"? Why not? We are discussing what the laws should say on a subject on which they currently say nothing very useful. This primarily means deciding what is most fair and reasonable. It seems to me that personal opinions are exactly the way to judge what is fair and reasonable. I even consider _your_ personal opinion valid and relevant (but wrong, of course :-)). >> * If left to himself, I think that he would quite often find out >> what was going on (and end up in (a)) before it made a great >> difference to his further bidding, > >Indeed quite often. >If he does, But you will need mind-reading to find out. And in principle, you will need to be called and practice mind-reading every single time a player does something successful after his partner has asked a question. That is quite often. > I will rule that the information has turned from >UI into AI. I may actually be very lenient in this ruling I'm glad to hear that, because it means that you do not really want to penalize in most of the situations where "ordinary" UI rules would work as a penalty. But as I've written elsewhere I doubt that we can really manage a distinction between UI where the TD should be lenient and normal UI where he should not. >> * It is possible to enforce in practice without mind-reading, > >Quite untrue, when applied to the opposite case : in the >professional question, we really need mind-reading. Any >ruling requires some mind reading, and TD's have become >quite good at that. Any catching of deliberate cheaters need mind-reading or very serious study of their behaviour. That is not a problem for me. Alternatively, solve the pro/client problem by making it legal to ask for partner's benefit - of course with any information from the fact that the question was asked still UI, but with the answer being AI. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 07:57:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:57:15 +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 HAA00581 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:57:04 +1100 Received: from ip62.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.62]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990215205656.NURB3288.fep4@ip62.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:56:56 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:56:56 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36cc846a.3800354@post12.tele.dk> References: <199902142344.SAA05649@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199902142344.SAA05649@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 Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:44:56 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >Let's be careful to distinguish three cases: >1. A question that tells something about your own hand. >2. A question that partner should have asked but might not have known to >ask. >3. A question after the opponents have already given misinformation in >response to a proper question. > >Number 1 is the "lead-directing question," and I trust we all agree that >it's flagrantly illegal. Yes. >Number 2 is what David B. aptly calls the "pro question." The WBFLC >has declared that this kind of question violates L73B1. I accept that, >as must we all, but I consider it an unnatural interpretation of the >actual text, and I consider it an interpretation that is bad for the >game. I believe both of these opinions to be minority ones, but so it >goes. At least if the pro question were legal, the rules would be >clear, and we wouldn't be having the current discussion. I agree. The problem is the distinction between 1 and 2 - or rather, teaching players to ask number 2 questions only when it gives partner no information about their hand or their defensive plan. But if we can handle that problem, I would prefer 2 to be legal. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 09:03:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:03:04 +1100 Received: from eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.189]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA00786 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:02:58 +1100 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA07155 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:03:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id OAA09270; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:04:38 -0800 Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:04:38 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199902152204.OAA09270@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How well may defenders play after a contested claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Assuming that the declarer has made the claim, the defenders are allowed to play double-dummy. After all, they've legally seen declarer's cards; that information is authorized for them. If they don't think of a line that will give them more tricks than they asked for, I don't know if the director ought to point it out. Probably not. --Jeff # 125-50---1998 World Champs # Go New York Yankees! # --- # http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 09:50:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:50:07 +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 JAA00887 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:50:01 +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 RAA16071 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:49:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:49:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902152249.RAA02732@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199902152204.OAA09270@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> (jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV) Subject: Re: How well may defenders play after a contested claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith writes: > Assuming that the declarer has made the claim, > the defenders are allowed to play double-dummy. > After all, they've legally seen declarer's cards; > that information is authorized for them. If they > don't think of a line that will give them more > tricks than they asked for, I don't know if the > director ought to point it out. Probably not. My situation was the reverse; the director didn't see the line that would (given a likely misplay by declarer) give the defenders an extra trick, and the defender who wouldn't have made the play pointed it out to director. Also, is it normal for a declarer who doesn't know who won the last trick to have a count on the hand and be able to set up and endplay? This seems to be what Law 70E covers; it is careless but not irrational to fail to set up an endplay, particularly if the endplay could cost a trick because there is one more diamond out than you think. -- 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 Feb 16 09:54:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:54:31 +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 JAA00907 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:54:25 +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 <19990215225419.LTNQ23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:54:19 -0800 Message-ID: <36C8A687.430CC2C7@home.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:58:15 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <36C7F0F3.AE0128F9@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think (hope?) this can be used to summarize the positions, at least as I see them, so that we can either end the thread or at least refocus (and rename) it. Herman De Wael wrote: [GE] > > ++++ Because of unfinished business within the WBFLC I am refraining > > from speaking to the opinions I have been reading. However, if you > > take the view some have expressed that opponents' answers to partner's > > questions are UI, it follows that when partner asks and opponent replies > > Law 16 applies procedurally to the situation. Depending whether you > > take the view that the information has been made available by the > > partner, or whether it has been made available accidentally, the procedure > > applicable is that in 16A or 16B respectively. If you take the view that it > > has been made available by the player answering the question Law 16 > > has no application - and since the question and answer are authorized > > by Laws 20 and 75C, subject to any regulations in respect of written > > explanations, screens, disclosure etc. I can find nothing in the laws then > > which limits use of the information to one member of the side only. > > The WBFLC decision that it is illegal to ask a question for the > > purpose of making partner aware of the information in the reply is > > referable to Law 73B1. There has been no suggestion to now that the > > response to a question legitimately asked is a communication with > > partner contrary to this law. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ [HdW] > I am happy to see that Grattan has taken intrest in this > question. > He, and some others, take the opinion that it would be wrong > to have L16 restrictions on people whose partner has done > nothing wrong, and that therefor it should be AI. > > I don't believe that argument is valid. So why are you "happy" that GE has taken an interest here? > There is another situation which is quite analogous : Not at all analogous - see below > partner's answer to opponents' questions. This is clearly > understood to be considered UI, although nothing wrong has > happened. The reason for this is that it is specifically mentioned in L16A. Your situation isn't. > Similarly, I suggest .... I am glad that you finally use the word "suggest", which facilitates my conclusions at the end. > .... that when the opponent's answer does > not correspond to some notion we were haveing about > opponent's system, does it become UI and are we subject to > restrictions. > Part of the confusion in this thread stems from the original situation not being well chosen for the argument we have ended up with. In the original situation pard's failure to alert 2H entered the equation, as did the fact that pard's 4H-bid in and of itself may have served as an alarm-clock. It seems that based on existing law GE, JD, DWS, AB, GS, RL, TW-M, MD, TM and JK agree that opponents' responses to pard's legal inquiries are AI from the beginning. It seems that HdW and DB either interpret existing law to say such responses start off as UI, or wish that the laws be thusly re-worded. It seems the positions are totally locked after extensive arguments back and forth, and I don't see the use of further debate. If I were an arbiter I'd conclude that Herman's "proposed BLML-decision" is rejected, existing law is interpreted as per the vast majority, and invite DB/HdW to use the appropriate channels to propose a revision of the laws to accomodate their desires. At least I will not bore you with further, by neccessity probably repetitive, arguments. For those who wish to continue, may I suggest using an adjusted situation where advancer bids something like 2NT, 3C or 3H (rather than 4H) and where no "failure to alert" enters the equation. Have fun! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 10:39:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:39:35 +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 KAA00993 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:39:30 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10CXbm-0006iP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:39:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:14:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Self-alerts and self-explanations MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan put this on the latest very long thread. I suggest it should have a thread of its own! David Stevenson wrote: > However, OKBridge has shown that self-explanations and self-alerts > create other problems that explanations and alerts do not. They are > certainly not a universal panacea. Just out of curiosity, what other problems have been created? I'm not doubting you---it's just that I haven't seen or heard about any problems in the limited time I spend playing OKB. -- thanks, Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 10:39:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:39:50 +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 KAA01000 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:39:42 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10CXc0-0006ja-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:39:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:09:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C56FE2.E9C36FFA@village.uunet.be> <36C5A75D.7CFDD96B@village.uunet.be> <36C80E7B.E153DD2F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36C80E7B.E153DD2F@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >OK ! > >So you are firmly in the camp : "I don't know, I don't care, >and I have yet to see an example where it matters". No, Herman, I am not. I am not sure. I do care, otherwise why on earth would I be posting to this thread? Why would I have started this thread? Of course I have seen examples where it matters. Please read what I write. >> >Why do you rule UI if partner asks for my benefit, but not >> >if he asks solely for his, but I happen to pick something up >> >which I had failed to pick up before, for whatever reason ? >> >If you rule that way, you are ruling on the intent of >> >partner, not on the actual information received ! >> I don't rule UI. Who says I rule UI if partner asks for my benefit? >> Show me where I said that. Look, Herman, the more you quote me as >> saying things I have not said, the more confused and pointless this >> argument will be. >I will not try and wade through previous posts, but I was >under the impression that you would rule against - I would >be very much surprised if you had not said that, or if you >hadn't, that you wouldn't. > >It may well be true that you have not stated that you would >rule UI. > >But since I cannot imagine under what law you would rule >against, I assumed it was UI. >If I am mistaken, then sorry. Law 73B1 forbids communication with partner "... through questions asked ...". If a person asks a question as a means of communicating information to him then he is in breach of this Law and I rule accordingly. >> OK. My gut feeling about the original case is that the overcaller has >> UI from the failure to alert his 2H bid so he knows that 2D is not >> Flannery from an unauthorised source. Does this help the thread? >So again, you are unresponsive. You said >One last question to DavidS : what is your "gut" feeling on >> >> >a ruling in the original case ? I told you. If that is "unresponsive" then that is what I am going to be. I think however that you might do well not to use the word "unresponsive" to mean answering the question asked. >I wanted to know what you would rule if neither the failure >to alert, not the 4H call would matter. Say that both >meaning were (non-)alertable, and the next call unhelpful. > >I realise this is a very theoretical case, but I continue >to feel that our solution is the only consistent one (given >our opinion - rather unchallenged - of what is good for >bridge). In a case where partner asks a question which is not in breach of L73B1 then I believe the question is UI - I am confident of that - and the answer is AI - but only because no-one has convinced me otherwise. -- 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 Feb 16 12:21:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:21:03 +1100 Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA01125 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:20:57 +1100 Received: from salsa (salsa.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.112]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA20980 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:20:49 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990216142112.00941b80@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:21:12 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Re: Self-alerts and self-explanations In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The question has been raised as to what problems self-alerts and self-explanations (a la okbridge) have created. [Never mind the obvious technical one that most players don't know how to do "/showalerts off" so that they cannot see their partner's alerts -- granted explanations in the bid line aren't seen, and I usually use these now in any case, foregoing the alerts entirely.] John Probst raised the issues of psyching and then explaining the systemic agreement. Another difficulty is that a people can be very resistant to the explanation "we have no agreement" (which can be quite common when playing with pick up partners!) In a situation where I once sat down with a new but known to be competent partner (a rare blessing on okb) and our systemic discussion had consisted of "okb 2/1?", "y", the following auction occurred on the very first board: LHO Pd RHO Me 1h p 1n 3n ?? LHO basically demand to know what I had in my hand. I refused, saying (which I felt was more than I really owed) "We have no agreement, it's presumably to play, and must have a source of tricks." About 10 minutes later (after badgering me throughout) LHO finally deigned to continue the auction. M --------------------------------------------------------- Michael H. Albert Ph: (64)-03-479-7778 Senior Teaching Fellow Fax: (64)-03-479-8427 Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 12:26:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:26:33 +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 MAA01149 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:26:25 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka9ep.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.37.217]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA27088 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:59:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990215195944.00715bcc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:59:44 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <36C69730.66D5EF1D@village.uunet.be> References: <36cbb99b.3168365@post12.tele.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:28 AM 2/14/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >That does not solve the problem, Jesper, of Professional >Question. > >While this question is intended to wake partner up, it can >be so easily and completely covered up by a need-to-know >himself. The pro, who actually knows all finesses of every >system, just refuses to read the CC (which he is entitled to >do, after all), and does it all with questions. > >The professional question is not meant to confer something >about the hand, but to tell partner something about >opponent's system. I think this is illegal, and the only >way you can beat this is by making the answer UI. > A small linguistic quibble: the professional question is not "meant ... to tell partner" but is meant to insure that partner is fully informed, via the legally established process, about the opponents' methods. The Laws clearly contemplate this as a desirable objective. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 13:20:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:20:06 +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 NAA01227 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:20:01 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10CZ4U-0005p1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:13:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:11:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: How well may defenders play after a contested claim? In-Reply-To: <199902152204.OAA09270@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199902152204.OAA09270@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV>, Jeff Goldsmith writes > >Assuming that the declarer has made the claim, >the defenders are allowed to play double-dummy. >After all, they've legally seen declarer's cards; >that information is authorized for them. If they >don't think of a line that will give them more >tricks than they asked for, I don't know if the >director ought to point it out. Probably not. > --Jeff L68D After any claim or concession play ceases .... L70A In ruling on a contested claim, the *Director* adjudicates ... L70B2 ... the remaining cards are faced ... L70B3 ... the TD hears the objections ... So it's up to the TD to decide once he's heard the objections to the claim. ># 125-50---1998 World Champs ># Go New York Yankees! ># --- ># http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 13:32:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:32:45 +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 NAA01265 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:32:38 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka9jr.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.38.123]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA11123 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:32:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990215203217.0071f624@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:32:17 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <36C74058.5BB17876@home.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <9902111827.aa29405@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212170011.00714698@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990212213500.007153bc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990213101706.00714fb4@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:30 PM 2/14/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >[DB]: >> >Very well. In that case, the player who asks a question solely and >> >entirely for the purpose of waking his partner up to a >> >misunderstanding does no wrong. (snip) >> >Do you believe this? > >[MD]: >> Well, yes, now that you ask,I do! I understand that this is contrary >> to the current position of the WBFLC, but so be it. > >This has nothing to do with what anyone's "position" is. It is simply >specifically not allowed be the laws, as opposed to an ambiguous matter >on which opinions may differ (even those who disagree with DB/HdW here >seem to agree on this). Pls remember this, i.e. next time you ask a >question solely for that purpose you are in breach of not only L73B1 and >L74C4 but also the most serious of them all, L72B2. > Sorry, Jan, but if this were as self-evident as you claim, there would have been no need for a separate opinion by the WBFLC articulating this interpretation. The Laws give me the clear and unambiguous right to ask questions about the opponents' methods. This is part of a broader theme of making the opponents' methods transparent. Obviously questions could be illegal under the references you cite, as for example if partner and I enjoyed a secret agreement that asking a question would deter a trump lead. But questions asked for the sole purpose of eliciting information from the opponents about their methods are legal. Your interpretation of how the above Laws should apply to the present question certainly enjoys broad-based support among distinguished bridge law authorities, including the WBFLC, but it is still just an interpretation, and not an ineluctable truth embodied in the the Laws themselves. Let me hasten to add that I don't expect there to be a "next time" at which I will ask such a question. Nor, for that matter, do I recall a "last time". I have quite enough to worry about at the bridge table without presuming to protect against my partner's potential ignorance of the opponents' methods. But the right to do so? I will concede that only when the Laws are rewritten so as to make your interpretation explicit. When that happens, it will represent a weakening of the general principle of full disclosure and will add nothing positive to the game, IMO. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 13:39:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:39:18 +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 NAA01293 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:39:12 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10CZq4-0006se-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 02:02:18 +0000 Message-ID: <$CcGR9AMKMy2Ew3T@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:57:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Self-alerts and self-explanations References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Adam Beneschan put this on the latest very >long thread. I suggest it should have a thread of its own! > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> However, OKBridge has shown that self-explanations and self-alerts >> create other problems that explanations and alerts do not. They are >> certainly not a universal panacea. Adam Beneschan wrote: >Just out of curiosity, what other problems have been created? I'm not >doubting you---it's just that I haven't seen or heard about any >problems in the limited time I spend playing OKB. The difficulty is that players on OKB expect self-explanations to show what is in the player's hand. If you are playing a 15-17 1NT, they have difficulty knowing what to do if you decide to open 1NT on a 12 count with seven clubs. If you say that you are playing 15 to 17, then they say you are cheating when you turn up with twelve. If you have no agreement, then some opponents will expect you to tell them what you have. Furthermore, players find it embarrassing to make an explanation that does not conform with their hand. Even if you are ethical, and your opponents are prepared to let you follow the Laws, I think explanations get quite difficult when you are looking at the hand. Some of you may wonder how this differs from screens. In theory, not much. But generally only experienced players play with screens. Some players of the type "I play Standard American so if you don't then you are cheating by making life difficult for me" play on OKB and they create a *lot* of difficulties if a player explains anything less than the exact thirteen cards in his hand. Self-alerts can be difficult in the same way. -- 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 Feb 16 15:35:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA01543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:35:42 +1100 Received: from proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA01538 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:35:35 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032nf0.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.240]) by proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA14028 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:33:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990215233139.0088d180@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:31:39 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Self-alerts and self-explanations Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:21 PM 2/16/99 +1300, you wrote: >In a situation where I once sat down with a new but known to be competent >partner (a rare blessing on okb) and our systemic discussion had consisted of >"okb 2/1?", "y", the following auction occurred on the very first board: > >LHO Pd RHO Me >1h p 1n 3n >?? > >LHO basically demand to know what I had in my hand. I refused, saying >(which I felt was more than I really owed) "We have no agreement, it's >presumably to play, and must have a source of tricks." > >About 10 minutes later (after badgering me throughout) LHO finally deigned >to continue the auction. This does not seem to be a problem with self-alerts but rather with your opponent. Your explanation appears proper. Tim PS Sorry to Michael for sending two copies, I hit the wrong reply to button and did not catch it until after the first copy was sent. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 18:56:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA01844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:56:31 +1100 Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (root@corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA01839 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:56:27 +1100 Received: from edgep333b (cc.southcom.com.au [203.60.16.155]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA14934 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:56:23 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990216185655.0079e440@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:56:55 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: Self-alerts and self-explanations In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990215233139.0088d180@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:31 PM 2/15/99 -0500, Tim Goodwin wrote: >This does not seem to be a problem with self-alerts but rather with your >opponent. Your explanation appears proper. Granted, but the culture of self-alerting creates the impression in people's minds that because the person who made the bid is explaining it, then that person is always in the position to explain it, and that that explanation will match the hand. In reality any of the following might occur: a) the player has psyched, so the explanation will not match the hand, b) the player has misbid/overvalued/undervalued, so the explanation, although correct per the agreements, will not match the hand, c) there may be no agreement, and hence limited, if any, explanation to be made, d) the player has misexplained the bid (e.g. using OKscript to automate the messaging and either clicked the wrong button, or misentered the explanation to be given for the "correct" button)... and he corrects his explanation later and he turns out to have a hand consistent with the second explanation, or e) the player has misbid and misexplained (e.g. when using Cappelletti over strong 1NT and DONT over weak NT and used the wrong one bidding 2C)... and he corrects his explanation later and he turns out to have a hand consistent with the first explanation (or worse, consistent with neither). In each case the opponents must rely on the players' word (and/or previous announcement and experience) that the player has acted according to Law and supplied the correct explanation of the agreement (even if after an incorrect attempt). In practice opponents will be suspicious in all five of the above cases. Naturally each of these five cases can occur equivalently with partner-alerting, but there is the substantial psychological (but not legal) difference that the player making the explanation did not make the bid and is not looking at the hand concerned. This is a problem of education in the Laws that is exacerbated by self-alerting, IMHO. I have had opponents on OKbridge infer or state that they believed I was cheating in situations of all five types. Some remain unhappy when partner and I point out that under law they are entitled to correct explanation of agreements, and that they received this in sufficient time that there was not resulting damage (in our opinion...). Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 19:36:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA01970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:36:41 +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 TAA01958 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:36:33 +1100 Received: from modem7.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.7] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10CfzX-0007KH-00; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:36:27 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:40:03 -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 "human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information" - Thomas Paine ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > From: David Burn > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > Date: 15 February 1999 06:45 > > On 14/02/99, at 19:03, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > >On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:37:17 +0000, David Burn > > wrote: > > > > > >IMO yes. (The kibitzer would be taken out and shot, of course.) > > For what crime? > +++++ Breach of Law 76A3 maybe? I do not know the Danish gun laws, perhaps Jens Auken could say. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 19:36:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA01976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:36:43 +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 TAA01959 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:36:36 +1100 Received: from modem7.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.7] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10CfzY-0007KH-00; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:36:29 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 03:48:57 -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 "human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information" - Thomas Paine oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > From: Tim West-meads > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > Date: 15 February 1999 08:00 > > In-Reply-To: --------------------- \x/ ---------------------- > David Burn wrote: >> Some of the above have the force of law, some are restricted by regulation > and some are just my feelings for the "spirit of the game". I come to a > different conclusion to what is UI/AI than DB but both of us could be kept > happy with the regulation "You must inquire if an opposition bid is > alerted." > ++++ So the regulation might say: "When a call (.....etc.....etc......) it must be alerted and explained". If any Regulating Authority wants a disclosure regulation in these terms it has the power to make it. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 19:36:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA01977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:36:45 +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 TAA01964 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:36:37 +1100 Received: from modem7.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.7] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Cfza-0007KH-00; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:36:30 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 04:05:34 -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 "human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information" - Thomas Paine ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ---------- > From: David Burn > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > Date: 15 February 1999 14:51 > ---------------- \x/ ---------------- > > If it's of any interest, I gave the problem to various groups of players at > the final of our inter-county teams championship, where I was acting as the > referee. Not international players all, though one or two were present, but > capable performers in the expert category. I asked: > ---------------- \x/ -------------------- > > Now, I may have mis-stated the problem, though I do not think that my words > were different from those I have reported above. And, of course, mere > players cannot be expected to understand the higher ramifications of the > legal mind. But if I had to adopt one stance or the other on the subject of > answers to questions, I am pretty sure that I know which stance would find > most favour with expert players. Whether average players would agree is, I > am aware, another matter. > +++ Was the question "what do you think the law is?" or "what do you think the law ought to be?" The way you have reported it the question put appears to trigger a conclusion relating to a different question. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 19:58:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:58:20 +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 TAA02034 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:58:13 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.203] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10CgJC-0006Fp-00; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:56:46 +0000 Message-ID: <199902160857360970.16618C95@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:57:36 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >> If it's of any interest, I gave the problem to various groups of players at >> the final of our inter-county teams championship, where I was acting as the >> referee. Not international players all, though one or two were present, but >> capable performers in the expert category. I asked: >> >---------------- \x/ -------------------- >> >> Now, I may have mis-stated the problem, though I do not think that my words >> were different from those I have reported above. And, of course, mere >> players cannot be expected to understand the higher ramifications of the >> legal mind. But if I had to adopt one stance or the other on the subject of >> answers to questions, I am pretty sure that I know which stance would find >> most favour with expert players. Whether average players would agree is, I >> am aware, another matter. >> >+++ Was the question "what do you think the law is?" or "what do you >think the law ought to be?" The way you have reported it the question >put appears to trigger a conclusion relating to a different question. Neither. I simply asked what the players felt they were permitted to do. I didn't quote any Laws (since, as we've discovered, there aren't any!) A couple did ask whether partner had alerted 2H, a point that was overlooked by some of this panel when the problem was first given to us, but then said that it didn't matter anyway. Nobody had any problem with the notion that 2D (Flannery) 2H (takeout) pass 4H was natural, which is what you'd expect from expert players, since that is of course what it would be without discussion. The players seemed unanimous that once you'd been alerted to your own misunderstanding by hearing a reply to partner's question, you were fixed - whether or not you might have worked it out on your own anyway. When I suggested to some of them that the Laws might in fact permit you to attempt some kind of rescue manoeuvre, their reactions ranged from indifference ("well, you might be able to, but I wouldn't") to contempt ("if the Law says that, then the Law, sir, is a h'ass!") This is no more than I expected. Whatever Jan says about the problem being flawed, the simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of good players simply do not believe that you are allowed to be alerted to your own error through a reply to a question asked by partner. That, in other words, is the "gut reaction" that DWS so conspicuously refused to give. Can anyone tell me, incidentally, why L21A does not apply in this situation? I have made the point a couple of times, and am genuinely curious to know the answer. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 21:17:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 21:17:44 +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 VAA02219 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 21:17:37 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA19411 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:16:42 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 16 Feb 99 10:16 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <199902142344.SAA05649@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve Willner wrote: > Let's be careful to distinguish three cases: > 1. A question that tells something about your own hand. > 2. A question that partner should have asked but might not have known to > ask. > 3. A question after the opponents have already given misinformation in > response to a proper question. > > Number 1 is the "lead-directing question," and I trust we all agree that > it's flagrantly illegal. Unless of course you are in the EBU where you must have a bridge reason for asking any question - thus telling partner that you have... Actually it is sometimes necessary to ask a series of questions to obtain a full understanding of a complex auction and in the process you may well reveal information about your own holding. Sometimes the price of obtaining full disclosure is making UI available to partner - I don't like it but don't have a clue how to fix it. So 1a. A question intended to reveal.. (stupid and illegal) 1b. A question that unfortunately reveals.. (solution requested) Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 23:08:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:08:17 +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 XAA02455 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:08:11 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-229.uunet.be [194.7.9.229]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA07455 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:07:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C95AB3.2664D560@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:46:59 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <9902121725.aa25946@flash.irvine.com> <199902130251240960.059E8ECB@mail.btinternet.com> <36C56FE2.E9C36FFA@village.uunet.be> <36C5A75D.7CFDD96B@village.uunet.be> <36C775D4.FFBD21AA@home.com> <36C8122A.7BBC139E@village.uunet.be> <36C87099.E6E6190E@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > [JK] > > > Because according to L73B1 the former is specifically disallowed > > > whereas there is no law (if there is, now is a good time to quote > > > it:-)) disallowing the latter. > > > > > [HdW] > > L16 ! > > In your opinion, yes. Not unambiguously. Jesper has explained it better, Of course "in my opinion". Isn't that what this discussion is all about ? > but basically many of us consider the words "by means of ... a question" > to refer to the fact that pard asked at that time in the first place, > and the words "by means of ....... a reply to a question" to refer to > when *pard* replies to a question by an opponent. > Based on this equally (at least) logical premise, L16 does not support > your interpretation. > Well, since both quotations above are in (IMO) not restrictive example sentences, this does not prove anything. The specific case we are discussing is not in the Laws. Period. So how do we proceed ? Well, we have to try and fathom the WBFLC intention. That is what David and I have done and I believe we have reached a consistent solution. Again, I don't see what the problem is. 1) Most people agree with our rulings, which are based on our premise. (I am talking both of the example and the professional question problem) 2) Some people seem to think that our premise would result in other rulings that are contrary to current practice. We say they are not. 3) No-one else has succeeded in ruling against the original example, based on other premises which are as logical as ours. So what are you all afraid of ? > > I am willing to turn every piece of UI into AI, provided the > > player has some reason why he did not ask at his turn. That > > reason can either be because he was (not yet) interested in > > that piece of information at that time, or because his > > partner had already asked when it was indeed his turn. > > I am quite willing to go as far as we currently do in that. > > I will even accept double negatives. I will not accept > > clear proof that a player was uninterested because of lack > > of interest, or sufficient knowledge of the game, or if > > player had previously misunderstood the same thing. > > As long as you are willing to accept that the "burden of proof" is > indeed on the accuser, the net result of the different approaches will > be the same. What I fail to see then is why you want to start with AI > and convert to UI 99% of the time. It seems easier, and equally > consonant (tks for the word, DB) with the laws, to start from the normal > 99% case of AI and only convert to UI in the rare cases. > So I'm a bit lazy! :-) So you agree that in the 1% case there is UI ? And you don't want to go the long road for that ? I can live with that ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 16 23:08:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:08:24 +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 XAA02462 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:08:18 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-229.uunet.be [194.7.9.229]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA07475 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:08:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36C95BDE.56B51416@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:51:58 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <36ca52fb.1042969@post12.tele.dk> <36C810CB.2195D427@village.uunet.be> <36d0898f.5117338@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > >> * (c) is often very much worse than (b), and I don't think his > >> laziness should be penalized that harshly, > > > >Very personal opinion, not valid. > > "Not valid"? Why not? We are discussing what the laws should > say on a subject on which they currently say nothing very useful. > This primarily means deciding what is most fair and reasonable. > It seems to me that personal opinions are exactly the way to > judge what is fair and reasonable. I even consider _your_ > personal opinion valid and relevant (but wrong, of course :-)). > OK, change 'no valid' to 'not helpful'. You cannot prove your point by personal opinion. You can stave your opinion, but the other elements in your statement had a much more "proof" flavour, and this one is just an opinion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 00:37:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:37:14 +1100 Received: from proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA04869 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:37:08 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032nf0.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.240]) by proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA03597 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:36:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990216083413.0082ce80@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:34:13 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Self-alerts and self-explanations In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990216185655.0079e440@postoffice.utas.edu.au> References: <3.0.5.32.19990215233139.0088d180@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:56 PM 2/16/99 +1100, Mark Abraham wrote: >In each case the opponents must rely on the players' word (and/or previous >announcement and experience) that the player has acted according to Law and >supplied the correct explanation of the agreement (even if after an >incorrect attempt). There may be ways to check, like looking at a convention card, to confirm what the actual agreement was. >In practice opponents will be suspicious in all five of >the above cases. Uneducated opponents may be suspicious. But, I don't see this as a problem with self-alerting, but rather a problem with education. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 03:57:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:57:18 +1100 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (lighton@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05432 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:57:09 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA19766 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:57:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:57:02 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <199902160857360970.16618C95@mail.btinternet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, David Burn wrote: > Can anyone tell me, incidentally, why L21A does not apply in this > situation? I have made the point a couple of times, and am genuinely > curious to know the answer. I had intended to follow JK's line--that this has become a religious difference and neither side is any longer going to change the ways of the other--but I feel this question needs answering. The original bidder's misunderstanding has already got him into this mess. What he is now allowed to do is unrelated to the origin of his current dilemma. -- 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 Wed Feb 17 03:59:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:59:01 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05448 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:58:55 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Cnpc-0000gA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:58:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:42:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Self-alerts and self-explanations References: <3.0.5.32.19990215233139.0088d180@maine.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.19990216185655.0079e440@postoffice.utas.edu.au> <3.0.5.32.19990216083413.0082ce80@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990216083413.0082ce80@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 06:56 PM 2/16/99 +1100, Mark Abraham wrote: >>In practice opponents will be suspicious in all five of >>the above cases. >Uneducated opponents may be suspicious. But, I don't see this as a problem >with self-alerting, but rather a problem with education. If the method is likely to generate suspicion amongst the ill-informed [which seems to be the case] then that *is* a problem with the method. There will always be ill-informed players. There have been some complaints about English methods here in the past, such as in alerting or when to ask questions. I have said I will defend them. Why? Because they are theoretically right? No, because people follow them and are comfortable with them. One swallow does not make a summer: one negative argument [however valid] does not mean a procedure is wrong. But negative arguments are evidence that a procedure is wrong, and the failure of a large number of people to accept that when giving self-explanations you should follow the Laws of Bridge *is* an argument against the method. -- 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 Feb 17 04:15:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 04:15:58 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA05567 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 04:15:47 +1100 Received: from p87s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.136] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10Co5u-00014K-00; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 17:15:34 +0000 Message-ID: <009d01be59cf$6dee7900$888993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:37:12 -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: 16 February 1999 09:26 Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question --------------------------\x/------------------------- >. I simply asked what the players felt they were permitted to do. I >didn't quote any Laws (since, as we've discovered, there aren't any!) ------------------------\x/-------------------- > >This is no more than I expected. Whatever Jan says about the problem being >flawed, the simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of good >players simply do not believe that you are allowed to be alerted to your >own error through a reply to a question asked by partner. That, in other >words, is the "gut reaction" that DWS so conspicuously refused to give. > ++++ Pity that you did not press for further opinion what ought to be. It is apparent from the turgid debate that there is a mist overlying the subject. I just feel encouraged more to try to have things altered if I know what I want to achieve. ++++ ------------------------------\x/--------------------------------- > >Can anyone tell me, incidentally, why L21A does not apply in this >situation? I have made the point a couple of times, and am genuinely >curious to know the answer. ++++ I can always be persuaded that if a law exists and it is relevant then it applies. The doubt in my mind here is how far it is relevant, given the provisions in the laws allowing a player to clarify the meaning of opponents' actions. The other thought troubling me is that there is practicality in allowing a player to use what he hears in the course of legitimate exchanges amongst the other players. However, where a player has already taken action on the basis of a misunderstanding there is indeed serious risk of abuse if the way is open for partner (who knows better) to put him right through the medium of a question. Someone did say Kaplan once did this; I sincerely hope that was before Law 73B1 took shape in 1987 (before which the law was more nebulous). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 04:16:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 04:16:08 +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 EAA05574 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 04:15:59 +1100 Received: from p87s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.136] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10Co5x-00014K-00; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 17:15:37 +0000 Message-ID: <009e01be59cf$6f6efe80$888993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "David Stevenson" Cc: Subject: Re: Auction or Call Reviews (was RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:58:40 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 14 February 1999 10:40 Subject: Re: Auction or Call Reviews (was RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question) >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Craig Senior wrote: >> >From: Marvin L. French[SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] >> > >> > the law was changed in 1987: >> >1975: L20F1--"a full explanation of any call made by an opponent >> >opposing call" >> > L20F2--"an explanation of opposing calls >> >1987/1997: L20F1--"a full explanation of the opponents' auction" >> > L20F2--"an explanation of opposing auction." >> >I am told that Edgar Kaplan pushed for these changes because he >> >felt that there was too much questioning of individual calls. ++++ It is true that he did. But let it be understood that the WBFLC did back him in this change and the effect was specified. The use of 'auction' continued in 1997; it will be noted that 'auction' is defined at the front of the book. ++++ DWS: >> Well, the EBU read it differently. Part of L20F1 says "... [questions >> may be asked about calls actually made ..." and we have interpreted it >> that this gives us the right to ask about individual calls. Now I know >> that Grattan says that this is not the WBFLC's interpretation: this is >> probably the biggest difference that Grattan and I have over the Laws. ++++ When the parenthetical addition was made in the 1997 Code it was accompanied by a note, written by Kaplan and agreed by the WBFLC, which pointed out that its purpose was to make it plain that a 'full explanation' covers calls available but not made as well as calls made. It was still the purpose of the law that an enquiry under 20F1 was as to the full meaning of the *auction*. The sensitive observer will realize how this distinction is pointed up in the wording of 20F2. The 'difference', therefore, is not between David and me, but between David (plus as it may be the EBU) and the authoritative interpretation of the law by WBFLC, as restated in Lille - where David's practical point was taken by a softening of the TD's response to the actions of players so long as there is no abuse of the UI established. Where the TD is suspicious of abuse he has a specific illegality on which to act. ++++ ---------- \x/ ---------------- ++++ Whether an interpretation is "required" or not is immaterial. A ruling has been made. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 04:48:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 04:48:45 +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 EAA05685 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 04:48:38 +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 MAA10448 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:48:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:48:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902161748.MAA22598@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (john@probst.demon.co.uk) Subject: Re: How well may defenders play after a contested claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk MadDog writes: > In article <199902152204.OAA09270@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV>, Jeff Goldsmith > writes >> Assuming that the declarer has made the claim, >> the defenders are allowed to play double-dummy. >> After all, they've legally seen declarer's cards; >> that information is authorized for them. > L68D After any claim or concession play ceases .... > L70A In ruling on a contested claim, the *Director* adjudicates ... > L70B2 ... the remaining cards are faced ... > L70B3 ... the TD hears the objections ... > So it's up to the TD to decide once he's heard the objections to the > claim. But there aren't any clear criteria for how to do this. Are defenders allowed to play as they normally would, or better than their ability, or double-dummy? In th eexample which started this thread, East objected and stated a line of play by East which would lead to an extra trick for the defense, but Wast would not have found this, and even if West had a perfect count, he would not have tried this against an expert declarer. -- 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 Feb 17 05:55:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 05:55:13 +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 FAA05816 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 05:55:06 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA04393 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:52:01 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199902161852.MAA04393@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:52:00 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, David Burn wrote: > > > Can anyone tell me, incidentally, why L21A does not apply in this > > situation? I have made the point a couple of times, and am genuinely > > curious to know the answer. > I have assumed that L21A is meant to be parallel to L21B. L21B covers an attempt to _change a call one has already made_ on the grounds that it was based on misinformation. L21A tells you that you do not have this recourse if your call was made as a result of your own misunderstanding. So if I bid 2H because I misunderstood my RHO's bid through no fault of his own, I have no recourse. That doesn't mean that I am required to make future calls based on that same misunderstanding. L21A refers to legal recourse regarding the current call, not to recourse through future calls or plays. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 06:16:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 06:16:26 +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 GAA05884 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 06:16:21 +1100 Received: from ip122.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.122]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990216191614.TKXY3288.fep4@ip122.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:16:14 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:16:14 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36cab2c0.1541937@post12.tele.dk> References: <199902160857360970.16618C95@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902160857360970.16618C95@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 Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:57:36 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >Can anyone tell me, incidentally, why L21A does not apply in this >situation? I have made the point a couple of times, and am genuinely >curious to know the answer. It does apply to the only call he made based on the misunderstanding: 2H. L21A tells us that he is stuck with the 2H bid. IMO it definitely does not tell us that he must continue to bid as if he still had that misunderstanding. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 06:37:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 06:37:14 +1100 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA05939 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 06:37:06 +1100 Received: from [130.15.118.69] (U69.N118.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.69]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA04778 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:36:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:26:52 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Appropriate action given conflicting information Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [The following question was suggested by the "UI or AI from answer to partner's question" thread, but addresses other issues, although I'd be interested in the responses of Herman and David Burn.] West opens 2D, alerted, and South glances at an opponent's convention card and sees "Flannery". North asks about the 2D opening, and East responds "Roman". North now bids 2H (natural over Roman, but takeout over Flannery). What may/should South do, and what are the consequences of each choice? 1. Bid as though the opponent's agreement is Roman. 2. Bid as though the opponent's agreement is Flannery. 3. Call the director immediately and try to get the Misinformation sorted out. _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 533 - 6000 - 77878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 07:07:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:07:15 +1100 Received: from proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA06045 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:07:09 +1100 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032nf0.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.240]) by proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA05129 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:06:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990216150412.008374a0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:04:12 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Self-alerts and self-explanations In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990216083413.0082ce80@maine.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19990215233139.0088d180@maine.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.19990216185655.0079e440@postoffice.utas.edu.au> <3.0.5.32.19990216083413.0082ce80@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:42 PM 2/16/99 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > One swallow does not make a summer: one negative argument [however >valid] does not mean a procedure is wrong. But negative arguments are >evidence that a procedure is wrong, and the failure of a large number of >people to accept that when giving self-explanations you should follow >the Laws of Bridge *is* an argument against the method. Sure it's an argument against the method. I just don't think it is a particularly strong one. Since a large number of people are failing to follow the Laws, maybe the Laws are wrong. Or maybe I should say that this represents an argument against the Laws. But, who would care about this argument? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 07:58:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:58:30 +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 HAA06268 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:58:20 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa11441; 16 Feb 99 12:57 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Appropriate action given conflicting information In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:26:52 PST." Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:57:48 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902161257.aa11441@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Don Kersey wrote: > [The following question was suggested by the "UI or AI from answer to > partner's question" thread, but addresses other issues, although I'd be > interested in the responses of Herman and David Burn.] > > West opens 2D, alerted, and South glances at an opponent's convention card > and sees "Flannery". Does your wording mean "a quick glance that could be incorrect"? This wouldn't apply to me, since I would have looked at the CC before the round to see what they're playing. I have two different answers depending on whether (a) the card definitely says Flannery, or (b) your "glance" could have seen something that wasn't really there. > North asks about the 2D opening, and East responds > "Roman". North now bids 2H (natural over Roman, but takeout over Flannery). > What may/should South do, and what are the consequences of each choice? > > 1. Bid as though the opponent's agreement is Roman. > > 2. Bid as though the opponent's agreement is Flannery. > > 3. Call the director immediately and try to get the Misinformation sorted out. Case (a): If the card definitely says Flannery, I'm not sure whether (1) or (3) is correct. My first thought is that I'd do (1), since I think that whatever they say at the table is "more binding" than whatever I see on the CC, because people do come to the table with incorrect CC's. Sometimes they change their agreements and forget to change the card, or they change their agreements just before the session and don't get around to changing the card, or they bring the CC for a different partnership. So I think it's correct in a case like this to presume that the verbal explanation is the correct one and the CC is wrong. You can call the director later if you're damaged by MI, or if West uses the UI improperly. It can be argued that to do this may be a double-shot, especially since you have some *possible* information (the CC) that East got it wrong. I don't think this is the case. To me, a double-shot means you take some wild action that will get you a top if it works and yell for the director if it doesn't. But if the opponents are having a misunderstanding and might shoot themselves in the foot, I don't think letting them do so should be considered "wild". Actually, I'm not completely sure would happen if you call the director. The TD should find out what both opponents think the agreement is, and then: If both opponents are agreed that it's Roman, and the CC is wrong, no problem (maybe a PP for having a wrong CC). If the opponents were in disagreement, I still think East's explanation is UI for West, and the TD must tell West of his obligations. I don't know what restrictions there are on East, since East hasn't technically received any UI from West. The only information he's gotten is East's opponents pointing out to the director that their convention card says "Flannery", and I'm not sure whether the Laws consider this UI. It probably should be UI, because of L2B1(c), though; so East isn't allowed to use the information that West may have been using Flannery. In any case, I think the director should talk to East and West away from the table; and then once he figures out what the "actual agreement" is, he should tell North and South, but also away from the table, so that East won't know what the director found out from West. So I think that (3), calling the director, is the correct thing to do, since doing so should not help the opponents clear up a misunderstanding. Both opponents will still face restrictions from UI. However, North-South can no longer claim damage from MI, since the director has found out the correct agreement and informed them; if the actual agreement is Roman, and West has a Flannery hand, too bad (footnote to L75D2). I don't think (2) is the correct answer at all. David Burn's previous argument that if you make a mistake, you must stick with it, doesn't apply here, because thinking 2D is Flannery is not a mistake but misinformation. Now on to (b), the case where your glance may be wrong. If I had made a quick glance and if East's explanation woke me up to the fact that my glance may have been too quick, I'd alert 2H, and if they ask what it is, I say, "May I see your convention card?" and make sure they let me look at the same card I glanced at before. Now if the card still says Flannery, I call the director as above, unless it's clear that the card is for the wrong partnership, in which case I just trust East's explanation and continue (again, the argument about a "mistake" doesn't apply since it's their fault they provided the wrong card). If I was wrong and the card says Roman, then it *is* my mistake, and the situation becomes equivalent to one discussed earlier where David Burn believes that I must continue to treat 2D as Flannery and nobody else except maybe Herman agrees. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 08:24:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 08:24:05 +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 IAA06390 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 08:23:58 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA04259 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:23:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:23:04 -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 While browsing through the ACBLScore program's Tech files, a gold mine of information, I came across a number of LC decisions that I didn't know about. Don't remember seeing them in *The Bridge Bulletin*, where they should be published, but perhaps they were published and I just didn't see them. Here are a few I found to be interesting, and wonder if BLMLers agree with them. Please treat them individually if at all, because this message is long enough as it is. (1) Law 12C1 - AWARDING AN ADJUSTED SCORE The LC feels that the phrase "at most 40% of the available matchpoints should refer to a pair being awarded the remaining matchpoints when they have committed an offense against a pair whose percent score is greater than 60% (i.e., top minus 63% when the NOS has achieved 63% on all other boards played). (LC, Spring 1998) (Office Policy is that this will not apply to individual events) (2) Law 27 - BID OUT OF ROTATION In the auction 1D - no action - 1H when the bid out of turn is not accepted, if the player next to call bids 1H and the player who had called out of turn changes his call to double, the low-level double should be deemed to specify hearts, thus removing any lead penalties. At higher levels, the double becomes less meaningful as an indication of hearts and may be based solely on high cards, so the TD should impose a lead penalty in the heart suit. The LC also pointed out that the fact that the double was made with the knowledge that it would bar partner is AI to the offending side. (LC, Spring 1998) (Office Policy is that "low-level" applies to the one or two level) (3) Law 63B - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE In determining whether a 1 or 2 trick penalty is in order, the TD must look to see what would have happened if the revoke was not corrected and the hand was played out. Remember that this provision does not apply in most ACBL events. (LC, July 1997) [The reason for the last sentence is that 61B's prohibition in regard to defenders does not apply in ACBL-land, and therefore L63B does not apply - mlf] (4) Law 70B3 - CONTESTED CLAIMS (CLARIFICATION STATEMENT REPEATED) When a claim occurs, both opponents (including dummy in the case of a defender's claim) have the right to inspect the opponent's [sic] cards and confer before they acquiesce. If the non-claiming side can show a line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that produces more tricks for their side, the TD should award them those tricks. The TD should not raise objections on behalf of the players involved. (LC, Spring 1998) (Office Policy will be as per L70B3. The TD will hear the opponents' objections with the defenders or dummy and declarer being able to confer...In general, we should not offer to suggest an alternative line of play not suggested by an opponent. When dealing with the beginner/old pro situation, however, one might drop a hint as the LC did not say "should not" rather than "shall not," "may not," or the dreaded "must not." (5) L75D2 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS When a player's explanation has correctly described his partner's hand but not the pair's agreement, and even though the partner is required to correct the explanation before the defenders make an opening lead, ACBL policy is that the player should make a disclaimer statement before giving the corrected explanation. This may also be true when there has been a failure to alert during the auction. If no disclaimer is given, the TD may treat the original offense as the one doing the damage and adjust the board to protect the non-offenders. (LC, Jully 1997) [I take this to mean that you must correct the explanation but reveal that your hand does not (may not?) accord with the agreement - mlf] [I'm putting a related item here:] DECLARER OR DUMMY EXPLAINING AN AGREEMENT BEFORE THE OPENING LEAD THAT DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE HAND HELD While there is a legal obligation to correct and incorrect or incomplete explanation, care must be taken to phrase the correction in such a way as to not mislead the opponents. The TD may still adjust the score because of the original failure to alert or explain correctly at the proper time by the proper person when an opponent is misled even though the player is mandated by Law to correct the explanation. (LC, July 1995) (6) L90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES Procedural penalties, mild or severe, should be issued when players depart from accepted procedure. Usually this would happen after due warning...(snip of non-controversial language related to disciplinary penalties per L91). (LC, July 1997) [mlf comment: PPs are routinely being issued without due warning] (7) INFORMATION GAINED FROM PARTNER'S EXPLANATION In situations where a player gains information from his partner's explanation to a question, whether or not there was an alert, that information is unauthorized and the TD may award an adjusted score if advantage was taken. (LC, May 1984) ------------------------------------------------------------------- I would be interested in knowing if these interpretations are coordinated with the WBFLC in any manner I don't know where LC actions taken later than spring 1998 can be found. Perhaps in an ACBLScore update. I am especially interested in the Orlando meeting, where the LC was to decide whether they approve the "interpretations" coming from the WBFLC in Lille. My info pipeline informs me that those interpretations will not be legal in ACBL-land until they are approved. What's to approve? Just determine how you're going to implement them! Have fun! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 09:22:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:22:47 +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 JAA06592 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:22:11 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.177] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10CsrS-0003Bk-00; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:20:58 +0000 Message-ID: <199902162221200070.19417C9A@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:21:20 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appropriate action given conflicting information Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 16/02/99, at 14:26, Don Kersey wrote: >[The following question was suggested by the "UI or AI from answer to >partner's question" thread, but addresses other issues, although I'd be >interested in the responses of Herman and David Burn.] > >West opens 2D, alerted, and South glances at an opponent's convention card >and sees "Flannery". North asks about the 2D opening, and East responds >"Roman". North now bids 2H (natural over Roman, but takeout over Flannery). >What may/should South do, and what are the consequences of each choice? > >1. Bid as though the opponent's agreement is Roman. > >2. Bid as though the opponent's agreement is Flannery. > >3. Call the director immediately and try to get the Misinformation sorted out. East-West appear to be in breach of L75A and L40B. They have not, as L75A says that they should, made their special partnership agreements "fully and freely available to the opponents" (L75A); alternatively, they have made "a call...based on a special partnership understanding" when the opposing pair cannot "reasonably be expected to understand its meaning" or disclosed it "in accordance with the regulations..." (L40B). This is perhaps tenuous, but is the best I can do in terms of finding Laws whose import is that misinforming the opponents is an infraction. If it is accepted that it is indeed an infraction to misinform the opponents, South may (under L9A1) call attention to it as soon as East provides the explanation. Then (L9B1a), the Director must be summoned, and presumably he will take whatever steps he sees fit to have the board played, or to deem it unplayable. Thus, South may follow 3 above; what the consequences will be are up to the TD. L9A1 says only that South "may" do this, not that he must. I suppose that it might be open to South, if he deems it advantageous, to wait and see what East does; then, if it appears that East does something advantageous to South's side, South might allow the opponents to suffer the consequences. However, I do not think that this is actually the case, since before anyone can do anything further, South has a duty (under the Laws already quoted) to explain North's 2H to East. Of course, he cannot do this, since he does not know what it means. Hence, 3 above seems to be the only legal (and practical) course of action open to South. However, it is also possible that South might adopt the following course: guess that 2H is in fact Roman (and hence that North's 2H is natural); not alert it; and hope that East-West rather than North-South, end up in trouble. If they don't, then perhaps North-South could claim redress under the Laws already quoted. Thus, it might be open to South to follow 1 above - whether, if he is wrong, he should suffer the consequences is not clear to me. If South wants to follow 2 above, he would have to alert 2H to East. That would probably have the same effect as following 3, since the misunderstanding would come to light at that point, and the TD would have to be summoned (since attention has now been drawn to the irregularity, if such there be). However, it is possible that South would alert and East would pass without asking a question; now, South might elect to have the auction continue, again in the hope that to do so would give his side an advantage rather than the opponents. Again, it is not clear to me what should happen if South had "guessed wrong" in following this course. Good question, Don. Not sure why my reply and Herman's should be of especial relevance, but will await further developments with interest. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 09:27:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:27:41 +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 JAA06619 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:27:23 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.177] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10CswI-0004cs-00; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:25:59 +0000 Message-ID: <199902162226200510.19461269@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:26:20 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 16/02/99, at 11:57, Richard Lighton wrote: >On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, David Burn wrote: > >> Can anyone tell me, incidentally, why L21A does not apply in this >> situation? I have made the point a couple of times, and am genuinely >> curious to know the answer. > >I had intended to follow JK's line--that this has become a religious >difference and neither side is any longer going to change the ways >of the other--but I feel this question needs answering. > >The original bidder's misunderstanding has already got him into this >mess. What he is now allowed to do is unrelated to the origin of his >current dilemma. Thanks, Richard. I'm not sure I follow the notion that South's current position is "unrelated" to his earlier one, since the former appears to me to be a direct consequence of the latter. But your reply and others seem to indicate that, if something legal happens by means of which South's misunderstanding becomes clear to him, he may (L21A notwithstanding) now take steps to correct it. That is, at any rate, a consistent and "playable" position; I reserve judgment as to whether or not it is actually a legal one. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 09:32:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:32:46 +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 JAA06674 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:32:38 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.177] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10Ct2F-0005Sx-00; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:32:07 +0000 Message-ID: <199902162231470920.194B1165@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902161852.MAA04393@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <199902161852.MAA04393@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:31:47 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 16/02/99, at 12:52, cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, David Burn wrote: >> >> > Can anyone tell me, incidentally, why L21A does not apply in this >> > situation? I have made the point a couple of times, and am genuinely >> > curious to know the answer. >> > > I have assumed that L21A is meant to be parallel to L21B. L21B >covers an attempt to _change a call one has already made_ on the grounds >that it was based on misinformation. L21A tells you that you do not have >this recourse if your call was made as a result of your own >misunderstanding. > So if I bid 2H because I misunderstood my RHO's bid through no >fault of his own, I have no recourse. That doesn't mean that I am >required to make future calls based on that same misunderstanding. L21A >refers to legal recourse regarding the current call, not to recourse through >future calls or plays. Jesper and others have given similar opinions. Thanks to all of you who replied; this interpretation is certainly consistent, and I see no practical difficulty with it. Whether or not it is what L21A originally intended is, I suppose, a question for others to answer. But, if this position is accepted as correct, I think that perhaps it might be incorporated into the EBL Guide to the Laws and other such invaluable publications. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 10:41:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:41:52 +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 KAA06908 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:41:44 +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 SAA21186 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:41:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:41:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902162341.SAA02602@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Contested claims (was Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > (4) Law 70B3 - CONTESTED CLAIMS (CLARIFICATION STATEMENT REPEATED) > When a claim occurs, both opponents (including dummy in the case o > a defender's claim) have the right to inspect the opponent's [sic] > cards and confer before they acquiesce. If the non-claiming side > can show a line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that > produces more tricks for their side, the TD should award them those > tricks. The TD should not raise objections on behalf of the players > involved. (LC, Spring 1998) This apparently answers the question I raised yesterday. #: original question #Swiss teams, neither side vulnerable, hearts trumps. East has just #cashed the setting trick. # - # T # - # K82 #65 - #- - #- Q5 #QT 93 # QJ8 # - # - # 7 #South claims, "two good spades, CK, and a trump." However, she isn't on #lead, and East objects. Director exposes all four hands, and is about #to rule one more trick to the defense when East points out that he can #lead the DQ on which West unblocks the CT as dummy ruffs, and then, #unless North leads a low club (which would endplay West), the CQ falls #under the CK, and East gets the last two tricks with the C9 and D5. #The bidding marks South with three remaining spades. If West has a good #count, he thus knows that the unblock will gain a trick if South's club #is the C7 or C3 and declarer doesn't read the play, and lose a trick if #South's club is the C9. South claimed, and made no statement that was relevant to the play. East showed a play by West which would give the defenders two tricks unless South made an unstated line of play, and failure to execute an endplay is apparently normal. This appears to indicate the following rulings. #(a) in an expert game, in which South would be likely to execute the #endplay if it happened at the table? (Is this a Law 70E case, so that #South can't execute the endplay?) Ruling under Law 70E, it is normal, although careless, for an expert South to cash the king of clubs rather than trying the endplay. I would also rule that it is AI to E-W that South doesn't know who is on lead and thus is likely to be confused about the count of the hand and not try the endplay (which is risk-free with the actual cards out and rational play, but could cost a trick if East had the C9 and three diamonds). Thus it is a normal play for West to unblock for the potential gain of a trick. Two tricks to E-W. #(b) in a weaker game, in which South would be unlikely to execute the #endplay but it is unlikely that West would make the play because he may #not have kept a good count or may not have been able to work out that #the unblock will help? (This was the actual situation; I was East, and #West told me he would not have found the play.) Ruling under Law 70B3 as per the interpretation above, East is allowed to point out a normal play to West even if neither East nor West would have found it without the hand exposed. Two tricks to E-W. (This is what the director actually ruled. As East, I accepted this ruling, and told South that she might want to appeal it; she didn't.) #(c) if instead, E-W need one more trick to beat the contract, so that #the unblock risks letting the contract make for an extra undertrick, and #thus would only be found double-dummy? (If E-W are allowed to defend #double-dummy, then is declarer allowed to play double-dummy?) There is no normal line of play which gives the defense two tricks, as it is not normal for any player to risk a 1/3 chance of allowing a contract to make at IMPs in return for a possible extra 50 points if declarer misplays. Law 70A obligates the director to rule "as equitably as possible for both sides", and here E-W can only earn two tricks by making a play which would be a clear bridge error except at double-dummy. One trick to E-W. -- 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 Feb 17 11:19:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:19:23 +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 LAA07051 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:19:16 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa23737; 16 Feb 99 16:18 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:23:04 PST." <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:18:37 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > (5) L75D2 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS > > When a player's explanation has correctly described his partner's > hand but not the pair's agreement, and even though the partner is > required to correct the explanation before the defenders make an > opening lead, ACBL policy is that the player should make a > disclaimer statement before giving the corrected explanation. This > may also be true when there has been a failure to alert during the > auction. If no disclaimer is given, the TD may treat the original > offense as the one doing the damage and adjust the board to protect > the non-offenders. (LC, Jully 1997) > > [I take this to mean that you must correct the explanation but > reveal that your hand does not (may not?) accord with the agreement > - mlf] I think the biggest problem here isn't a case where your hand doesn't accord with your agreement. Rather, the problem is where your hand *does* accord with your agreement, but your actual agreement is a superset of the agreement that your partner described. E.g. Partner explains your 2D opening as a weak 2 in a major. Your actual agreement is a weak 2 in a major OR 18-19 balanced OR a strong 3-suiter. However, you actually happen to hold a weak 2 in a major. The difficulty is that you're required to correct partner's explanation before the opening lead (if your side declares), but doing so could mislead opponents into thinking your partner didn't describe your hand correctly, although he did. A more common case is 1NT-2C-2D-2NT. Your partner forgets to alert 2NT as not promising a 4-card major. You have to explain your agreement that 2NT doesn't promise a 4-card major, which may lead the opponents to think you don't have a 4-card major, even when you do. (IIRC, Bobby Wolff has proposed that you shouldn't even correct the explanation in cases like this, but apparently that isn't official ACBL policy now.) I don't understand the last part of the ruling. If my partner's explanation has correctly described my hand, I don't see how it could possibly do damage to the non-offenders even if it's not a correct explanation of our agreements. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 11:52:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:52:21 +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 LAA07128 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:52:05 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.196] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10CvDI-0001It-00; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:51:40 +0000 Message-ID: <199902170051220250.19CADE90@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:51:22 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 16/02/99, at 13:23, Marvin L. French wrote: [snip] >DECLARER OR DUMMY EXPLAINING AN AGREEMENT BEFORE THE OPENING LEAD >THAT DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE HAND HELD > >While there is a legal obligation to correct and incorrect or >incomplete explanation, care must be taken to phrase the correction >in such a way as to not mislead the opponents. The TD may still >adjust the score because of the original failure to alert or >explain correctly at the proper time by the proper person when an >opponent is misled even though the player is mandated by Law to >correct the explanation. (LC, July 1995) This is actually very awkward. It has been cited by John Probst and others as one of the "difficulties" when playing on-line bridge, and I suppose the problem ought to be addressed, for I think that the correct "legal" position is one that is going to be incomprehensible to the average player (and perhaps opposed by players in the expert category). The difficulty typically arises when: (a) I have made a deliberately deceptive call, but a legal one under L40A; and (b) partner has given a wrong explanation of the call according to our system; so that (c) my duty is to correct the wrong explanation as soon as possible under L75D2; and (d) I give the correct explanation, but this does not [of course, in view of (a) above] conform to the hand I actually hold; so that (e) the opponents are damaged, and even though the damage arises from my successful deception and not from any infraction of Law, they are nevertheless unhappy and seek redress. In this case, I suppose we on this list would all agree that the opponents are not actually entitled to any redress, but it appears from the way in which the ACBL has framed its regulation as quoted by Marvin (and from my own experience, having sat on ACs with high-ranking American players and officials) that this would not necessarily be the way in which an American AC would rule. Their position appears to be, in short, that if you psyche and partner misexplains your psyche, your duty is now to tell the opponents what you actually have, instead of what you have shown. I find this difficult to accept, but I can also understand why the average player might find the "correct" position equally hard to stomach. "Not only did they lie in the bidding, but they lied in the explanations also - how can they get away with this!" The position is more complex when, in (a) above, instead of making a deliberately deceptive call, I have made an erroneous call according to our methods. During the subsequent auction, I realise my error (we will leave aside the question of how precisely I do this, since that would be to cover recently well-trodden ground!). Again, my duty is only to inform the opponents of what our methods actually are, so that (in effect) I am in the same position as if I had misbid on purpose. I suppose, though, that perhaps the average player will perceive that I have another duty in this case: to inform the opponents that at the time I made the "deceptive" call, I thought that our methods were such-and-such, but in fact they are so-and-so. Again, I do not believe that this is the "correct" legal position (unless, of course, I have a history of forgetting in this type of auction, which is - as I understand it - knowledge to which the opponents are entitled). But again, the average player is going to find the "correct" legal position just as difficult to assimilate as, for example, the idea that replies to a player's questions might be UI to his partner! These are very deep waters indeed. Other views would be of great interest. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 14:17:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:17:04 +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 OAA07301 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:16:57 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10CxTk-0002Bz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:16:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 02:45:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199902162123.NAA04259@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: >(1) Law 12C1 - AWARDING AN ADJUSTED SCORE >The LC feels that the phrase "at most 40% of the available >matchpoints should refer to a pair being awarded the remaining >matchpoints when they have committed an offense against a pair >whose percent score is greater than 60% (i.e., top minus 63% when >the NOS has achieved 63% on all other boards played). (LC, Spring >1998) The WBFLC said that the reason for the term "at most 40%" rather than the 40% as previously was for a pair whose session score was less than 40%. I think this is trivial myself, and an unnecessary change in the Law, but it is at least understandable. It would have been better if the Laws had been changed properly, ie if this is the reason for this change, why is there no equivalent to Law 88 for average-minus? Because of this, the interpretation by the WBFLC does not accord with commonsense expectations, and it is unsurprising that some authorities had already decided the change in Law was to be applied in other ways. However, this idea of the ACBL that a pair's average-minus should depend on their opponent's session score does not feel right, and is probably prompted by the dreaded "protecting the field" mentality. Now that it is known to be against WBFLC interpretations, will the ACBL change this regulation? >(2) Law 27 - BID OUT OF ROTATION >In the auction 1D - no action - 1H when the bid out of turn is not >accepted, if the player next to call bids 1H and the player who had >called out of turn changes his call to double, the low-level double >should be deemed to specify hearts, thus removing any lead >penalties. At higher levels, the double becomes less meaningful as >an indication of hearts and may be based solely on high cards, so >the TD should impose a lead penalty in the heart suit. The LC also >pointed out that the fact that the double was made with the >knowledge that it would bar partner is AI to the offending side. >(LC, Spring 1998) > >(Office Policy is that "low-level" applies to the one or two level) An interesting and not unreasonable rule to cover a specific instance. I feel that the term "low-level" should have been defined in the regulation. >(3) Law 63B - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE >In determining whether a 1 or 2 trick penalty is in order, the TD >must look to see what would have happened if the revoke was not >corrected and the hand was played out. Remember that this provision >does not apply in most ACBL events. (LC, July 1997) > >[The reason for the last sentence is that 61B's prohibition in >regard to defenders does not apply in ACBL-land, and therefore L63B >does not apply - mlf] I think this just means the ACBL does not understand the Law. The 1 or 2 trick penalty is based on what did happen, not what would have happened, so this regulation is flawed. Of course, these things are easier to understand when people are used to them. >(6) L90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES >Procedural penalties, mild or severe, should be issued when players >depart from accepted procedure. Usually this would happen after due >warning...(snip of non-controversial language related to >disciplinary penalties per L91). (LC, July 1997) > >[mlf comment: PPs are routinely being issued without due warning] Whether it is being followed or not, it is pleasing to me that the official line is the one that I believe in, namely that for lesser offences PPs are only issued as warnings on a first occasion. -- 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 Feb 17 14:43:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:43:21 +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 OAA07328 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:43:15 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA27453 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:43:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902170343.TAA27453@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:42:33 -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 From: David Burn Marvin L. French wrote: > > [snip] > > >DECLARER OR DUMMY EXPLAINING AN AGREEMENT BEFORE THE OPENING LEAD > >THAT DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE HAND HELD > > > >While there is a legal obligation to correct and incorrect or > >incomplete explanation, care must be taken to phrase the correction > >in such a way as to not mislead the opponents. The TD may still > >adjust the score because of the original failure to alert or > >explain correctly at the proper time by the proper person when an > >opponent is misled even though the player is mandated by Law to > >correct the explanation. (LC, July 1995) > > This is actually very awkward. It has been cited by John Probst and others > as one of the "difficulties" when playing on-line bridge, and I suppose the > problem ought to be addressed, for I think that the correct "legal" > position is one that is going to be incomprehensible to the average player > (and perhaps opposed by players in the expert category). > > The difficulty typically arises when: > > (a) I have made a deliberately deceptive call, but a legal one under L40A; > and > > (b) partner has given a wrong explanation of the call according to our > system; so that > > (c) my duty is to correct the wrong explanation as soon as possible under > L75D2; and > > (d) I give the correct explanation, but this does not [of course, in view > of (a) above] conform to the hand I actually hold; so that > > (e) the opponents are damaged, and even though the damage arises from my > successful deception and not from any infraction of Law, they are > nevertheless unhappy and seek redress. > > In this case, I suppose we on this list would all agree that the opponents > are not actually entitled to any redress, but it appears from the way in > which the ACBL has framed its regulation as quoted by Marvin (and from my > own experience, having sat on ACs with high-ranking American players and > officials) that this would not necessarily be the way in which an American > AC would rule. (snip of good stuff) Just want to remind BLMLers of Appeals Case No. 23 at the Miami Summer NABC, 1996, involving Karen McCallum and Benito Garazzo in a situation of this sort. To take another look at this complicated case, go to http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/miami.html Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 16:52:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA07596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:52:15 +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 QAA07591 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:52:07 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.124] by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10Czu2-0007V3-00; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 05:52:07 +0000 Message-ID: <199902170551270100.1ADDA4CA@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902170343.TAA27453@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> References: <199902170343.TAA27453@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 05:51:27 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 16/02/99, at 19:42, Marvin L. French wrote: >Just want to remind BLMLers of Appeals Case No. 23 at the Miami >Summer NABC, 1996, involving Karen McCallum and Benito Garazzo in a >situation of this sort. To take another look at this complicated >case, go to http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/miami.html The AC in Miami dealt with the problem in exemplary fashion (indeed, having looked at almost all of the published cases in search of the one Marvin mentioned, I was greatly impressed with the decisions given in some very awkward cases). This no less interesting case happened in the 1995 Venice Cup in Beijing. The more or less absurd reportage is by Mark Horton, doyen of bulletin editors almost everywhere. But the legal controversy rumbled around in places where they sing, and caused some divisions of opinion. Board 16. E/W Vul. Dealer West. S J H 76 D QT863 C KQ972 S T8643 S KQ975 H 83 H AKQJT92 D KJ74 D -- C J3 C A S A2 H 54 D A952 C T8654 West North East South Von Arnim Auken Pass Pass 4NT Pass 5D Pass 6H Pass Pass Pass Sabine: "Wow, what a hand. If partner has the SA 7H should be cold. Time to ask for specific aces." Dany: "Sabine has both minors. This hasn't come up for a long time so I hope she has remembered!" Sabine: "What a pity, Dani has the wrong ace. Still I'm not going to stop short of slam - perhaps she will have something useful in spades." Dany: "Whoops! She did forget and she thinks I've got the DA." South: "Let's lead the SA and have a look at dummy." Sabine: "Looks like I forgot the system. I'd better drop the SK and hope for the best. How am I going to explain this one to the team?" North: "Well done partner, now just give me my ruff." South: "So, East thought West had the DA. (Playing the diamond ace). Have I got a surprise for you!" Sabine: "And have I got a surprise for you!" (In the other room the contract was also 6H. Andrea Rauscheid also led the SA but she made no mistake at trick two and gave her partner a ruff.) [DB again, lest you should wonder] EW's actual agreement, as documented on both convention cards, was that 4NT showed minors. It was not clear what questions South had asked, or whether she was in possession of (a) any relevant facts or (b) any relevant faculties. Remember that West was South's screen mate, so that in practical terms South would not have been very well informed after the actual auction even if she had asked questions - "4NT?" "Minors." "6H?" "No partnership agreement." But if South had been East's side, it would have gone: "4NT?" "Asks for specific aces." "5D?" "The ace of diamonds, no other ace." In practical terms, South probably had a better chance on West's side of the screen than East's. As far as I recall, no ruling was sought and no appeal was lodged; only when the incident was publicised did anyone begin to think that perhaps there was a case to answer here. (I was in Beijing at the time, but my memory is faulty; if anyone else has better information - Grattan, for instance - it would be useful.) Certainly, the consensus among the players with whom I discussed the position was that NS might have done well to seek redress, and might well have been given some. Among those who thought that South was due a "true" explanation of what was happening were most of the American and Canadian players, and (for what it's worth) me. In short, I thought that in an ideal world, South was entitled to hear both explanations at once, and thus know that her opponents were in the middle of a misunderstanding. I am not sure about that any more. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 16:55:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA07611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:55:07 +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 QAA07606 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:55:01 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-38.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.38]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA58944019 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:58:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:54:13 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.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 AAA58944019 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David, I am not sure that it is reasonable at all. [a] Most organizations have prohibitions to changing one's agreements in the middle of the auction. It hardly seems right for the ACBL to change a pair's agreements in mid auction to give them an advantage. [b] In the auction given, most pairs employ the negative double. For an offender to gain an advantage through his own infraction does seem to be quite ripe. That is to say that after the correction [L29B] 1D-1H-X-=85 where the double would be takeout, the mandated agreement change would make it AI that the double was something other than takeout, specifically, hearts. The enforced pass [L31A2b] seems to have implications [L23] in the case of damage due to the 'mandated change of agreement'.=20 [c] It does not seem to be right that the OS should get a second chance at the apple [L26A1] via a double that was otherwise conventional showing something other than hearts. I think that L32A2b means exactly what it says- you get a lead penalty if you do not bid hearts naturally [L26A1] [d] changing the pair's agreement seems to contravene L16C2 which says that information from its own [OS] withdrawn action is UI. I do not see it preclude the offender's withdrawn action from becoming UI to himself. In fact, L16C2 appears to make it improper to make a double showing hearts when a double in that auction would show something else. Roger Pewick David Stevenson wrote: >=20 > Marvin L. French wrote: ? L29? > >(2) Law 27 - BID OUT OF ROTATION > >In the auction 1D - no action - 1H when the bid out of turn is not > >accepted, if the player next to call bids 1H and the player who had > >called out of turn changes his call to double, the low-level double > >should be deemed to specify hearts, thus removing any lead > >penalties. At higher levels, the double becomes less meaningful as > >an indication of hearts and may be based solely on high cards, so > >the TD should impose a lead penalty in the heart suit. The LC also > >pointed out that the fact that the double was made with the > >knowledge that it would bar partner is AI to the offending side. > >(LC, Spring 1998) > > > >(Office Policy is that "low-level" applies to the one or two level) >=20 > An interesting and not unreasonable rule to cover a specific instance. > I feel that the term "low-level" should have been defined in the > regulation. > 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 Wed Feb 17 19:29:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:29:59 +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 TAA07793 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:29:51 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA13453; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:29:45 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902170829.AAA13453@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:28:30 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > A more common case is > 1NT-2C-2D-2NT. Your partner forgets to alert 2NT as not promising a > 4-card major. You have to explain your agreement that 2NT doesn't > promise a 4-card major, which may lead the opponents to think you > don't have a 4-card major, even when you do. (IIRC, Bobby Wolff has > proposed that you shouldn't even correct the explanation in cases like > this, but apparently that isn't official ACBL policy now.) > Official ACBL policy in its Alert Procedure (Page 6 of 16) is that you must Alert *any* follow-up bid if the bidder denies, or tends not to have, a four-card major. The Alert Chart at the end of the Alert Procedure is in error, saying the Alert applies to notrump continuations that do not promise a major. That is a "fossil," left over from a previous set of Alert regulations. Now, the regulation does *not* say that a continuation bid must be Alerted if it does not promise a major. The wording is: "When it becomes obvious that the 2C bidder either does not have or tends not to have a four-card major, an Alert is required at that time." Let's assume that "tends not to have" means significantly less than 50% of the time, something like 45% or less. Suppose a 2NT response to 1NT is a transfer to diamonds and the bidding goes 1NT=2C=2x=2N, which is the only way responder can raise notrump. Does she tend not to have a four-card major? I asked the question of Danny Kleinman, who is good at this sort of thing, and he said if the response was 2D she will tend to have a four-card major, so no Alert. If the response was 2H or 2S, she will tend *not* to have a four-card major, so opener Alerts 2NT. Explaining that to a TD or AC would probably get me nowhere, so we Alert 2NT in any case. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 20:11:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA07875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:11:32 +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 UAA07870 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:11:26 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10D30n-00030T-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:11:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:29:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >I don't understand the last part of the ruling. If my partner's >explanation has correctly described my hand, I don't see how it could >possibly do damage to the non-offenders even if it's not a correct >explanation of our agreements. Garozzo in an NABC appeal: a bid was described as showing a 5-card suit, so the defender on lead did not lead it. The correct explanation was at least *four* cards not five, and the defender said s/he would have led the suit if s/he had known that. This argument is not unreasonable. In fact the player *did* have five, but that did not stop opponents being damaged by the misexplanation. -- 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 Feb 17 22:05:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:05:11 +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 WAA08083 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:05:04 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10D4mf-0002c9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:04:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:41:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> 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 axeman wrote: >I am not sure that it is reasonable at all. > >[a] Most organizations have prohibitions to changing one's agreements in >the middle of the auction. It hardly seems right for the ACBL to change >a pair's agreements in mid auction to give them an advantage. It is not the ACBL - it is commonsense and the aim to play Bridge. Whatever most organisations do they do not make this sort of rule: it is impractical. To take a similar case, suppose you play transfer 3-level openings, and you are silenced because of an infraction. Your partner opens 3H. What suit has he got? >[b] In the auction given, most pairs employ the negative double. For an >offender to gain an advantage through his own infraction does seem to be >quite ripe. That is to say that after the correction [L29B] 1D-1H-X-=85 >where the double would be takeout, the mandated agreement change would >make it AI that the double was something other than takeout, >specifically, hearts. The enforced pass [L31A2b] seems to have >implications [L23] in the case of damage due to the 'mandated change of >agreement'.=20 I cannot believe that any player who is not drunk or a total beginner is going to employ a takeout double when partner is forced **as a matter of AI** to pass. Director's rulings are AI. If L23 applies then you apply it! If it does not, then there is no reason to make rules based on the fact of the Law's existence in a situation where it does not apply. >[c] It does not seem to be right that the OS should get a second chance >at the apple [L26A1] via a double that was otherwise conventional >showing something other than hearts. I think that L32A2b means exactly >what it says- you get a lead penalty if you do not bid hearts naturally >[L26A1] I cannot find this wording in my Law book. What do you mean be "exactly what it says"? It says "if that suit was specified by the same player". It does not say "If you did not bid hearts naturally" which means something totally different. The question is whether a double "specifies the same suit". Saying that it does not because it is a takeout double when in fact everyone knows it is a penalty double is not an answer. The only question is whether a double which is known to be the clearest penalty double of all specifies the suit. >[d] changing the pair's agreement seems to contravene L16C2 which says >that information from its own [OS] withdrawn action is UI. I do not see >it preclude the offender's withdrawn action from becoming UI to >himself. In fact, L16C2 appears to make it improper to make a double >showing hearts when a double in that auction would show something else. Absolutely not. If you make a double that is *known* by the logic of the situation to be penalties then it is not known because of an earlier withdrawn action. Let us go through the logic. 1D [nothing] 1H 1H is withdrawn so it is UI to partner. 1D 2C Dbl with partner barred The double is going to be passed by partner. Therefore, according to the Laws of bridge and the general meanings of the English language, it is a penalty double. This has nothing to do with the information gained from the 1H bid. The only agreement with partner that it shows is that the player will attempt to do his best at the board in a legal fashion [making a takeout double with partner barred is *not* doing his best] and this is required by another ACBL regulation which makes it an offence not to try to do as well as possible on *each* board. Given that we know it is a penalty double, does it specify a suit? But ... but ... but you say, what has this got to do with the case? Well, the Law may be different if the overcall is 1H, but the logic is the same. If the overcall is 1H, then logic, the ACBL regulation, commonsense and the meaning of the term "penalty double" all show that a double now of 1H is a penalty double - all these being AI sources. We do not need a "suit bid naturally" as you say since that requirement is not in the Law: we need a suit "specified" later [or earlier, but not relevant in *this* auction]. So we come back to whether a low-level penalty double when partner cannot remove it specifies the suit. Does it? The answer could be considered Yes or NO, and the ACBL has produced a reasonable regulation to over the point. --=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 Wed Feb 17 22:12:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:12:32 +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 WAA08114 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:12:24 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-62.uunet.be [194.7.13.62]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21095 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:12:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36CA8154.7D6E79CC@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:44:04 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@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: > > > (1) Law 12C1 - AWARDING AN ADJUSTED SCORE > The LC feels that the phrase "at most 40% of the available > matchpoints should refer to a pair being awarded the remaining > matchpoints when they have committed an offense against a pair > whose percent score is greater than 60% (i.e., top minus 63% when > the NOS has achieved 63% on all other boards played). (LC, Spring > 1998) > > (Office Policy is that this will not apply to individual events) > What ? Are they crazy ? That is almost impossible to keep track of ! And do they realise what this means in combination with the WBFLC decision that it should go down according to the own percentage ? Please don't let this one go further. Keep it in the tech files of the ACBL and shut up about it ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 22:12:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:12:34 +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 WAA08116 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:12:25 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-62.uunet.be [194.7.13.62]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21099 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:12:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36CA83A6.4E6D30F8@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:53:58 +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: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902170343.TAA27453@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <199902170551270100.1ADDA4CA@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > In short, I > thought that in an ideal world, South was entitled to hear both > explanations at once, and thus know that her opponents were in the middle > of a misunderstanding. I am not sure about that any more. I am certainly not sure. I have always said that as a "rule", the information that opponents have a misunderstanding is, while authorised, not "obligatory available". Could somebody give me a better English Bridge term for this "obligatory available" (information that you are entitled to). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 22:12:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:12:35 +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 WAA08121 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:12:28 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-62.uunet.be [194.7.13.62]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21103 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:12:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36CA84AF.17094230@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:58:23 +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: L50 - not a penalty card Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk L50 has a special proviso, saying "unless the TD designates otherwise". A funny example wher I ruled this way happened at my table yesterday evening. The bidding : LHO part RHO me 1Di 1Sp pass 2Sp Dbl Rdbl 3Cl Dbl 3Di 3Sp all pass. RHO led the King of diamonds, and I put down ... A Q J 9 8 of that suit. Partner and RHO began to smile. The smiles turned into laughs when partner contributed the 10 to the first trick. At that moment I said "looks like Hugo has bid twice on 6 to the 7", whereupon RHO showed the Di7. It was not a psyche, Hugo had indeed bid twice on 5 to the 6! Under the circumstances, I announced the the Di7 would not be a penalty card ! Agreed ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 22:12:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:12:47 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA08130 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:12:31 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-62.uunet.be [194.7.13.62]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21110 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:12:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36CA8568.ABB8C0B4@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:01:28 +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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <199902161852.MAA04393@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <199902162231470920.194B1165@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > On 16/02/99, at 12:52, cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > >> On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, David Burn wrote: > >> > >> > Can anyone tell me, incidentally, why L21A does not apply in this > >> > situation? I have made the point a couple of times, and am genuinely > >> > curious to know the answer. > >> > > > > I have assumed that L21A is meant to be parallel to L21B. L21B > >covers an attempt to _change a call one has already made_ on the grounds > >that it was based on misinformation. L21A tells you that you do not have > >this recourse if your call was made as a result of your own > >misunderstanding. > > So if I bid 2H because I misunderstood my RHO's bid through no > >fault of his own, I have no recourse. That doesn't mean that I am > >required to make future calls based on that same misunderstanding. L21A > >refers to legal recourse regarding the current call, not to recourse > through > >future calls or plays. > > Jesper and others have given similar opinions. Thanks to all of you who > replied; this interpretation is certainly consistent, and I see no > practical difficulty with it. Whether or not it is what L21A originally > intended is, I suppose, a question for others to answer. But, if this > position is accepted as correct, I think that perhaps it might be > incorporated into the EBL Guide to the Laws and other such invaluable > publications. FWIW, David, I had the same idea about the meaning of recourse in L21A. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 23:05:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:05:08 +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 XAA08409 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:05:00 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.181] by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10D5it-0002L6-00; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:04:59 +0000 Message-ID: <199902171204170320.1C330978@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:04:17 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 17/02/99, at 03:29, David Stevenson wrote: >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >>I don't understand the last part of the ruling. If my partner's >>explanation has correctly described my hand, I don't see how it could >>possibly do damage to the non-offenders even if it's not a correct >>explanation of our agreements. [DWS] > >Garozzo in an NABC appeal: a bid was described as showing a 5-card >suit, so the defender on lead did not lead it. The correct explanation >was at least *four* cards not five, and the defender said s/he would >have led the suit if s/he had known that. This argument is not >unreasonable. > >In fact the player *did* have five, but that did not stop opponents >being damaged by the misexplanation. Not quite right, David. It might help to clear this up if I quote the actual hand. Garozzo was in fact the defender who might have been damaged, but was ruled not to have been. Karen McCallum was the declarer and the player who gave the correct explanation of her methods. All is revealed below Appeals Case 23 Subject: Correcting Misinformation Event: Spingold Knockout Teams, third round, August 8 Board 29 None vul. Dealer North A K K 6 4 3 2 A 3 2 K 9 8 J 7 6 3 5 2 Q J 10 8 7 5 K J 8 7 6 10 5 4 A Q 4 5 3 2 Q 10 9 8 4 A 9 Q 9 J 10 7 6 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Lea DuPont Karen McCallum Benito Garozzo Cenk Tuncok 1NT(1) Pass 2H (2) Pass 2S (3) Pass 2NT(4) Pass 3H Pass 3NT All Pass (1) 14+ to 17 HCP (2) Transfer to spades (3) Denies four spades (4) Transfer to clubs; invitational or better Result: The H5 was led (attitude leads). 3NT by North made three, N/S plus 600. Facts: The Director was called to the table at the end of the play of the hand when North was found to have held five hearts. East said that he had asked about North's 3H bid before making his opening lead, and was told by South that it showed five hearts. North corrected this saying that she did not have to hold five hearts (although she might), but that the bid simply showed heart values and sought direction. East led a heart, allowing the contract to make. East said that he would have led a diamond had North not corrected South's statement, and a diamond lead would have defeated the contract. The Director ruled that there had been misinformation by N/S and adjusted the score to 3NT down two, N/S minus 200. The Appeal: N/S appealed. They testified that at the end of the auction, and before making his opening lead, East asked for a review with explanations. South conducted the annotated review, ultimately explaining North's 3H bid as showing five hearts. At that point North intervened saying that the bid did not show five hearts (although she could have five), but rather showed heart values in search of the correct game. (This interpretation was confirmed by N/S's system notes.) North stated that she felt obligated to correct South's explanation for two reasons, even though her hand coincidentally conformed to the mistaken explanation. The first reason was that she felt that E/W were entitled to know the basis on which South had bid 3NT (that he didn't have three-card heart support), and the basis on which North had bid 3H (that she was concerned about the N/S diamond holding for notrump, being somewhat protected in hearts by her length in the suit). If a diamond lead was best for E/W, it could help them to know that North had bid 3H intending to elicit help from South in diamonds. No such inference would be available to E/W if they believed that North's 3H bid was a search for a heart contract, since then it would not directly imply concern about diamonds. (N/S's notes also made it clear that in their methods 3H could never suggest playing in hearts.) North's second reason for her correction was that the erroneously disclosed (but accurate) information about her heart length might act to deter a reasonable (or even normal) heart lead when, given the poor quality of her heart spots, it was possible that such a lead could prove best for E/W. North also stated that her 3H bid was equally intended to keep alive the possibility of a 4 contract, and that she almost bid 4 over 3NT anyway, taking a long time before she finally passed. This was not disputed by E/W. E/W testified that the "emotional" nature of North's disclosure gave them the distinct impression that North wanted to avoid inhibiting a heart lead in case that lead proved to be best for E/W, and that North was therefore attempting to act in E/W's best interest. In addition, East stated that although he initially "had his finger on a diamond lead," North's emotional reaction caused him to change his lead to a heart. He reasoned that, since North was sincerely concerned that a heart lead could be best for E/W, the heart lead must therefore be right. The Committee's Decision: The Committee members strongly agreed on the following points relating to this case. First, that North acted properly in correcting the misinformation provided by South. In general, a player should be cautious in correcting a misexplanation which accurately describes his actual holding. However, when the misexplanation also contains inaccuracies which could damage the opponents, suggest false inferences, or deny them potentially useful information, the player has an obligation to correct the misinformation. This should be done in a way that makes it clear that the player may indeed have a holding which is consistent with the original explanation. Then the misleading aspects of the explanation should be corrected. For example, "I could certainly have the hand that my partner described, but our agreement is that my bid shows . . ." North's statement that she "could have five hearts" was in keeping with this principle. Second, North could hardly have done any more than she did to make all of the relevant information available to E/W. She disclosed the meaning she intended for her 3H bid (showing heart values and seeking direction for notrump), thus providing the inference that diamonds was of concern to her. (The inference that South's 3NT bid was not necessarily based on diamond values, but rather on the absence of three hearts, was available from his misinterpretation of the 3H bid.) The emotional nature of her reaction made it clear that she was also concerned that hearts could be the winning lead even after she showed heart values, and that she wanted E/W to know it. And finally, East, by his own admission, based his heart lead wholly on the emotional content of North's statement (that she was concerned that the heart lead could be best). Of course, given who East was, he was correct! But by ignoring the informational content of North's statement, including the intended meaning of her 3H bid and the inferences available from it, the winning alternative of the diamond lead was rejected. East was entitled to draw the inferences he did, but (as suggested by Law 73D1) only at his own risk. Based on the preceding analysis, the Committee restored the result originally achieved at the table: 3NT making three, N/S plus 600. Chairperson: Alan LeBendig Committee Members: Rich Colker, Bill Pollack, John Sutherlin, John Wittes From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 17 23:19:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:19:29 +1100 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA08451 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:19:22 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA02893 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:19:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:19:15 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings In-Reply-To: <199902170829.AAA13453@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Marvin L. French wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > A more common case is > > 1NT-2C-2D-2NT. Your partner forgets to alert 2NT as not promising a > > 4-card major. You have to explain your agreement that 2NT doesn't > > promise a 4-card major, which may lead the opponents to think you > > don't have a 4-card major, even when you do. (IIRC, Bobby Wolff > > has proposed that you shouldn't even correct the explanation in cases > > like this, but apparently that isn't official ACBL policy now.) > > > Official ACBL policy in its Alert Procedure (Page 6 of 16) is that > you must Alert *any* follow-up bid if the bidder denies, or tends > not to have, a four-card major. The Alert Chart at the end of the > Alert Procedure is in error, saying the Alert applies to notrump > continuations that do not promise a major. That is a "fossil," left > over from a previous set of Alert regulations. > > Now, the regulation does *not* say that a continuation bid must be > Alerted if it does not promise a major. The wording is: "When it > becomes obvious that the 2C bidder either does not have or tends > not to have a four-card major, an Alert is required at that time." > Let's assume that "tends not to have" means significantly less than > 50% of the time, something like 45% or less. > > Suppose a 2NT response to 1NT is a transfer to diamonds and the > bidding goes 1NT=2C=2x=2N, which is the only way responder can > raise notrump. Does she tend not to have a four-card major? I > asked the question of Danny Kleinman, who is good at this sort of > thing, and he said if the response was 2D she will tend to have a > four-card major, so no Alert. If the response was 2H or 2S, she > will tend *not* to have a four-card major, so opener Alerts 2NT. > Explaining that to a TD or AC would probably get me nowhere, so we > Alert 2NT in any case. If anything smells of "bridge lawyering" this does. I'm glad you have overcome the temptation to follow that primrose path. -- 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 Thu Feb 18 02:34:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 02:34:25 +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 CAA11493 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 02:34:15 +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 KAA01080 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:33:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990217103519.0070d114@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:35:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings In-Reply-To: <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:54 PM 2/16/99 -0600, axeman wrote: >I am not sure that it is reasonable at all. > >[a] Most organizations have prohibitions to changing one's agreements in >the middle of the auction. It hardly seems right for the ACBL to change >a pair's agreements in mid auction to give them an advantage. > >[b] In the auction given, most pairs employ the negative double. For an >offender to gain an advantage through his own infraction does seem to be >quite ripe. That is to say that after the correction [L29B] 1D-1H-X-=85 >where the double would be takeout, the mandated agreement change would >make it AI that the double was something other than takeout, >specifically, hearts. The enforced pass [L31A2b] seems to have >implications [L23] in the case of damage due to the 'mandated change of >agreement'.=20 > >[c] It does not seem to be right that the OS should get a second chance >at the apple [L26A1] via a double that was otherwise conventional >showing something other than hearts. I think that L32A2b means exactly >what it says- you get a lead penalty if you do not bid hearts naturally >[L26A1] > >[d] changing the pair's agreement seems to contravene L16C2 which says >that information from its own [OS] withdrawn action is UI. I do not see >it preclude the offender's withdrawn action from becoming UI to >himself. In fact, L16C2 appears to make it improper to make a double >showing hearts when a double in that auction would show something else. I think Roger is over-complicating a very simple issue. All that the ACBL (and David S.) are saying is that common sense and general bridge knowledge tell us that any artificial agreement carries an implied "footnote" that says "except when partner is barred from the auction, in which case the call is natural". Roger's interpretation would simply require all of us to do what it takes to "promote" that implied footnote to the status of an explicit agreement, which doesn't sound reasonable to me. The ACBL interpretation quoted originally by Marv can be debated, but does seem sensible. It says that, given the understanding, based on the above, that the substituted double is natural, only at a "low level" is the natural double deemed to specify the denomination doubled for the purpose of determining whether L29C applies. L29C states explicitly that under specified circumstances L31A2(b) does *not* "mean[] exactly what it says". L26A1 requires only that the suit be "specified", not that it be "bid... naturally". And L23 prevents an offender from "gain[ing] an advantage through his own infraction". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 03:03:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 03:03:15 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA11555 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 03:03:02 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-115.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.115]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA58464728 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:06:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CAE805.B11A533C@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:02:13 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.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 LAA58464728 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger, write on the blackboard 50 times=85typo, typo, typo, typo, typo, typo Of course I meant L31A2b. It is very specific. It says '=85does not repeat the denomination=85' in this case hearts. It does not say specify the denomination. 'Double' instead of heart does not repeat heart even if it were conceded that double means hearts. Personally, I believe that a penalty double means that the intention is to set the opposing contract and that it does not have to contain four cards in the enemy trump suit even though it may. And the bite out of the apple is the chance that L26 gives to avoid a lead penalty. The second bite is the regulation that changes an offender's agreement in the middle of the auction that double specifies the enemy suit. The laws have gone to great length to provide many turns which make the adjudication of infractions sometimes quite tedious. The practical response is to establish compromises to accommodate these difficulties.=20 These compromises themselves add twists often with intricate complications. The ACBL compromise is such a twist. I hold that the offender has the right to double. However, I think that part of the penalty for the infraction of bidding out of turn is that the OS should not be able to achieve a beneficial score from 1HX [L23] unless absent the infraction, 1D-1H-X the double by agreement was penalty.=20 You have brushed away the ramifications of L16C2 with the declaration that the ruling is AI and invoking the mantra of common sense. Of course, it can be argued that because the laws have written into them so many second chances for offenders to escape and or benefit from penalties that it is common sense to extend it even further and make things more complicated. Such a policy does not seem like common sense to me unless we are dealing with Orwellian discussion. Btw, why is it so important to provide an offender that has made a bridge mistake the opportunity to avoid or reduce the penalty that was earned? Roger Pewick David Stevenson wrote: >=20 > axeman wrote: >=20 > >I am not sure that it is reasonable at all. > > > >[a] Most organizations have prohibitions to changing one's agreements = in > >the middle of the auction. It hardly seems right for the ACBL to chan= ge > >a pair's agreements in mid auction to give them an advantage. >=20 > It is not the ACBL - it is commonsense and the aim to play Bridge. > Whatever most organisations do they do not make this sort of rule: it i= s > impractical. >=20 > To take a similar case, suppose you play transfer 3-level openings, > and you are silenced because of an infraction. Your partner opens 3H. > What suit has he got? >=20 > >[b] In the auction given, most pairs employ the negative double. For = an > >offender to gain an advantage through his own infraction does seem to = be > >quite ripe. That is to say that after the correction [L29B] 1D-1H-X-=85 > >where the double would be takeout, the mandated agreement change would > >make it AI that the double was something other than takeout, > >specifically, hearts. The enforced pass [L31A2b] seems to have > >implications [L23] in the case of damage due to the 'mandated change = of > >agreement'. >=20 > I cannot believe that any player who is not drunk or a total beginner > is going to employ a takeout double when partner is forced **as a matte= r > of AI** to pass. Director's rulings are AI. >=20 > If L23 applies then you apply it! If it does not, then there is no > reason to make rules based on the fact of the Law's existence in a > situation where it does not apply. >=20 > >[c] It does not seem to be right that the OS should get a second chanc= e > >at the apple [L26A1] via a double that was otherwise conventional > >showing something other than hearts. I think that L32A2b means exactl= y > >what it says- you get a lead penalty if you do not bid hearts naturall= y > >[L26A1] >=20 > I cannot find this wording in my Law book. What do you mean be > "exactly what it says"? It says "if that suit was specified by the sam= e > player". It does not say "If you did not bid hearts naturally" which > means something totally different. >=20 > The question is whether a double "specifies the same suit". Saying > that it does not because it is a takeout double when in fact everyone > knows it is a penalty double is not an answer. The only question is > whether a double which is known to be the clearest penalty double of al= l > specifies the suit. >=20 > >[d] changing the pair's agreement seems to contravene L16C2 which says > >that information from its own [OS] withdrawn action is UI. I do not s= ee > >it preclude the offender's withdrawn action from becoming UI to > >himself. In fact, L16C2 appears to make it improper to make a double > >showing hearts when a double in that auction would show something else. > Absolutely not. If you make a double that is *known* by the logic of > the situation to be penalties then it is not known because of an earlie= r > withdrawn action. The change in meaning occurs only because of Offender's own infraction.=20 The OS should not be able to avoid a lead penalty which was earned because of their own offense and their bidding agreements. The only common sense way to have this happen is to add to the laws language specifically dictating that in THAT situation, the double specifies the suit for the purpose of applying L26A1. The Laws of Contract Bridge are like a great rope tied into many knots entangled in an infinite net. Try to straighten it out and the entanglement increases. [I find such a law highly objectionable.] > Let us go through the logic. >=20 > 1D [nothing] 1H >=20 > 1H is withdrawn so it is UI to partner. >=20 > 1D 2C Dbl with partner barred >=20 > The double is going to be passed by partner. Therefore, according to > the Laws of bridge and the general meanings of the English language, it > is a penalty double. This has nothing to do with the information gaine= d > from the 1H bid. The only agreement with partner that it shows is that > the player will attempt to do his best at the board in a legal fashion > [making a takeout double with partner barred is *not* doing his best] > and this is required by another ACBL regulation which makes it an > offence not to try to do as well as possible on *each* board. >=20 > Given that we know it is a penalty double, does it specify a suit? >=20 > But ... but ... but you say, what has this got to do with the case? > Well, the Law may be different if the overcall is 1H, but the logic is > the same. If the overcall is 1H, then logic, the ACBL regulation, > commonsense and the meaning of the term "penalty double" all show that = a > double now of 1H is a penalty double - all these being AI sources. We > do not need a "suit bid naturally" as you say since that requirement is > not in the Law: we need a suit "specified" later [or earlier, but not > relevant in *this* auction]. So we come back to whether a low-level > penalty double when partner cannot remove it specifies the suit. Does > it? The answer could be considered Yes or NO, and the ACBL has produce= d > a reasonable regulation to over the point. >=20 > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 03:06:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 03:06:11 +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 DAA11572 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 03:06:05 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA22390 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:05:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id LAA07909 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:06:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:06:07 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902171606.LAA07909@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > If L23 applies then you apply it! If it does not, then there is no > reason to make rules based on the fact of the Law's existence in a > situation where it does not apply. I'm with David on this one. (!) Also note L72B1, but I'm not sure how it could apply here. Partner opens 1C, and I have a nice heart suit. Do I really want to bid it out of turn in case RHO overcalls 1H before I can get my suit in? It seems unlikely, but perhaps it could apply on some special hand. Hmmm... what about eight hearts to the jack and nothing else? Maybe hope to bar partner and bid 4H is the way to go (if I don't care about following the laws), and I just got lucky when RHO came in with 1H. I'm not sure about this example, but in principle, there might be a hand where 72B1 could apply. Of course if it does, L23 probably applies too. [in another message] > However, this idea of the ACBL that a pair's average-minus should > depend on their opponent's session score does not feel right, and is > probably prompted by the dreaded "protecting the field" mentality. Now > that it is known to be against WBFLC interpretations, will the ACBL > change this regulation? I can understand the ACBL thinking, perhaps. Suppose 40% against Meckwell looks pretty good to me. Do you really want to reward me if I make the board unplayable? I don't necessarily endorse this reasoning, but it doesn't seem crazy. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 03:51:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 03:51:20 +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 DAA11802 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 03:51:11 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa20257; 17 Feb 99 8:50 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:28:30 PST." <199902170829.AAA13453@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 08:50:41 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902170850.aa20257@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv French wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > A more common case is > > 1NT-2C-2D-2NT. Your partner forgets to alert 2NT as not > promising a > > 4-card major. You have to explain your agreement that 2NT > doesn't > > promise a 4-card major, which may lead the opponents to think you > > don't have a 4-card major, even when you do. (IIRC, Bobby Wolff > has > > proposed that you shouldn't even correct the explanation in cases > like > > this, but apparently that isn't official ACBL policy now.) > > > Official ACBL policy in its Alert Procedure (Page 6 of 16) is that > you must Alert *any* follow-up bid if the bidder denies, or tends > not to have, a four-card major. The Alert Chart at the end of the > Alert Procedure is in error, saying the Alert applies to notrump > continuations that do not promise a major. That is a "fossil," left > over from a previous set of Alert regulations. They changed it again? I must have missed that memo. Sigh. > Suppose a 2NT response to 1NT is a transfer to diamonds and the > bidding goes 1NT=2C=2x=2N, which is the only way responder can > raise notrump. Does she tend not to have a four-card major? I > asked the question of Danny Kleinman, who is good at this sort of > thing, and he said if the response was 2D she will tend to have a > four-card major, so no Alert. If the response was 2H or 2S, she > will tend *not* to have a four-card major, so opener Alerts 2NT. > Explaining that to a TD or AC would probably get me nowhere, so we > Alert 2NT in any case. Hmmm . . . Kleinman's answer is quite different from what I would have thought, and certainly different from what I would say at the table if asked. In 1NT=2C=2D=2NT, you still can't tell whether responder has a 4-card major; with Kxx Qxx xx Kxxxx (if you consider that an invitational raise) you still have to go through Stayman to invite. Now, it may be that since opener doesn't have a 4-card major and neither opponent has butted in, the probability of responder having a 4-card major may be higher. Still, that's not part of our agreements, and I would never say "tends to have a four-card major" if asked at the table. It's my job to explain our agreements, not teach the opponents about probability theory. In 1NT=2C=2S=2NT, responder may or may not have 4 hearts---you can't tell. I don't understand the statement that responder tends not to have a 4-card major in this sequence---it seems simply false to me. In 1NT=2C=2H=2NT, though, I usually play that 2NT denies a 4-card major; responder would continue 2S with 4 spades. (There are problems with the structure if responder can bid 2NT with four spades.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 04:29:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 04:29:12 +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 EAA12021 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 04:29:02 +1100 Received: from ip118.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.118]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990217172854.ZBJW3288.fep4@ip118.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:28:54 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Auction or Call Reviews (was RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:28:53 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36ccfc14.3047031@post12.tele.dk> References: <009e01be59cf$6f6efe80$888993c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <009e01be59cf$6f6efe80$888993c3@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 Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:58:40 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > ++++ When the parenthetical addition was made in the 1997 Code >it was accompanied by a note, written by Kaplan and agreed by the >WBFLC, which pointed out that its purpose was to make it plain that a >'full explanation' covers calls available but not made as well as calls >made. It was still the purpose of the law that an enquiry under 20F1 was >as to the full meaning of the *auction*. The sensitive observer will >realize how this distinction is pointed up in the wording of 20F2. > The 'difference', therefore, is not between David and me, but >between David (plus as it may be the EBU) and the authoritative >interpretation of the law by WBFLC, as restated in Lille - where David's >practical point was taken by a softening of the TD's response to the >actions of players so long as there is no abuse of the UI established. >Where the TD is suspicious of abuse he has a specific illegality on = which >to act. ++++ Have I misunderstood something or are you really saying that the WBFLC for practical reasons finds it acceptable to ask about single calls but nevertheless issues an official law interpretation that ban it so that the TD has an easy excuse in case he wants to penalize players? It should not be up to the TD to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable questions in this way - that line should be same as the line between legal and illegal questions as defined by law. I want the law book to tell me the real rules, not some theoretical and stricter rules made to ensure that TDs can find an excuse to penalize players whenever they want to. If there is "abuse of the UI established" why should the TD need any excuse to act other than the existing UI laws? Is that not a perfectly valid "specific illegality" in itself? I agree with everything David S wrote on this matter. What would the WBFLC want me to do if a player came to me and asked me to enforce the WBFLC interpretation that his opponents may not ask about specific calls? (This could happen in practice: I seem to remember Marvin writing that he has asked ACBL directors to do so.) I would have a choice of: (a) Actually trying to enforce it, which would lead to the practical difficulties described by David (and to almost everybody present believing the TD must have gone mad), (b) Telling the players that we follow WBFLC recommendations only when they make sense and that they should go on playing the game as everybody else plays it - and call me if they believe there is a UI problem. In a DBF or EBU event there would be no problem: (b) is obvious. But what should the TD in an international tournament do in practice? Particularly with screens and written explanations (a) could ruin any time schedule. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 04:38:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 04:38:27 +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 EAA12098 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 04:38:19 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa22938; 17 Feb 99 9:37 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Misexplanation that describes accurately In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:29:17 PST." Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:37:44 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902170937.aa22938@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >I don't understand the last part of the ruling. If my partner's > >explanation has correctly described my hand, I don't see how it could > >possibly do damage to the non-offenders even if it's not a correct > >explanation of our agreements. > > Garozzo in an NABC appeal: a bid was described as showing a 5-card > suit, so the defender on lead did not lead it. The correct explanation > was at least *four* cards not five, and the defender said s/he would > have led the suit if s/he had known that. This argument is not > unreasonable. > > In fact the player *did* have five, but that did not stop opponents > being damaged by the misexplanation. Well, after reading the appeal text that David Burn posted: it appears that Garozzo was claiming he was damaged not by the misexplanation but by McCallum's correction. So it's a different situation than what I'm talking about. The hypothetical situation is interesting, though. South makes a spade bid, and, when asked, North says it shows 5+ spades. But their actual agreement is that it shows 4+ spades. South becomes declarer. South knows what the actual agreement is, but doesn't correct the explanation. West chooses a lead based on the information that South has 5+ spades. South actually has 5 spades. West's lead gives them the contract. If West had known that the actual agreement was 4+ spades, he would have chosen a different lead, which would have worked better. Was West damaged? I don't think the answer is clear. Since South actually had 5 spades, West actually had *more* information about the hand than he would have if he had been told the correct agreement (4+). Normally, when a player has more information, this enables him to select choices that have a higher probability of working. Sometimes this higher-probability choice ends up being worse, and when that happens, we call it bad luck. I think that's what is happening in the hypothetical case. West has more precise information about South's hand than he should have had, but it was just bad luck that this additional information led to a less-effective lead. So it's not clear to me that West can claim damage. In essence, he'd have to say, "I was damaged by having more information than I should have had", which seems laughable. On the other hand, West could argue "It doesn't matter that I was really the victim of bad luck and not misinformation---North-South broke the Laws and I shouldn't have been put in that situation", and I have some sympathy for this argument. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 05:06:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:06:19 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA12262 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:06:06 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-115.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.115]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA58571937; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:09:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CB04D7.931BE009@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:05:11 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990217103519.0070d114@pop.cais.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 NAA58571937 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think that using 'common sense' to say that a partnership has two sets of agreements, one that applies when their side has not broken the law and another when their side has broken a law- is a stretch of the law. To then use common sense again to therefore say that since we have stretched the law to give the offenders an advantage we must stretch it again to extend the advantage even more . Such application of 'common sense' results in contortion of not only the law, but of those who apply the law, and the ones called upon to comply with the law. Btw, L29C applies to a conventional BOOT only, not to the substituted call. I do not think that they are quite enough the same. And- if it was intended to be so, it was imperative to write it so. Roger Pewick Eric Landau wrote: >=20 > At 11:54 PM 2/16/99 -0600, axeman wrote: >=20 > >I am not sure that it is reasonable at all. > > > >[a] Most organizations have prohibitions to changing one's agreements = in > >the middle of the auction. It hardly seems right for the ACBL to chan= ge > >a pair's agreements in mid auction to give them an advantage. > > > >[b] In the auction given, most pairs employ the negative double. For = an > >offender to gain an advantage through his own infraction does seem to = be > >quite ripe. That is to say that after the correction [L29B] 1D-1H-X-=85 > >where the double would be takeout, the mandated agreement change would > >make it AI that the double was something other than takeout, > >specifically, hearts. The enforced pass [L31A2b] seems to have > >implications [L23] in the case of damage due to the 'mandated change = of > >agreement'. > > > >[c] It does not seem to be right that the OS should get a second chanc= e > >at the apple [L26A1] via a double that was otherwise conventional > >showing something other than hearts. I think that L32A2b means exactl= y > >what it says- you get a lead penalty if you do not bid hearts naturall= y > >[L26A1] > > > >[d] changing the pair's agreement seems to contravene L16C2 which says > >that information from its own [OS] withdrawn action is UI. I do not s= ee > >it preclude the offender's withdrawn action from becoming UI to > >himself. In fact, L16C2 appears to make it improper to make a double > >showing hearts when a double in that auction would show something else. >=20 > I think Roger is over-complicating a very simple issue. All that the A= CBL > (and David S.) are saying is that common sense and general bridge knowl= edge > tell us that any artificial agreement carries an implied "footnote" tha= t > says "except when partner is barred from the auction, in which case the > call is natural". Roger's interpretation would simply require all of u= s to > do what it takes to "promote" that implied footnote to the status of an > explicit agreement, which doesn't sound reasonable to me. >=20 > The ACBL interpretation quoted originally by Marv can be debated, but d= oes > seem sensible. It says that, given the understanding, based on the abo= ve, > that the substituted double is natural, only at a "low level" is the > natural double deemed to specify the denomination doubled for the purpo= se > of determining whether L29C applies. >=20 > L29C states explicitly that under specified circumstances L31A2(b) does > *not* "mean[] exactly what it says". L26A1 requires only that the suit= be > "specified", not that it be "bid... naturally". And L23 prevents an > offender from "gain[ing] an advantage through his own infraction". >=20 > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 05:37:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:37:40 +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 FAA12346 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:37:33 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA27486; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:37:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902171837.KAA27486@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:35:20 -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 Adam Benschan wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > > > Suppose a 2NT response to 1NT is a transfer to diamonds and the > > bidding goes 1NT=2C=2x=2N, which is the only way responder can > > raise notrump. Does she tend not to have a four-card major? I > > asked the question of Danny Kleinman, who is good at this sort of > > thing, and he said if the response was 2D she will tend to have a > > four-card major, so no Alert. If the response was 2H or 2S, she > > will tend *not* to have a four-card major, so opener Alerts 2NT. > > Explaining that to a TD or AC would probably get me nowhere, so we > > Alert 2NT in any case. > > Hmmm . . . Kleinman's answer is quite different from what I would have > thought, and certainly different from what I would say at the table if > asked. In 1NT=2C=2D=2NT, you still can't tell whether responder has a > 4-card major; with Kxx Qxx xx Kxxxx (if you consider that an > invitational raise) you still have to go through Stayman to invite. > Now, it may be that since opener doesn't have a 4-card major and > neither opponent has butted in, the probability of responder having a > 4-card major may be higher. I guess Danny is saying that the majority of hands that are worth a raise to 2NT contain one or two four-card majors. However, when responder is known *not* to have one of the majors, the majority of the remaining hands do not include the unbid major. > Still, that's not part of our agreements, > and I would never say "tends to have a four-card major" if asked at > the table. It's my job to explain our agreements, not teach the > opponents about probability theory. In 1NT=2C=2S=2NT, responder may > or may not have 4 hearts---you can't tell. I don't understand the > statement that responder tends not to have a 4-card major in this > sequence---it seems simply false to me. See previous comment. Remember that responder can have a five-card minor but not a five-card major. Many 2NT raises include a five-card minor and no major. Our Alert explanation dodges the "doesn't promise a major" wording, because Stayman 2C (read the book) merely asks a question, it doesn't say anything about responder's hand. Those who say that 2C promises a major are playing some form of modified Stayman, not the convention described by Stayman himself. Anyway, our long-winded explanation of an always-Alerted 2NT is: "In order to raise notrump we have to use Stayman first, since an immediate 2NT response is a transfer to diamonds. Therefore, please infer nothing about (his) (her) hand." I think that covers all bases. The ACBL rule is unimportant to me, because I would always Alert 2NT even if it weren't required. The opponents may not be hip enough to understand the secondary effects of minor suit transfers, even if they notice them on the cc. > In 1NT=2C=2H=2NT, though, I > usually play that 2NT denies a 4-card major; responder would continue > 2S with 4 spades. (There are problems with the structure if responder > can bid 2NT with four spades.) Definitely Alertable, of course. Too bad you always have to transfer with five spades and no heart suit, even with an unbalanced hand. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 06:39:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 06:39:05 +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 GAA12466 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 06:38:58 +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 OAA17491 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:38:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:38:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902171938.OAA21283@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> (message from axeman on Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:54:13 -0600) Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman writes: > [b] In the auction given, most pairs employ the negative double. For an > offender to gain an advantage through his own infraction does seem to be > quite ripe. That is to say that after the correction [L29B] 1D-1H-X > where the double would be takeout, the mandated agreement change would > make it AI that the double was something other than takeout, > specifically, hearts. The enforced pass [L31A2b] seems to have > implications [L23] in the case of damage due to the 'mandated change of > agreement'. If this happens (that is, the offender was allowed to make an impossible bid by barring partner, and expected to gain something as a result, then you adjust. The classic example is ...-4NT-5S-5H, oops, 5NT. Offender had no way to play 5NT without the infraction, and thus if 5NT makes, the score should be adjusted to a slam down one. In your situation, we have to see whether there is damage. If, without the infraction, the likely auction was 1D-(1H)-P-(P)-X-AP, then there was no damage because the same result would have happened without the infraction. If the likely auction was 1D-(1H)-P-(P)-2C-(P)-3NT and 3NT goes down or make less than the penalty in 1Hx, then there was damage, and an adjustment is in order. In the more common cases of a an attempt to salvage something impossible bid, there is no adjustment. If opener openes out of turn and bars partner, and then shoots 3NT which makes, the score should stand even though an opening 3NT would normally have been gambling. He was not in a position to expect a better result by barring parter, >> >(2) Law 27 - BID OUT OF ROTATION >> >In the auction 1D - no action - 1H when the bid out of turn is not >> >accepted, if the player next to call bids 1H and the player who had >> >called out of turn changes his call to double, the low-level double >> >should be deemed to specify hearts, thus removing any lead >> >penalties. WHen the law first came out in 1987, the ACBL gave similar examples, showing how a suit could be specified implicitly. If South bids 2H over 1H, showing spades and a minor, and then retracts the bid and bids 1S, he has not clearly specified either minor, and there is thus normally no lead penalty. However, if E-W then show a huge club fit, it can be assumed that South had diamonds, and a lead penalty applies in diamonds. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 06:58:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 06:58:15 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA12501 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 06:58:09 +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 OAA02186 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:58:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id OAA08070 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:58:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:58:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902171958.OAA08070@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > If the likely auction was 1D-(1H)-P-(P)-2C-(P)-3NT and 3NT > goes down or make less than the penalty in 1Hx, then there was damage, > and an adjustment is in order. Let's make that "may be in order." There's still the question of "could have known" in L23 and 72B1. As noted in my previous message, I have some trouble constructing a hand where responder could have known that a BOOR would be likely to give advantage. > If opener openes out of turn and bars > partner, and then shoots 3NT which makes, the score should stand even > though an opening 3NT would normally have been gambling. He was not in > a position to expect a better result by barring parter, Exactly so. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 07:15:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:15:35 +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 HAA12564 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:15:25 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10DDNK-00021F-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:15:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:48:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> <3.0.1.32.19990217103519.0070d114@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990217103519.0070d114@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >I think Roger is over-complicating a very simple issue. All that the ACBL >(and David S.) are saying is that common sense and general bridge knowledge >tell us that any artificial agreement carries an implied "footnote" that >says "except when partner is barred from the auction, in which case the >call is natural". Roger's interpretation would simply require all of us to >do what it takes to "promote" that implied footnote to the status of an >explicit agreement, which doesn't sound reasonable to me. > >The ACBL interpretation quoted originally by Marv can be debated, but does >seem sensible. It says that, given the understanding, based on the above, >that the substituted double is natural, only at a "low level" is the >natural double deemed to specify the denomination doubled for the purpose >of determining whether L29C applies. No, it doesn't! All it refers to are the lead penalties of L26. >And L23 prevents an >offender from "gain[ing] an advantage through his own infraction". Oooooh, careful, that was Roger's mistake. L23 prevents an O from gaining *deliberately*, ie when he knew it would work in his favour at the time of the infraction. Most situations are "rub-of-the-green" [ROTG?] and work in the NOs favour on occasion. -- 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 Feb 18 07:15:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:15:30 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA12563 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:15:24 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10DDOQ-000OFh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:16:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:43:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> <36CAE805.B11A533C@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: <36CAE805.B11A533C@freewwweb.com> 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 axeman wrote: >Roger, write on the blackboard 50 times=85typo, typo, typo, typo, typo, >typo > >Of course I meant L31A2b. It is very specific. It says '=85does not >repeat the denomination=85' in this case hearts. It does not say specify >the denomination. 'Double' instead of heart does not repeat heart even >if it were conceded that double means hearts. Personally, I believe >that a penalty double means that the intention is to set the opposing >contract and that it does not have to contain four cards in the enemy >trump suit even though it may. Ah, L31A2B. Yes, this applies, no doubt about it. It says, inter alia, "... the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply, ..." and since the ACBL regulation is only concerned with those lead penalties, it is the wording of L26 with which I am concerned. >And the bite out of the apple is the chance that L26 gives to avoid a >lead penalty. The second bite is the regulation that changes an >offender's agreement in the middle of the auction that double specifies >the enemy suit. > >The laws have gone to great length to provide many turns which make the >adjudication of infractions sometimes quite tedious. The practical >response is to establish compromises to accommodate these difficulties.=20 >These compromises themselves add twists often with intricate >complications. The ACBL compromise is such a twist. > >I hold that the offender has the right to double. However, I think that >part of the penalty for the infraction of bidding out of turn is that >the OS should not be able to achieve a beneficial score from 1HX [L23] >unless absent the infraction, 1D-1H-X the double by agreement was >penalty.=20 Unfortunately you cannot make up Laws, so you have to provide one.=20 L23 does not meet this case: it does not apply. How could you know it would disadvantage your opponents to force partner to pass at the time you called OOT? So, what Law are you going to use to prove that a partner who is forced to pass must take your double as takeout? >You have brushed away the ramifications of L16C2 with the declaration >that the ruling is AI and invoking the mantra of common sense. Of >course, it can be argued that because the laws have written into them so >many second chances for offenders to escape and or benefit from >penalties that it is common sense to extend it even further and make >things more complicated. Such a policy does not seem like common sense >to me unless we are dealing with Orwellian discussion. I have no idea what this means. Are you suggesting that the Director's ruling is not AI? >Btw, why is it so important to provide an offender that has made a >bridge mistake the opportunity to avoid or reduce the penalty that was >earned? I don't know. I merely am interpreting the current Laws, not writing them. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 07:15:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:15:34 +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 HAA12568 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:15:27 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10DDNR-00021G-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:15:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:53:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902171606.LAA07909@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199902171606.LAA07909@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 >[in another message] >> However, this idea of the ACBL that a pair's average-minus should >> depend on their opponent's session score does not feel right, and is >> probably prompted by the dreaded "protecting the field" mentality. Now >> that it is known to be against WBFLC interpretations, will the ACBL >> change this regulation? >I can understand the ACBL thinking, perhaps. Suppose 40% against >Meckwell looks pretty good to me. Do you really want to reward me if I >make the board unplayable? I might if I am Bobby Wolff, having a 68% session. If I am running at 42% and I get an A- then it really does not matter how much I get [which is why the WBFLC approach seems so pointless]. It is people who have a 65% session to whom these score differences matter. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 07:42:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:42:17 +1100 Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA12653 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:42:13 +1100 Received: from salsa (salsa.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.112]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA24122 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:42:08 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990218094241.0093a860@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:42:41 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Seeding question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Really more appropriate for a "bridge tournament organizers" mailing list, but please forgive me. Does anyone have experience (and wish to share it) with the seeding of a complete round robin? I speak (or rather type) not of the question of how to determine who are the number 1, 2, 3 etc seeds, but rather of the problem of setting the schedule so that as much as possible "high seeds meet late". The local conditions which I expect to encounter (this question, for a change, not being entirely hypothetical) are something like the following: A complete round robin between 10 contestants, three to qualify for further honours. Three or four "obvious" contenders, one or two "middle shots", the rest "long shots". Scoring on the European 30 VP scale (if it matters.) However, I am at least equally interested in the general theory (if any) of the situation. My limited trolling of the web and print resources I have at hand suggests that this sort of problem arises quite commonly in many different sports/games, and seems to be dealt with entirely on a case by case basis "on the spot" by organizers (in some cases eg major professional sports leagues, this may be a process of several weeks duration -- though of course they also have other considerations, eg venue availability.) Needless to say, as a mathematician*, I find this state of affairs quite abhorrent. [*Def: Someone to whom a general result which applies to no case which is likely to arise in practice is more interesting than an effective and practical method for handling all those which do, but which is not rigorously justified.] M --------------------------------------------------------- Michael H. Albert Ph: (64)-03-479-7778 Senior Teaching Fellow Fax: (64)-03-479-8427 Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 07:43:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:43:31 +1100 Received: from mailhub2.iag.net (mailhub2.iag.net [204.27.210.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA12667 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:43:23 +1100 Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:43:23 +1100 Received: (qmail 5369 invoked from network); 17 Feb 1999 20:43:13 -0000 Received: from pm02-067.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.67) by gulik.iag.net with SMTP; 17 Feb 1999 20:43:13 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990217154239.12879b02@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: Misexplanation that describes accurately Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:37 AM 2/17/99 PST, you wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> >I don't understand the last part of the ruling. If my partner's >> >explanation has correctly described my hand, I don't see how it could >> >possibly do damage to the non-offenders even if it's not a correct >> >explanation of our agreements. >> >> Garozzo in an NABC appeal: a bid was described as showing a 5-card >> suit, so the defender on lead did not lead it. The correct explanation >> was at least *four* cards not five, and the defender said s/he would >> have led the suit if s/he had known that. This argument is not >> unreasonable. >> >> In fact the player *did* have five, but that did not stop opponents >> being damaged by the misexplanation. > >Well, after reading the appeal text that David Burn posted: it appears >that Garozzo was claiming he was damaged not by the misexplanation but >by McCallum's correction. So it's a different situation than what I'm >talking about. > >The hypothetical situation is interesting, though. South makes a >spade bid, and, when asked, North says it shows 5+ spades. But their >actual agreement is that it shows 4+ spades. South becomes declarer. >South knows what the actual agreement is, but doesn't correct the >explanation. South should correct the MI no questions asked. that he actually hold 5 is totally unimportant to the case. >West chooses a lead based on the information that South >has 5+ spades. South actually has 5 spades. West's lead gives them >the contract. If West had known that the actual agreement was 4+ >spades, he would have chosen a different lead, which would have worked >better. Was West damaged? > Clearly yes. >I don't think the answer is clear. Since South actually had 5 spades, >West actually had *more* information about the hand than he would have >if he had been told the correct agreement (4+). West had information but NOT the important information namely NS agreements > >Normally, when a player has more information, this enables him to >select choices that have a higher probability of working. Sometimes >this higher-probability choice ends up being worse, and when that >happens, we call it bad luck. I think that's what is happening in the >hypothetical case. West has more precise information about South's >hand than he should have had, but it was just bad luck that this >additional information led to a less-effective lead. So it's not >clear to me that West can claim damage. MI creates damage usually if everyone followed the law and corrected the MI in cases like this a lot less problem would occur in cases like this. I personally want and DEMAND a correct explaining of opps agreements. It is every players right to have the knowledge of opps actual agreements. If a hand matches the MI given it is MI none less just give the following position of the Spade in the hypothetical case South have runned into 3NT and his sp holding is 65432 but agreement is have only showed 4+ suit suppose West on lead holding AJT98 of spades leading spades is more tempting if south had showed 4+ suit than 5+ suit Robert From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 08:08:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:08:31 +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 IAA12720 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:08:25 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa06471; 17 Feb 99 13:07 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Misexplanation that describes accurately In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:43:23 PST." <3.0.16.19990217154239.12879b02@pop3.iag.net> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:07:54 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902171307.aa06471@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robert Nordgren wrote: > [Adam wrote:] > >The hypothetical situation is interesting, though. South makes a > >spade bid, and, when asked, North says it shows 5+ spades. But their > >actual agreement is that it shows 4+ spades. South becomes declarer. > >South knows what the actual agreement is, but doesn't correct the > >explanation. > > South should correct the MI no questions asked. that he actually hold 5 is > totally unimportant to the case. I agree, of course; that doesn't affect the question. MI does not automatically imply damage. > >West chooses a lead based on the information that South > >has 5+ spades. South actually has 5 spades. West's lead gives them > >the contract. If West had known that the actual agreement was 4+ > >spades, he would have chosen a different lead, which would have worked > >better. Was West damaged? > > > > Clearly yes. > > >I don't think the answer is clear. Since South actually had 5 spades, > >West actually had *more* information about the hand than he would have > >if he had been told the correct agreement (4+). > > > West had information but NOT the important information namely NS agreements If you're saying that the information about the NS agreements is more important than information about the actual hand, I disagree. The reason the information about agreements is important is PRECISELY because it allows the opponents to construct the opponents' actual hands. If (in some mutant bridge game not played according to the Laws) an opponent told you, "Pick one: I can either tell you what our agreements about my spade holding are, or I can tell you what my exact spade holding is", which would you rather have? I'd rather know the exact holding, of course! (Of course, knowing the agreements would allow you to draw inferences about the rest of the auction. I'm assuming that's not a factor in my hypothetical case.) > >Normally, when a player has more information, this enables him to > >select choices that have a higher probability of working. Sometimes > >this higher-probability choice ends up being worse, and when that > >happens, we call it bad luck. I think that's what is happening in the > >hypothetical case. West has more precise information about South's > >hand than he should have had, but it was just bad luck that this > >additional information led to a less-effective lead. So it's not > >clear to me that West can claim damage. > > MI creates damage usually if everyone followed the law and corrected the MI > in cases like this a lot less problem would occur in cases like this. > > I personally want and DEMAND a correct explaining of opps agreements. It is > every players right to have the knowledge of opps actual agreements. > > > If a hand matches the MI given it is MI none less just give the following > position of the Spade in the hypothetical case > > South have runned into 3NT and his sp holding is 65432 but agreement is > have only showed 4+ suit > > suppose West on lead holding AJT98 of spades > > leading spades is more tempting if south had showed 4+ suit than 5+ suit But this is exactly the case that I'm claiming where "damage" is due to bad luck. Suppose South had corrected the misexplanation and said their agreements promise only a 4+ suit; but a little bird with no agenda settles on your shoulder and whispers in your ear that South really has 5 spades. Now, if you refuse to lead a spade, but a spade lead is necessary to break the contract, is this damage or bad luck? Well, in the MI case, you have the exact same amount of relevant information as you do in the little bird case. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 08:51:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:51:41 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12790 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:51:34 +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 QAA10187 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:51:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id QAA08226 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:51:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:51:37 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902172151.QAA08226@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > If I am running at 42% and I get an A- then it really does not matter > how much I get [which is why the WBFLC approach seems so pointless]. It > is people who have a 65% session to whom these score differences matter. I shall really have to try to write more clearly. And just to be clear, the following is entirely hypothetical. I put it in the first person for dramatic effect, but I personally would never want to play this way. Suppose I estimate that I'm holding a 65% game, but now some top players (e.g. Meckwell) have just arrived at my table. Maybe I've even suffered some bad results from them in the past. If I can get out of the round with 40%, I'll be quite satisfied. It probably won't win the event for me, but at least I'll get a few of those precious gold points. :-) What to do? Play the boards and take my expected 20%? Oh, wait... how about if I make the boards unplayable? That's it! I'll just expose a few of the opponents cards. (So sorry! How clumsy of me!) Now the TD gives me 40%, and I'm happy. Meckwell aren't badly harmed, since they get the 70% they are scoring on the rest of the boards. Now do you see why the ACBL might think 30% for me is enough? I'm not asking anyone to agree -- I'm not at all sure I agree! -- but I can see why it might be justifiable. I do agree with David that if a pair are scoring about 40% overall, it makes no difference whether one board is scored exactly 40% or any other number about the same size. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 08:57:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:57:19 +1100 Received: from cms.peel.edu.on.ca ([207.81.165.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12814 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:57:12 +1100 Received: from 222856 ([10.18.134.142]) by cms.peel.edu.on.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA00558 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:56:26 -0500 Message-ID: <36CB6505.26E8@cms.peel.edu.on.ca> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:55:33 -0800 From: Martin Hunter Reply-To: hunterm@cms.peel.edu.on.ca Organization: Peel Board of Education Meadowvale S.S X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902170829.AAA13453@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: > > > Official ACBL policy in its Alert Procedure (Page 6 of 16) is that > you must Alert *any* follow-up bid if the bidder denies, or tends > not to have, a four-card major. The Alert Chart at the end of the > Alert Procedure is in error, saying the Alert applies to notrump > continuations that do not promise a major. That is a "fossil," left > over from a previous set of Alert regulations. > > Now, the regulation does *not* say that a continuation bid must be > Alerted if it does not promise a major. The wording is: "When it > becomes obvious that the 2C bidder either does not have or tends > not to have a four-card major, an Alert is required at that time." > Let's assume that "tends not to have" means significantly less than > 50% of the time, something like 45% or less. This situation came up last night S W N E xx 1NT P 2C X Kx 2D P P * 10987xx xxx Jxxx KQxx The sequence shown is how J10xxx Qxx NS get to play in a weak x Q 6 card minor after 1 NT AQx KJ10xx opener Axx Axx East actually bid 2S and AKJxx North bid 3D after 2 xx passes. Auction ended there. EW call when they see dummy and claim damage due to failure to alert South never alerted and North offered nothing EW never asked any questions or looked at CC When should NS have alerted, if at all? What do you rule? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 09:05:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:05:21 +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 JAA12838 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:05:13 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-125.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.125]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA59340421 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:08:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CB3B30.EDC3F8B8@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:57:04 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902171938.OAA21283@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Have we forgotten that responder's withdrawn call has the power of a gratuitous communication? Have we forgotten all of the arguments about LA's and that L16 precludes picking the reopening double if there is a semblance of a LA? [I have argued that the laws ought to be changed so as to restrict opener's calls to clear cut alternatives only, and when it is close avoid the appearance of using UI]. Have we forgotten that opener no longer has the opportunity to bid in tempo and prove that he would reopen with a double and that responder no longer has the opportunity to prove that he would leave in the reopening double? And for all the disruption that the infraction has caused the authorities declare that the offender is entitled to a reduced penalty? I hope not. Roger Pewick David Grabiner wrote: > > axeman writes: > > > [b] In the auction given, most pairs employ the negative double. For an > > offender to gain an advantage through his own infraction does seem to be > > quite ripe. That is to say that after the correction [L29B] 1D-1H-X > > where the double would be takeout, the mandated agreement change would > > make it AI that the double was something other than takeout, > > specifically, hearts. The enforced pass [L31A2b] seems to have > > implications [L23] in the case of damage due to the 'mandated change of > > agreement'. > > If this happens (that is, the offender was allowed to make an impossible > bid by barring partner, and expected to gain something as a result, then > you adjust. > > The classic example is ...-4NT-5S-5H, oops, 5NT. Offender had no way to > play 5NT without the infraction, and thus if 5NT makes, the score should > be adjusted to a slam down one. > > In your situation, we have to see whether there is damage. If, without > the infraction, the likely auction was 1D-(1H)-P-(P)-X-AP, then there > was no damage because the same result would have happened without the > infraction. If the likely auction was 1D-(1H)-P-(P)-2C-(P)-3NT and 3NT > goes down or make less than the penalty in 1Hx, then there was damage, > and an adjustment is in order. > > In the more common cases of a an attempt to salvage something impossible > bid, there is no adjustment. If opener openes out of turn and bars > partner, and then shoots 3NT which makes, the score should stand even > though an opening 3NT would normally have been gambling. He was not in > a position to expect a better result by barring parter, > > >> >(2) Law 27 - BID OUT OF ROTATION > >> >In the auction 1D - no action - 1H when the bid out of turn is not > >> >accepted, if the player next to call bids 1H and the player who had > >> >called out of turn changes his call to double, the low-level double > >> >should be deemed to specify hearts, thus removing any lead > >> >penalties. > > WHen the law first came out in 1987, the ACBL gave similar examples, > showing how a suit could be specified implicitly. If South bids 2H over > 1H, showing spades and a minor, and then retracts the bid and bids 1S, > he has not clearly specified either minor, and there is thus normally no > lead penalty. However, if E-W then show a huge club fit, it can be > assumed that South had diamonds, and a lead penalty applies in diamonds. Are you totally convinced of this? > David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 09:25:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:25:11 +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 JAA12873 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:25:05 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA12754 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:24:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id RAA08297 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:25:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:25:08 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902172225.RAA08297@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Seeding question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Michael Albert > I speak (or rather type) not of the question of how to determine who are > the number 1, 2, 3 etc seeds, but rather of the problem of setting the > schedule so that as much as possible "high seeds meet late". Isn't "high seeds meet late" an invitation for sportsmanlike dumping? What order is really most desirable to discourage that? (I don't see how it can be entirely prevented in any round-robin with multiple qualifiers.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 09:44:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:44:44 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA12902 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:44:37 +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 RAA27149 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:43:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990217174516.0069cbc4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:45:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings In-Reply-To: References: <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:29 AM 2/17/99 +0000, David wrote: >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >>I don't understand the last part of the ruling. If my partner's >>explanation has correctly described my hand, I don't see how it could >>possibly do damage to the non-offenders even if it's not a correct >>explanation of our agreements. > > Garozzo in an NABC appeal: a bid was described as showing a 5-card >suit, so the defender on lead did not lead it. The correct explanation >was at least *four* cards not five, and the defender said s/he would >have led the suit if s/he had known that. This argument is not >unreasonable. > > In fact the player *did* have five, but that did not stop opponents >being damaged by the misexplanation. If "was described" means "was described by the bidder's partner", then this argument doesn't sound the least bit not unreasonable to me. (Wow, a valid use for a triple negative! Don't see too many of them.) The defender is saying that had he known that the bidder held five of the suit, he wouldn't have led it, but had he been correctly informed, he wouldn't have known he held five, so he would have taken the chance that he didn't hold five, and would have led it, and it would have worked, even though he wouldn't have led it with correct information about the actual holding, which he had, but which he shouldn't have had, because he was misinformed about the agreement. It sounds to me like Mr. Garozzo hoped for, and got, a ruling based on a pure coincidence of infraction and damage, despite no possibility of any loss of equity. Around here we call that "getting something for nothing". How anyone can believe that this makes sense, while simultaneously believing that the Kaplan doctrine (where redress is refused when the NOS "breaks a connection" that in this case never existed) also makes sense, is beyond me. Where it could make sense is in the case where the bid was described as showing a five-card suit (say) on the CC, but where the bidder's partner knew (or, I suppose, "might have known") that that was not correct. Then the defender might reasonably argue that his lead was chosen not on the basis of how many cards the bidder held in the suit, but rather on some second-level assumption about the bidder's partner's subsequent actions, which he assumed to have been based on the agreement about which he was misinformed. That would take some arguing, but I suppose a player in Mr. Garozzo's class might have been up to it. But if you ask what an opponent might have for his bid, and his partner, albeit inappropriately and accidentally, tells you not what he might have but what he *does* have, and you claim that this has damaged you, you should at least lose the right to call the Zero Tolerance cops when someone calls you what you are. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 10:05:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:05:37 +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 KAA12952 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:05:30 +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 SAA12259 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:05:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id SAA08341 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:05:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:05:32 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902172305.SAA08341@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > But if you ask what an opponent might have for his bid, and his partner, > albeit inappropriately and accidentally, tells you not what he might have > but what he *does* have, and you claim that this has damaged you, you > should at least lose the right to call the Zero Tolerance cops when someone > calls you what you are. I'm sure Eric is right in most cases. But there is at least one famous case where one player correctly described his hand, and partner (on the opposite side of the screen) correctly described their agreement. Yet the opponents were damaged and sought and properly got redress. The key fact was that the explanations were _different_, and the defense was based on both partners having heard the same explanation. Either explanation, if given to both defenders, would have led to correct defense, but different explantions prevented it. Perhaps there might be other exceptions to Eric's general proposition, but offhand I can't think of any. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 12:10:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:10:07 +1100 Received: from dewdrop2.mindspring.com (dewdrop2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA13182 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:10:00 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka8gl.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.34.21]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA14958 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:09:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990217200947.0071a9b0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:09:47 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <009d01be59cf$6dee7900$888993c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:37 PM 2/16/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: >++++ I can always be persuaded that if a law exists and it >is relevant then it applies. The doubt in my mind here is how >far it is relevant, given the provisions in the laws allowing a >player to clarify the meaning of opponents' actions. > The other thought troubling me is that there is >practicality in allowing a player to use what he hears in the >course of legitimate exchanges amongst the other players. >However, where a player has already taken action on the >basis of a misunderstanding there is indeed serious risk >of abuse if the way is open for partner (who knows better) >to put him right through the medium of a question. Someone >did say Kaplan once did this; I sincerely hope that was >before Law 73B1 took shape in 1987 (before which the law >was more nebulous). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > That was me, and IIRC it did predate the 1987 Laws. That is, if I have not invented the story from whole cloth. I am almost inspired to go back through old BW's and dig it up. But whether it was before or after the 1987 change seems only slightly relevant as far as I am concerned. Assuming that my recollection is substantially correct, it suggests that Kaplan (at least) was of the opinion that such conduct was not merely legal, as it almost certainly was at that time, but consistent with his judgement of how the game ought to be played. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 12:38:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:38:53 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA13238 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:38:46 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10DIRN-000ABX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:39:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:27:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> <199902171938.OAA21283@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199902171938.OAA21283@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >axeman writes: > >> [b] In the auction given, most pairs employ the negative double. For an >> offender to gain an advantage through his own infraction does seem to be >> quite ripe. That is to say that after the correction [L29B] 1D-1H-X >> where the double would be takeout, the mandated agreement change would >> make it AI that the double was something other than takeout, >> specifically, hearts. The enforced pass [L31A2b] seems to have >> implications [L23] in the case of damage due to the 'mandated change of >> agreement'. > >If this happens (that is, the offender was allowed to make an impossible >bid by barring partner, and expected to gain something as a result, then >you adjust. > >The classic example is ...-4NT-5S-5H, oops, 5NT. Offender had no way to >play 5NT without the infraction, and thus if 5NT makes, the score should >be adjusted to a slam down one. Yes, because at the time of the infraction, the player can see how the infraction could work to his benefit. >In your situation, we have to see whether there is damage. If, without >the infraction, the likely auction was 1D-(1H)-P-(P)-X-AP, then there >was no damage because the same result would have happened without the >infraction. If the likely auction was 1D-(1H)-P-(P)-2C-(P)-3NT and 3NT >goes down or make less than the penalty in 1Hx, then there was damage, >and an adjustment is in order. Why? How can he see this auction is likely *at the time of the 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 Feb 18 12:57:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:57:35 +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 MAA13285 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:57:25 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-83.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.83]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA59447471 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:00:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CB7352.5472F068@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:56:34 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misexplanation that describes accurately References: <9902171307.aa06471@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Robert Nordgren wrote: > > > [Adam wrote:] > > >The hypothetical situation is interesting, though. South makes a > > >spade bid, and, when asked, North says it shows 5+ spades. But their > > >actual agreement is that it shows 4+ spades. South becomes declarer. > > >South knows what the actual agreement is, but doesn't correct the > > >explanation. > > > > South should correct the MI no questions asked. that he actually hold 5 is > > totally unimportant to the case. > > I agree, of course; that doesn't affect the question. MI does not > automatically imply damage. > > > >West chooses a lead based on the information that South > > >has 5+ spades. South actually has 5 spades. West's lead gives them > > >the contract. If West had known that the actual agreement was 4+ > > >spades, he would have chosen a different lead, which would have worked > > >better. Was West damaged? > > > > > > > Clearly yes. > > > > >I don't think the answer is clear. Since South actually had 5 spades, > > >West actually had *more* information about the hand than he would have > > >if he had been told the correct agreement (4+). > > > > > > West had information but NOT the important information namely NS agreements > > If you're saying that the information about the NS agreements is more > important than information about the actual hand, I disagree. The > reason the information about agreements is important is PRECISELY > because it allows the opponents to construct the opponents' actual > hands. If (in some mutant bridge game not played according to the > Laws) an opponent told you, "Pick one: I can either tell you what our > agreements about my spade holding are, or I can tell you what my exact > spade holding is", which would you rather have? I want to know the agreement. I'll draw my own conclusions what to do with the info. I do not want any info or surmises cluttering my mind that is not the agreement nor mannerisms of the opponents. In fact, I do not want to know what an opponent believes to be their agreement if they in fact do not know, but I still want to know the agreement. If a bid is a psych according to their agreements, so be it. I have nothing against psychs. I have a lot against attempts to conceal them by deception and I have witnessed hundreds of instances. I would much rather he call the director and tell him that he does not know the agreement but don't tell me. If I am damaged, I expect equity- it is that simple. > I'd rather know the > exact holding, of course! (Of course, knowing the agreements would > allow you to draw inferences about the rest of the auction. I'm > assuming that's not a factor in my hypothetical case.) > > > >Normally, when a player has more information, this enables him to > > >select choices that have a higher probability of working. Sometimes > > >this higher-probability choice ends up being worse, and when that > > >happens, we call it bad luck. I think that's what is happening in the > > >hypothetical case. West has more precise information about South's > > >hand than he should have had, but it was just bad luck that this > > >additional information led to a less-effective lead. So it's not > > >clear to me that West can claim damage. > > > > MI creates damage usually if everyone followed the law and corrected the MI > > in cases like this a lot less problem would occur in cases like this. > > > > I personally want and DEMAND a correct explaining of opps agreements. It is > > every players right to have the knowledge of opps actual agreements. > > > > > > If a hand matches the MI given it is MI none less just give the following > > position of the Spade in the hypothetical case > > > > South have runned into 3NT and his sp holding is 65432 but agreement is > > have only showed 4+ suit > > > > suppose West on lead holding AJT98 of spades > > > > leading spades is more tempting if south had showed 4+ suit than 5+ suit > > But this is exactly the case that I'm claiming where "damage" is due > to bad luck. Suppose South had corrected the misexplanation and said > their agreements promise only a 4+ suit; but a little bird with no > agenda settles on your shoulder and whispers in your ear that South > really has 5 spades. Now, if you refuse to lead a spade, but a spade > lead is necessary to break the contract, is this damage or bad luck? > Well, in the MI case, you have the exact same amount of relevant > information as you do in the little bird case. > > -- Adam I want no little bird. I want to earn my score and I want my opponents to earn theirs. Roger Pewick From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 13:10:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:10:40 +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 NAA13351 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:10:33 +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 VAA27076 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:10:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:10:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902180210.VAA27271@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:27:31 +0000) Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > David Grabiner writes: >> In your situation, we have to see whether there is damage. If, without >> the infraction, the likely auction was 1D-(1H)-P-(P)-X-AP, then there >> was no damage because the same result would have happened without the >> infraction. If the likely auction was 1D-(1H)-P-(P)-2C-(P)-3NT and 3NT >> goes down or make less than the penalty in 1Hx, then there was damage, >> and an adjustment is in order. > Why? How can he see this auction is likely *at the time of the > infraction*? I stand corrected on this one. If doubler could have known that it was likely that he would gain, at the time of the infraction, then an adjustment is in order. However, the time of the infracton was before the 1H overcall; at the time he bid out of turn, he couldn't have known that he would get a chance to double 1H for penalty. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 13:38:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:38:46 +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 NAA13418 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:38:40 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-83.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.83]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA59778978 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:42:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CB7D03.2C4358A6@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:37:55 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902170829.AAA13453@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CB6505.26E8@cms.peel.edu.on.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I rule that the failure to alert the pass [specifically showing by agreement 6+ diamonds, to the possible exclusion of other 'long suits'] was an infraction of the alert procedure and that it constitutes MI. That EW were damaged to the extent that had the information been available it would be more attractive to compete to 3S. And that EW were damaged to the extent that the most favorable final contract likely was 4D. Making or going down according to the table result. Note that since E bid spades first, the MI was not present in time to make it particularly unattractive for W to bid 2H so EW were not damaged due to missing the more fortuitous heart fit. Roger Pewick Martin Hunter wrote: > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > > Official ACBL policy in its Alert Procedure (Page 6 of 16) is that > > you must Alert *any* follow-up bid if the bidder denies, or tends > > not to have, a four-card major. The Alert Chart at the end of the > > Alert Procedure is in error, saying the Alert applies to notrump > > continuations that do not promise a major. That is a "fossil," left > > over from a previous set of Alert regulations. > > > > Now, the regulation does *not* say that a continuation bid must be > > Alerted if it does not promise a major. The wording is: "When it > > becomes obvious that the 2C bidder either does not have or tends > > not to have a four-card major, an Alert is required at that time." > > Let's assume that "tends not to have" means significantly less than > > 50% of the time, something like 45% or less. > > This situation came up last night S W N E > xx 1NT P 2C X > Kx 2D P P * > 10987xx > xxx > Jxxx KQxx The sequence shown is how > J10xxx Qxx NS get to play in a weak > x Q 6 card minor after 1 NT > AQx KJ10xx opener > > Axx > Axx East actually bid 2S and > AKJxx North bid 3D after 2 > xx passes. Auction ended > there. > EW call when they see dummy and claim damage due to failure to alert > South never alerted and North offered nothing > EW never asked any questions or looked at CC > When should NS have alerted, if at all? > What do you rule? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 15:53:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:53:25 +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 PAA13668 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:53:18 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA22472 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:53:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902180453.UAA22472@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:50:57 -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 Martin Hunter wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > > Official ACBL policy in its Alert Procedure (Page 6 of 16) is that > > you must Alert *any* follow-up bid if the bidder denies, or tends > > not to have, a four-card major. The Alert Chart at the end of the > > Alert Procedure is in error, saying the Alert applies to notrump > > continuations that do not promise a major. That is a "fossil," left > > over from a previous set of Alert regulations. > > > > Now, the regulation does *not* say that a continuation bid must be > > Alerted if it does not promise a major. The wording is: "When it > > becomes obvious that the 2C bidder either does not have or tends > > not to have a four-card major, an Alert is required at that time." > > Let's assume that "tends not to have" means significantly less than > > 50% of the time, something like 45% or less. > > This situation came up last night S W N E > xx 1NT P 2C X > Kx 2D P P * > 10987xx > xxx > Jxxx KQxx The sequence shown is how > J10xxx Qxx NS get to play in a weak > x Q 6 card minor after 1 NT > AQx KJ10xx opener > > Axx > Axx East actually bid 2S and > AKJxx North bid 3D after 2 > xx passes. Auction ended > there. > EW call when they see dummy and claim damage due to failure to alert > South never alerted and North offered nothing > EW never asked any questions or looked at CC > When should NS have alerted, if at all? > What do you rule? According to the current ACBL Alert Procedure, as stated above, no Alert is required in this auction. It has never become "obvious" that North has no four-card major, since he could have a weak 4=4=5=0 or 4=4=4=1 hand. This is a great example auction, because it shows why the 2C bid should be Alertable, as it used to be. Not only for reasons related to auctions like this, but because the LHO of the 2C bidder may want to know right away that 2C is a necessary preliminary to a notrump raise or a three-level minor suit signoff/invitational bid. That knowledge could be the deciding factor when he/she is considering a major suit overcall. Sure, East could have asked for an explanation of the auction on the first round (not "Does 2C promise a major?"), followed by a double of 2C, but maybe he's not knowledgeable enough to do that. Having missed that opportunity, this is the time for East to request an explanation of the auction (not "Did 2C promise a major?"), but if he didn't think to do so and passed 2D, I would rule result stands. North-South have done nothing illegal, especially since South has no idea that North lacks a major. The 2C bid should be Alertable: "The only way we can raise notrump or run to a minor suit is to bid 2C first, so draw no conclusions about (his) (her) hand. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 16:03:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:03:33 +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 QAA13707 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:03:23 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA23875; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:03:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902180503.VAA23875@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:02:22 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 5:09 PM > > At 02:37 PM 2/16/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >++++ I can always be persuaded that if a law exists and it > >is relevant then it applies. The doubt in my mind here is how > >far it is relevant, given the provisions in the laws allowing a > >player to clarify the meaning of opponents' actions. > > The other thought troubling me is that there is > >practicality in allowing a player to use what he hears in the > >course of legitimate exchanges amongst the other players. > >However, where a player has already taken action on the > >basis of a misunderstanding there is indeed serious risk > >of abuse if the way is open for partner (who knows better) > >to put him right through the medium of a question. Someone > >did say Kaplan once did this; I sincerely hope that was > >before Law 73B1 took shape in 1987 (before which the law > >was more nebulous). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > > > That was me, and IIRC it did predate the 1987 Laws. That is, if I have not > invented the story from whole cloth. I am almost inspired to go back > through old BW's and dig it up. > > But whether it was before or after the 1987 change seems only slightly > relevant as far as I am concerned. Assuming that my recollection is > substantially correct, it suggests that Kaplan (at least) was of the > opinion that such conduct was not merely legal, as it almost certainly was > at that time, but consistent with his judgement of how the game ought to be > played. > Can't someone find and quote what Kaplan wrote? Exact quotes from a cited source are much better, and more creditable, than mere recollections. I particularly would like to know the circumstances. If the opponents withheld something significant from an explanation, EK's probing might well have been justified (under the Laws of the time). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 16:25:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:25:53 +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 QAA13750 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:25:38 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA27710 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:25:26 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902180525.VAA27710@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:24:18 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: DWS wrote: > > If I am running at 42% and I get an A- then it really does not matter > > how much I get [which is why the WBFLC approach seems so pointless]. It > > is people who have a 65% session to whom these score differences matter. > > I shall really have to try to write more clearly. And just to be > clear, the following is entirely hypothetical. I put it in the first > person for dramatic effect, but I personally would never want to play > this way. > > Suppose I estimate that I'm holding a 65% game, but now some top > players (e.g. Meckwell) have just arrived at my table. Maybe I've even > suffered some bad results from them in the past. If I can get out of > the round with 40%, I'll be quite satisfied. It probably won't win the > event for me, but at least I'll get a few of those precious gold > points. :-) > > What to do? Play the boards and take my expected 20%? Oh, wait... > how about if I make the boards unplayable? That's it! I'll just > expose a few of the opponents cards. (So sorry! How clumsy of me!) > Now the TD gives me 40%, and I'm happy. Meckwell aren't badly harmed, > since they get the 70% they are scoring on the rest of the boards. > > Now do you see why the ACBL might think 30% for me is enough? I'm not > asking anyone to agree -- I'm not at all sure I agree! -- but I can see > why it might be justifiable. > > I do agree with David that if a pair are scoring about 40% overall, it > makes no difference whether one board is scored exactly 40% or any > other number about the same size. True, but if I am scoring 60% and I get avg-, I want the whole 40%, not the 30-35% I get if the opponents are running 70-65%. Why should their performance on other boards affect my score on this board? Why not do it the right way, analogous L88's rule for avg+: I get avg- or my percentage on my other boards, whichever is worse. And change L88 to say that. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 16:32:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:32:12 +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 QAA13764 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:32:06 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA28515; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:31:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902180531.VAA28515@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:31:22 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > This situation came up last night S W N E > > xx 1NT P 2C X > > Kx 2D P P * > > 10987xx > > xxx > > Jxxx KQxx The sequence shown is how > > J10xxx Qxx NS get to play in a weak > > x Q 6 card minor after 1 NT > > AQx KJ10xx opener > > > > Axx > > Axx East actually bid 2S and > > AKJxx North bid 3D after 2 > > xx passes. Auction ended > > there. I missed the "East actually bid 2S and North bid 3D," not paying attention. The question now is whether North denies, or tends not to have, a major with his 3D bid. Surely the sequence does not deny a major, and in fact North could have both majors in a 4=4=5=0 hand. Given that East has doubled clubs, and seeing his own diamond length, I wouldn't blame South if he decides that North is more likely than not to have a major along with his diamonds. If he thinks that, he is not supposed to Alert 3D, going by current ACBL Alert regulations. If he does Alert, and East gets tempted into a 3H/3S bid that is disastrous because North holds that suit, he could (theoretically) be accused of MI. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 16:44:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:44:13 +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 QAA13786 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:44:07 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA00317 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:44:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902180544.VAA00317@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:42:54 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk P. S., E/W probably get no redress if MI is ruled, since West's failure to raise spades looks pretty "irrational." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: mlfrench@writeme.com; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings > Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 9:31 PM > > > > > This situation came up last night S W N E > > > xx 1NT P 2C X > > > Kx 2D P P * > > > 10987xx > > > xxx > > > Jxxx KQxx The sequence shown is how > > > J10xxx Qxx NS get to play in a weak > > > x Q 6 card minor after 1 NT > > > AQx KJ10xx opener > > > > > > Axx > > > Axx East actually bid 2S and > > > AKJxx North bid 3D after 2 > > > xx passes. Auction ended > > > there. > > I missed the "East actually bid 2S and North bid 3D," not paying > attention. The question now is whether North denies, or tends not > to have, a major with his 3D bid. Surely the sequence does not deny > a major, and in fact North could have both majors in a 4=4=5=0 > hand. Given that East has doubled clubs, and seeing his own diamond > length, I wouldn't blame South if he decides that North is more > likely than not to have a major along with his diamonds. If he > thinks that, he is not supposed to Alert 3D, going by current ACBL > Alert regulations. If he does Alert, and East gets tempted into a > 3H/3S bid that is disastrous because North holds that suit, he > could (theoretically) be accused of MI. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 16:53:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:53:11 +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 QAA13803 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:53:03 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-83.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.83]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA59773779 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:56:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CBAA93.407DA73C@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:52:19 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> <36CAE805.B11A533C@freewwweb.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 AAA59773779 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >=20 > axeman wrote: > >Roger, write on the blackboard 50 times=85typo, typo, typo, typo, typ= o, > >typo > > > >Of course I meant L31A2b. It is very specific. It says '=85does not > >repeat the denomination=85' in this case hearts. It does not say spec= ify > >the denomination. 'Double' instead of heart does not repeat heart eve= n > >if it were conceded that double means hearts. Personally, I believe > >that a penalty double means that the intention is to set the opposing > >contract and that it does not have to contain four cards in the enemy > >trump suit even though it may. >=20 > Ah, L31A2B. Yes, this applies, no doubt about it. It says, inter > alia, "... the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply, ..." and since the > ACBL regulation is only concerned with those lead penalties, it is the > wording of L26 with which I am concerned. The road map was 29B,31A2b, 26A, 23 Without the ACBL regulation it is L26A2. with the regulation, it is L26A1. Did I get it in the bullseye? > >And the bite out of the apple is the chance that L26 gives to avoid a > >lead penalty. The second bite is the regulation that changes an > >offender's agreement in the middle of the auction that double specifie= s > >the enemy suit. > > > >The laws have gone to great length to provide many turns which make th= e > >adjudication of infractions sometimes quite tedious. The practical > >response is to establish compromises to accommodate these difficulties. > >These compromises themselves add twists often with intricate > >complications. The ACBL compromise is such a twist. > > > >I hold that the offender has the right to double. However, I think th= at > >part of the penalty for the infraction of bidding out of turn is that > >the OS should not be able to achieve a beneficial score from 1HX [L23] > >unless absent the infraction, 1D-1H-X the double by agreement was > >penalty. >=20 > Unfortunately you cannot make up Laws, so you have to provide one. > L23 does not meet this case: it does not apply. How could you know it > would disadvantage your opponents to force partner to pass at the time > you called OOT? So, what Law are you going to use to prove that a > partner who is forced to pass must take your double as takeout? David, Your point is well taken. I agree. One of the things addressed by L23 as you have said, is the adjustment for gaining *deliberately*. But the law does not stop there- it is not limited solely to that aspect. It does not matter whether it was deliberate or not [deliberate matters in the application of L72B1]. It extends to where, if the offender had known at the time of the infraction he was committing an infraction, he could have known=85..and in the situation addressed by the ACBL, if the offender knew he was committing a BOOT he could have known that an enforced pass could damage the opponents. One does not need to know what will happen to know that when certain things which are possible do happen, that there are ramifications which could result in damage. I think it is unfair to require that the NOS has to prove that the offender was unethical in order receive an adjustment if there was damage. The approach you feel is best seems to provide equity only against provable sharp [unethical] practice. I think that L23 is better used to include not only that but the area where there might be the appearance of possible sharp practice. Let us face it. Most irregularities are not committed with the intent to gain by sharp practice. But the commission of certain irregularities frequently creates situations where there are possibilities for unusual results that may prove profitable at the expense of the opponents. Yes, these situations make great stories, but if the rules were being followed, they would not have happened. Since I have expressed so much interest in damage arising in this situation I can see two likely sources of damage that are relevant [depending on the case, I reckon there could be others]: [1] Offender got to make a double [of penalty nature] that [probably according to agreements] it was up to partner to make or not make. The NOS did not get to experience the outcome of a proper auction. [2] The fact that the offender making a penalty double instead of a penalty pass of a potential reopening double gives opener information [L16C2] available only because of the BOOT, to expect offender to have cards they may not be inclined to anticipate offender to hold had offender passed a reopening double. I am of the opinion that offenders are not to jumped all over. I am also of the opinion that offenders ought to not be cut any slack, nor should they be permitted possession of the sorcerer's wand that makes penalties disappear. In my game, everyone gets respect and equally good treatment, inexperienced players get kid gloves too. And that means that offenders do not get preferential treatment even though that is what the ACBL policy [that sparked this discussion] accords. Roger Pewick > >You have brushed away the ramifications of L16C2 with the declaration > >that the ruling is AI and invoking the mantra of common sense. Of > >course, it can be argued that because the laws have written into them = so > >many second chances for offenders to escape and or benefit from > >penalties that it is common sense to extend it even further and make > >things more complicated. Such a policy does not seem like common sens= e > >to me unless we are dealing with Orwellian discussion. >=20 > I have no idea what this means. Are you suggesting that the > Director's ruling is not AI? > > >Btw, why is it so important to provide an offender that has made a > >bridge mistake the opportunity to avoid or reduce the penalty that was > >earned? >=20 > I don't know. I merely am interpreting the current Laws, not writing > them. >=20 > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 17:16:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA13847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:16:01 +1100 Received: from pent.sci-nnov.ru (pent.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA13842 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:15:12 +1100 Received: from vmv (vmv.sandy.ru [195.122.226.66]) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with SMTP id JAA17647 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:08:27 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <001701be5b04$aa098520$42e27ac3@vmv.sandy.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Re: Seeding question Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:05:17 +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 V2UgaW4gUnVzc2lhIHVzZSB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGFsZ29yaXRobSBpbiBSb3VuZC1Sb2JpbnMu DQpUZWFtcyAob3IgUGFpcnMpIGFyZSBzZWVkZWQgZnJvbSAxIHRvIE4uIEluIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBy b3VuZCB0ZWFtMSBwbGF5ICB3aXRoIE4vMisxLCAyIHdpdGggTi8yKzIgZXRjLg0KSW4gdGhlIGZv bGxvd2luZyByb3VuZHMgdGhlIHRvcCB0ZWFtIHBsYXllZCB3aXRoIHRoZSB3b3JzIHRlYW0gdGhl eSBoYXZlIG5vdCBwbGF5ZWQgeWV0LiAoU29tZXRoaW5nIGxpa2UgcmV2ZXJzZWQgU3dpc3MpDQpV c3VhbHkgaW4gdGhlIGxhc3Qgcm91bmQgcGxheWVkIHRvcCB0ZWFtIHdpdGggdGhlIG5leHQgb25l LCAzcmQgd2l0aCA0dGgsIGV0Yy4NCg0KU2VyZ2VpIExpdHZhaywNCkNoaWVmIFREIG9mIFJCTA0K DQpNaWNoYWVsIEFsYmVydCA8bWFsYmVydEBtYXRocy5vdGFnby5hYy5uej4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCj5S ZWFsbHkgbW9yZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBmb3IgYSAiYnJpZGdlIHRvdXJuYW1lbnQgb3JnYW5pemVy cyIgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0LA0KPmJ1dCBwbGVhc2UgZm9yZ2l2ZSBtZS4NCj4NCj5Eb2VzIGFueW9u ZSBoYXZlIGV4cGVyaWVuY2UgKGFuZCB3aXNoIHRvIHNoYXJlIGl0KSB3aXRoIHRoZSBzZWVkaW5n IG9mIGENCj5jb21wbGV0ZSByb3VuZCByb2Jpbj8NCj4NCj5JIHNwZWFrIChvciByYXRoZXIgdHlw ZSkgbm90IG9mIHRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiBvZiBob3cgdG8gZGV0ZXJtaW5lIHdobyBhcmUNCj50aGUg bnVtYmVyIDEsIDIsIDMgZXRjIHNlZWRzLCBidXQgcmF0aGVyIG9mIHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtIG9mIHNl dHRpbmcgdGhlDQo+c2NoZWR1bGUgc28gdGhhdCBhcyBtdWNoIGFzIHBvc3NpYmxlICJoaWdoIHNl ZWRzIG1lZXQgbGF0ZSIuDQo+DQo+VGhlIGxvY2FsIGNvbmRpdGlvbnMgd2hpY2ggSSBleHBlY3Qg dG8gZW5jb3VudGVyICh0aGlzIHF1ZXN0aW9uLCBmb3IgYQ0KPmNoYW5nZSwgbm90IGJlaW5nIGVu dGlyZWx5IGh5cG90aGV0aWNhbCkgYXJlIHNvbWV0aGluZyBsaWtlIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmc6DQo+ DQo+QSBjb21wbGV0ZSByb3VuZCByb2JpbiBiZXR3ZWVuIDEwIGNvbnRlc3RhbnRzLCB0aHJlZSB0 byBxdWFsaWZ5IGZvciBmdXJ0aGVyDQo+aG9ub3Vycy4gVGhyZWUgb3IgZm91ciAib2J2aW91cyIg Y29udGVuZGVycywgb25lIG9yIHR3byAibWlkZGxlIHNob3RzIiwgdGhlDQo+cmVzdCAibG9uZyBz aG90cyIuIFNjb3Jpbmcgb24gdGhlIEV1cm9wZWFuIDMwIFZQIHNjYWxlIChpZiBpdCBtYXR0ZXJz LikNCj4NCj5Ib3dldmVyLCBJIGFtIGF0IGxlYXN0IGVxdWFsbHkgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpbiB0aGUg Z2VuZXJhbCB0aGVvcnkgKGlmIGFueSkgb2YNCj50aGUgc2l0dWF0aW9uLiBNeSBsaW1pdGVkIHRy b2xsaW5nIG9mIHRoZSB3ZWIgYW5kIHByaW50IHJlc291cmNlcyBJIGhhdmUgYXQNCj5oYW5kIHN1 Z2dlc3RzIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBzb3J0IG9mIHByb2JsZW0gYXJpc2VzIHF1aXRlIGNvbW1vbmx5IGlu IG1hbnkNCj5kaWZmZXJlbnQgc3BvcnRzL2dhbWVzLCBhbmQgc2VlbXMgdG8gYmUgZGVhbHQgd2l0 aCBlbnRpcmVseSBvbiBhIGNhc2UgYnkNCj5jYXNlIGJhc2lzICJvbiB0aGUgc3BvdCIgYnkgb3Jn YW5pemVycyAoaW4gc29tZSBjYXNlcyBlZyBtYWpvciBwcm9mZXNzaW9uYWwNCj5zcG9ydHMgbGVh Z3VlcywgdGhpcyBtYXkgYmUgYSBwcm9jZXNzIG9mIHNldmVyYWwgd2Vla3MgZHVyYXRpb24gLS0g dGhvdWdoDQo+b2YgY291cnNlIHRoZXkgYWxzbyBoYXZlIG90aGVyIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb25zLCBl ZyB2ZW51ZSBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHkuKQ0KPk5lZWRsZXNzIHRvIHNheSwgYXMgYSBtYXRoZW1hdGlj aWFuKiwgSSBmaW5kIHRoaXMgc3RhdGUgb2YgYWZmYWlycyBxdWl0ZQ0KPmFiaG9ycmVudC4NCj4N Cj5bKkRlZjogU29tZW9uZSB0byB3aG9tIGEgZ2VuZXJhbCByZXN1bHQgd2hpY2ggYXBwbGllcyB0 byBubyBjYXNlIHdoaWNoIGlzDQo+bGlrZWx5IHRvIGFyaXNlIGluIHByYWN0aWNlIGlzIG1vcmUg aW50ZXJlc3RpbmcgdGhhbiBhbiBlZmZlY3RpdmUgYW5kDQo+cHJhY3RpY2FsIG1ldGhvZCBmb3Ig aGFuZGxpbmcgYWxsIHRob3NlIHdoaWNoIGRvLCBidXQgd2hpY2ggaXMgbm90DQo+cmlnb3JvdXNs eSBqdXN0aWZpZWQuXQ0KPg0KPk0NCj4tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj5NaWNoYWVsIEguIEFsYmVydCAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgUGg6ICg2NCktMDMtNDc5LTc3NzgNCj5TZW5pb3IgVGVhY2hpbmcgRmVsbG93ICAgICAg ICAgICAgICBGYXg6ICg2NCktMDMtNDc5LTg0MjcNCj5EZXBhcnRtZW50IG9mIE1hdGhlbWF0aWNz IGFuZCBTdGF0aXN0aWNzDQo+VW5pdmVyc2l0eSBvZiBPdGFnbw0KPkR1bmVkaW4sIE5ldyBaZWFs YW5kDQo+DQoNCg== From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 17:26:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA13867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:26:03 +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 RAA13862 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:25:55 +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 <19990218062506.ORHE23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:25:06 -0800 Message-ID: <36CBB32E.AFA44E23@home.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:29:02 -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: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990217174516.0069cbc4@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > But if you ask what an opponent might have for his bid, and his partner, > albeit inappropriately and accidentally, tells you not what he might have > but what he *does* have, and you claim that this has damaged you, you > should at least lose the right to call the Zero Tolerance cops when someone > calls you what you are. And that is...? C'mon Eric - spell it out rather than making innuendo :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 18:12:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA13903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:12:30 +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 SAA13898 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:12:24 +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 <19990218071219.OZQO23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:12:19 -0800 Message-ID: <36CBBE3F.31F61B55@home.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:16:15 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902170829.AAA13453@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CB6505.26E8@cms.peel.edu.on.ca> <36CB7D03.2C4358A6@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: > > I rule that the failure to alert the pass [specifically showing by > agreement 6+ diamonds, to the possible exclusion of other 'long suits'] > was an infraction of the alert procedure and that it constitutes MI. > That EW were damaged to the extent that had the information been > available it would be more attractive to compete to 3S. This I just cannot fathom. West holds Jxxx JTxxx x AQX and hears pard showing good clubs and a spade-suit, all alone in the middle of a strong NT/Stayman auction. How on earth can he *not* compete to at least 3S over opponent's diamond bids? Even more so if only one opponent has really long diamonds, since then pard has very short hearts and the hand fits really well. If there was MI here (and I still find it weird that if N has shown 6 card diamonds, S passes 2S with DAKJxx and enough defense so that it seems unlikely you're pushing them into a makeable game), any damage was caused by West's incomprehensible pass of 3D, not the MI. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 21:02:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:02:03 +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 VAA14166 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:01:55 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.75] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10DQGq-0004zV-00; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:01:24 +0000 Message-ID: <199902181000520160.20E89613@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:00:52 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: The new regime Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just to make sure I have understood the position arising from a recent thread, I would welcome some views on this position (which happened in practice some time ago). This was the auction, with accompanying sound effects and think bubbles: West: 1S North: 2S (he has hearts and clubs, and thinks he is playing Michaels) South: (he knows NS are playing Ghestem, and is about to explain 2S as hearts and diamonds) East: East: 3D West: West: South: What does that show, please? West: It's a cue bid, showing clubs and values - 3C would be competitive. North can now deduce from West's reply that he has made an error in bidding 2S. We seem to believe that West's answer is AI to North; is he now permitted to take steps to rectify his error in the subsequent auction? Moreover, if instead of looking at the CC, East had asked South a question and been told "red suits" (UI to North), and then South had asked a question and been told "East has just cue bid one of North's suits, so that shows..." (AI to North, under the new regime), may North rectify his error in the subsequent auction? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 21:45:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:45:53 +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 VAA14255 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:45:47 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA05413 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:44:56 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 18 Feb 99 10:45 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings 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: <36CB7D03.2C4358A6@freewwweb.com> Roger Pewick wrote: > I rule that the failure to alert the pass [specifically showing by > agreement 6+ diamonds, to the possible exclusion of other 'long suits'] > was an infraction of the alert procedure and that it constitutes MI. > That EW were damaged to the extent that had the information been > available it would be more attractive to compete to 3S. And that EW were > damaged to the extent that the most favorable final contract likely was > 4D. Making or going down according to the table result. > I must confess I understood the explanation differently. IE the bidding was consistent with North having a weak 6 card minor but also consistent with the, a priori more likely, (43)51 or 4450 distributions. To me this would mean that North does indeed "tend to have" a 4 card major on the sequence shown. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 22:00:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:00:19 +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 WAA14295 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:00:11 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-206.uunet.be [194.7.9.206]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA24993 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:00:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36CBED06.A422F4B5@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:35:50 +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: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902171606.LAA07909@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > [in another message] > > However, this idea of the ACBL that a pair's average-minus should > > depend on their opponent's session score does not feel right, and is > > probably prompted by the dreaded "protecting the field" mentality. Now > > that it is known to be against WBFLC interpretations, will the ACBL > > change this regulation? > > I can understand the ACBL thinking, perhaps. Suppose 40% against > Meckwell looks pretty good to me. Do you really want to reward me if I > make the board unplayable? > > I don't necessarily endorse this reasoning, but it doesn't seem crazy. The problem with some regulations is that they try to cover some extreme case, but you end up sleeping with a bare back. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 18 23:36:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:36:49 +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 XAA14666 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:36:38 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10DSgr-00068h-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:36:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 02:28:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902172151.QAA08226@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199902172151.QAA08226@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 >> If I am running at 42% and I get an A- then it really does not matter >> how much I get [which is why the WBFLC approach seems so pointless]. It >> is people who have a 65% session to whom these score differences matter. >I shall really have to try to write more clearly. And just to be >clear, the following is entirely hypothetical. I put it in the first >person for dramatic effect, but I personally would never want to play >this way. > >Suppose I estimate that I'm holding a 65% game, but now some top >players (e.g. Meckwell) have just arrived at my table. Maybe I've even >suffered some bad results from them in the past. If I can get out of >the round with 40%, I'll be quite satisfied. It probably won't win the >event for me, but at least I'll get a few of those precious gold >points. :-) > >What to do? Play the boards and take my expected 20%? Oh, wait... >how about if I make the boards unplayable? That's it! I'll just >expose a few of the opponents cards. (So sorry! How clumsy of me!) >Now the TD gives me 40%, and I'm happy. Meckwell aren't badly harmed, >since they get the 70% they are scoring on the rest of the boards. > >Now do you see why the ACBL might think 30% for me is enough? I'm not >asking anyone to agree -- I'm not at all sure I agree! -- but I can see >why it might be justifiable. OK, I understand you. But I hate producing regulations to cover situations that are [a] cheating and [b] covered by another Law. If a pair did this, L72B1 means that we give them 30% or less. L90 means we fine them. But I worry about all the other pairs who did not deserve this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 00:41:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:41:35 +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 AAA17321 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:41:25 +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 IAA14749 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:40:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990218084238.0071178c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:42:38 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings In-Reply-To: <199902171204170320.1C330978@mail.btinternet.com> References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:04 PM 2/17/99 +0000, dburn wrote: >On 17/02/99, at 03:29, David Stevenson wrote: > >>Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >>>I don't understand the last part of the ruling. If my partner's >>>explanation has correctly described my hand, I don't see how it could >>>possibly do damage to the non-offenders even if it's not a correct >>>explanation of our agreements. > >[DWS] >> >>Garozzo in an NABC appeal: a bid was described as showing a 5-card >>suit, so the defender on lead did not lead it. The correct explanation >>was at least *four* cards not five, and the defender said s/he would >>have led the suit if s/he had known that. This argument is not >>unreasonable. >> >>In fact the player *did* have five, but that did not stop opponents >>being damaged by the misexplanation. > >Not quite right, David. It might help to clear this up if I quote the >actual hand. Garozzo was in fact the defender who might have been damaged, >but was ruled not to have been. Karen McCallum was the declarer and the >player who gave the correct explanation of her methods. All is revealed >below Thank you, David B. As must have been clear from my diatribe of yesterday, the original description of the incident left me wondering whether all involved had completely lost their minds. What I learned from the full explanation is that second-level inferences can indeed come into play even when the explanation is provided by the bidder's partner, and can be crucial. Ms. McCallum seems to have realized that at the table, and done the right thing. One notes, however, that not even the redoubtable Mr. Garozzo picked up on the this (the second-level inference) at the table, which leaves me to wonder whether good theory (in this case that the opponents are entitled to complete knowledge of one's agreements even when the explanation given corresponded to both the bidder's holding and his partner's understanding) might make for bad law when applied to mere mortals. I must say, though, that I'm relieved that even in this case, when all the facts were in, no adjustment was granted. I'm still inclined to agree with Mr. Wolff that when an explanation correctly reflects both the bidder's holding and the explainer's understanding it's probably best to leave well enough alone and not confuse the issue with a correction that's far more likely to confuse the opponents than to help them. 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 Feb 19 01:31:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 01:31:56 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA17490 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 01:31:49 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-119.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.119]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA60537257 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:35:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CC2426.6F87541@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:31:02 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After posting your thoughts did cross my mind. However, they are not totally consistent with the facts presented, so I still hold my view but I am merely no longer convinced of it: The only thing we were told was that the Pass was how they bid a weak hand with six diamonds. This precludes the alternate hands you suggested. If in fact the agreement was other than what was stated, would that not be relevant as to [a] whether it is alerted or not and [b] the inferences available that make bidding with the W cards more attractive if they found out the agreement to Pass? Is bidding 3S W all that attractive when N is more likely to hold QTx-K9xx-T9xxx-x than xx-Kx-T9xxxx-xxx? Actually, the auction makes four card [and therefore 3 card] spade distributions inconsistent with E's 2S call as that leaves S with a stiff spade for their NT. Many pairs use a 2S relay to 3C or a 2N relay to 3 clubs to stop in three of a minor and therefore use 2C as a three suited takeout to bail out of 1N. For a player to have 6 card minor [weak] and bid 2C suggests that in fact they do have the agreement that the sequence promises 6+ diamonds because the likelihood is high that opener will indeed rebid a major necessitating that the auction be carried to 3D [an eight card fit needed to justify risking a double vs play at 1N]. Roger Pewick Tim West-meads wrote: > > In-Reply-To: <36CB7D03.2C4358A6@freewwweb.com> > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > I rule that the failure to alert the pass [specifically showing by > > agreement 6+ diamonds, to the possible exclusion of other 'long suits'] > > was an infraction of the alert procedure and that it constitutes MI. > > That EW were damaged to the extent that had the information been > > available it would be more attractive to compete to 3S. And that EW were > > damaged to the extent that the most favorable final contract likely was > > 4D. Making or going down according to the table result. > > > > I must confess I understood the explanation differently. IE the bidding > was consistent with North having a weak 6 card minor but also consistent > with the, a priori more likely, (43)51 or 4450 distributions. To me this > would mean that North does indeed "tend to have" a 4 card major on the > sequence shown. > > Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 01:31:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 01:31:56 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA17488 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 01:31:43 +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 JAA17038 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:30:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990218093253.0068df4c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:32:53 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings In-Reply-To: <36CBB32E.AFA44E23@home.com> References: <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990217174516.0069cbc4@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:29 PM 2/17/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> you >> should at least lose the right to call the Zero Tolerance cops when someone >> calls you what you are. > >And that is...? C'mon Eric - spell it out rather than making innuendo The seven-letter word I had in mind denotes a vital portion of the anatomy normally found between one's chair and the rest of one's body. I refrain from spelling it out lest I violate COPA (the Child Online Protection Act, a.k.a. "CDA II", passed by the U.S. Congress not long before they voted to put the Starr report on line). Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 02:14:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:14:22 +1100 Received: from orr.pwgsc.gc.ca (orr.pwgsc.gc.ca [198.103.167.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17720 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:14:07 +1100 Received: id JAA08800; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:00:00 -0500 Received: by gateway id ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:59:22 -0500 Message-ID: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F621945C0@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca> From: Dave Kent To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Ruling from Last Night Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:59:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last night I was asked to sit on a committee (ACBL rules). Both Vul Dlr: W S - KQxxxxx H - xxx D - xx C - x S - x S - H - KQJxx H - xx D - K9xx D - AJxx C - AQx C - KJxxxxx S - AJTxx H - Axx D - QTx C - Tx W N E S ======================== 1H 2S x(1) 4S(2) x(3) P 5C P 6C AP (1) E/W play negative free bids, so x is either a normal neg dbl or a single suited hand with 10+ HCP (2) S did not use the stop card (3) Discernable break in tempo - seems like the hesitation was about 15 seconds E/W play Flannery (5H + 4S) showing 11-16 HCP. The director ruled the contract back to 4Sx -2. Your ruling is.....? Dave Kent david@magi.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 02:22:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:22:41 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17766 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 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 KAA31725 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:22:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id KAA08824 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:22:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:22:39 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902181522.KAA08824@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Someone > >did say Kaplan once did this; I sincerely hope that was > >before Law 73B1 took shape in 1987 (before which the law > >was more nebulous). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Kaplan (at least) was of the > opinion that such conduct was not merely legal, as it almost certainly was > at that time, but consistent with his judgement of how the game ought to be > played. The "Kaplan question," which is documented in a Bridge World editorial, was a response to his opponent's infraction of misinformation. Kaplan was aware of the MI, but his partner (Kay) was not. Rather than sit silent and look for an adjustment at the end, Kaplan asked a further question to clear up the misinformation right away. If this is illegal, then I vote to change the Laws. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 02:24:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:24:08 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17781 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:24:02 +1100 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.79.44.65]) by mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990218152325.HIOS15607@jay-apfelbaum>; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:23:25 +0000 Message-ID: <006401be5b52$19242e40$412c4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> From: "JApfelbaum" To: "BLML Group" Subject: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:19:34 -0500 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 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is an appeal from a hand from a recent regional. The facts of the case: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1H Pass Pass 1NT (1) Pass 2NT (2) Pass 3D Pass 3NT All pass (1) 11-14 HCP (Could be shaded to 15 HCP after a major suit opening) (2) Alerted as a transfer to diamonds Result: 3NT made four, +430 for East-West The director was called after the dummy was tabled. He ruled that East had unauthorized information that might have suggested the 3NT bid. The contract was changed to 3D making three, +110 for East-West. You are East and you hold: S K J 10 H Q x x D J 9 x C A x x x East sometimes sits on appeals committees at NABC tournaments. He is playing with his wife. The Chairman of this committee asked questions and discovered that East-West ’s agreement was that transfers were on in this situation. He also discovered that East-West played super accepts over minor suit transfers. The 3D bid declined an invitation. Two members of the committee felt East knew from the unauthorized information that West didn’t like diamonds and probably had a minimum hand. Without the "alert", and the unauthorized information it conveyed, East would have to consider 3D as natural and not forcing. Pass would be a logical alternative. The unauthorized information makes 3D a suicide contract - bidding becomes mandatory. The Committee decided that the final contract would be 3D - making three. The hand is not provided here, but the committee was satisfied that all lines of play led to nine tricks. ********* It seems to me that had West bid 3C (instead of 3D) over East's 2NT bid, then East should be allowed to bid 3NT. My reason is that East has a very strong club fit, making it likely that the Club suit will run at NT. To me, therefore, passing a 3C bid in not a logical alternative. East's relatively poor diamond fit (compared to clubs, anyway), suggests that a significant number of East's would "seriously consider" passing. In fact, I suggest that a number would actually choose to pass. ********* The Committee also gave E/W a quarter board procedural penalty for appealing the director's ruling. This decision was not unanimous. One member dissented. He argued that if no Alert had been given, East would have bid 3NT over 3D. He also suggested that he wouldn’t need the Alert procedure to know that something had gone wrong and he would have worked it out if he had been playing behind a screen. He thought that East had no idea his 3NT bid was going to be the winning action but he had to like his heart stopper and having North trapped between two hands with the balance of power. He also suggested this was a "rub of the green" case. If 3NT had gone down two, the Director (least of all the Committee) would never have heard the case. Since it made, the cops were called. He disagreed with the procedural penalty. The dissent would not have considered calling the director in this situation. He thought North-South were given a huge bonus they didn’t deserve for a minor infraction by East-West. I would appreciate your comments on the Committee's decision and rationale, and any comments on the dissenter's reasoning. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 02:40:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:40:36 +1100 Received: from mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17813 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:40:31 +1100 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.79.44.65]) by mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990218153956.HNKJ15607@jay-apfelbaum>; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:39:56 +0000 Message-ID: <007201be5b54$67466640$412c4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> From: "JApfelbaum" To: "Dave Kent" , "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Re: Ruling from Last Night Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:36:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Last night I was asked to sit on a committee (ACBL rules). > > >Both Vul >Dlr: W > > S - KQxxxxx > H - xxx > D - xx > C - x >S - x S - >H - KQJxx H - xx >D - K9xx D - AJxx >C - AQx C - KJxxxxx > S - AJTxx > H - Axx > D - QTx > C - Tx > > W N E S >======================== > 1H 2S x(1) 4S(2) > x(3) P 5C P > 6C AP > >(1) E/W play negative free bids, so x is either a normal neg dbl or a single >suited hand with 10+ HCP >(2) S did not use the stop card >(3) Discernable break in tempo - seems like the hesitation was about 15 >seconds > >E/W play Flannery (5H + 4S) showing 11-16 HCP. > >The director ruled the contract back to 4Sx -2. > >Your ruling is.....? Law 16A states we not to choose from among logical alternatives one that is demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information. East has no heart fit, and no spades. The authorized information strongly suggests that N/S have at least ten spades. It seems to me the break in tempo does not demonstrably suggest a hand that would prefer East to bid rather than pass. The double suggests a hand with "transferable" values - one that has Aces and Kings. In my opinion, pass is not a logical alternative for East. Too much offense. Much too much distribution. Of course, it is always possible to construct a hand where pass is the only successful option. However, of all the hands that West might hold for the double the odds are overwhelming that bidding will be more successful than passing. A break in tempo that improves on a 99% action, making bidding a 100% choice, is not barred. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 02:43:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:43:17 +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 CAA17833 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:43:10 +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 PAA27460 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:42:34 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.7.1) id PAA11250 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:41:22 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990218164346.007bbce0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:43:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990218084238.0071178c@pop.cais.com> References: <199902171204170320.1C330978@mail.btinternet.com> <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:42 18/02/99 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >I must say, though, that I'm relieved that even in this case, when all the >facts were in, no adjustment was granted. I'm still inclined to agree with >Mr. Wolff that when an explanation correctly reflects both the bidder's >holding and the explainer's understanding it's probably best to leave well >enough alone and not confuse the issue with a correction that's far more >likely to confuse the opponents than to help them. > I disagree. The rule about disclosing partnership agreements is a simple one and a good one: opponents are entitled to know your partnership agreements, nothing more, nothing less. Any deviation or interpretation of this rule leads to troubles. If you admit declarer should only correct a wrong explanation given by dummy when his hand doesn't suit it, you will add confusion: According to Wolff's heretic interpretation, dummy says: 5 spades; if declarer then corrects to 4+ spades, opponents will deduce he holds exactly 4 spades (otherwise he should not have corrected) but the laws don't entitle opponents to this knowledge. Soon we would hear defensers systematically ask declarer: does your hand suit to your partner's explanations? or how many spades have you got? or maybe, show your hand if it doesn't suit! I don't think these shifts to be desisable. I am satisfied with the law as it is, and don't mind to protect people who refuse to understand it and try to get from opponents more information than what they are entitled to. JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 03:00:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 03:00:34 +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 DAA17866 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 03:00:13 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-119.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.119]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA47718220 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:03:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CC38DF.4DC21620@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:59:27 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990218084238.0071178c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let's see. The opponents keep quiet about MI so no issue about the score arises. NEXT HAND The same auction, except this time there is no question because of the previous hand. The actual holding was 4 cards and the lead of the suit would have shown a profit but was not considered. What is the adjudication on this hand? Is the previous hand reopened for adjudication? What is the result? Is this also a disciplinary matter? Oh what a tangled web we weave when we endorse the practice to illegally deceive. Roger Pewick Eric Landau wrote: > > At 12:04 PM 2/17/99 +0000, dburn wrote: > > >On 17/02/99, at 03:29, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >>Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> > >>>I don't understand the last part of the ruling. If my partner's > >>>explanation has correctly described my hand, I don't see how it could > >>>possibly do damage to the non-offenders even if it's not a correct > >>>explanation of our agreements. > > > >[DWS] > >> > >>Garozzo in an NABC appeal: a bid was described as showing a 5-card > >>suit, so the defender on lead did not lead it. The correct explanation > >>was at least *four* cards not five, and the defender said s/he would > >>have led the suit if s/he had known that. This argument is not > >>unreasonable. > >> > >>In fact the player *did* have five, but that did not stop opponents > >>being damaged by the misexplanation. > > > >Not quite right, David. It might help to clear this up if I quote the > >actual hand. Garozzo was in fact the defender who might have been damaged, > >but was ruled not to have been. Karen McCallum was the declarer and the > >player who gave the correct explanation of her methods. All is revealed > >below > > Thank you, David B. As must have been clear from my diatribe of yesterday, > the original description of the incident left me wondering whether all > involved had completely lost their minds. What I learned from the full > explanation is that second-level inferences can indeed come into play even > when the explanation is provided by the bidder's partner, and can be > crucial. Ms. McCallum seems to have realized that at the table, and done > the right thing. One notes, however, that not even the redoubtable Mr. > Garozzo picked up on the this (the second-level inference) at the table, > which leaves me to wonder whether good theory (in this case that the > opponents are entitled to complete knowledge of one's agreements even when > the explanation given corresponded to both the bidder's holding and his > partner's understanding) might make for bad law when applied to mere mortals. > > I must say, though, that I'm relieved that even in this case, when all the > facts were in, no adjustment was granted. I'm still inclined to agree with > Mr. Wolff that when an explanation correctly reflects both the bidder's > holding and the explainer's understanding it's probably best to leave well > enough alone and not confuse the issue with a correction that's far more > likely to confuse the opponents than to help them. > > 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 Feb 19 03:00:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 03:00:41 +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 DAA17873 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 03:00:35 +1100 Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id LAA27506 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:00:28 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199902181600.LAA27506@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Seeding question To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:00:27 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199902172225.RAA08297@cfa183.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at Feb 17, 99 05:25:08 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 Steve Willner writes: > > > From: Michael Albert > > I speak (or rather type) not of the question of how to determine who are > > the number 1, 2, 3 etc seeds, but rather of the problem of setting the > > schedule so that as much as possible "high seeds meet late". > > Isn't "high seeds meet late" an invitation for sportsmanlike dumping? Yes. > What order is really most desirable to discourage that? Doesn't the Bermuda Bowl use probable qualifiers meet early? That combined with round robin winner picks opponents (but can't pick 2nd place team. Prevents the Poland/USA II scenario. At least one pair from Poland seemed to be trying to dump the match in oreder to finish 4th.) > (I don't see how it can be entirely prevented in any round-robin > with multiple qualifiers.) Hostages? -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 03:34:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 03:34:05 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA17948 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 03:33:52 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10DWPX-000GjW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:34:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:27:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> <36CAE805.B11A533C@freewwweb.com> <36CBAA93.407DA73C@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: <36CBAA93.407DA73C@freewwweb.com> 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 axeman wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >>=20 >> axeman wrote: >> >Roger, write on the blackboard 50 times=85typo, typo, typo, typo, typo, >> >typo >> > >> >Of course I meant L31A2b. It is very specific. It says '=85does not >> >repeat the denomination=85' in this case hearts. It does not say speci= fy >> >the denomination. 'Double' instead of heart does not repeat heart even >> >if it were conceded that double means hearts. Personally, I believe >> >that a penalty double means that the intention is to set the opposing >> >contract and that it does not have to contain four cards in the enemy >> >trump suit even though it may. >>=20 >> Ah, L31A2B. Yes, this applies, no doubt about it. It says, inter >> alia, "... the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply, ..." and since the >> ACBL regulation is only concerned with those lead penalties, it is the >> wording of L26 with which I am concerned. > >The road map was 29B,31A2b, 26A, 23 > >Without the ACBL regulation it is L26A2. with the regulation, it is >L26A1. > >Did I get it in the bullseye? Not at all. Without the regulation there is a matter of judgement to be decided. The regulation merely decides a matter of judgement for the Director. The regulation does not change the Law. >> >And the bite out of the apple is the chance that L26 gives to avoid a >> >lead penalty. The second bite is the regulation that changes an >> >offender's agreement in the middle of the auction that double specifies >> >the enemy suit. >> > >> >The laws have gone to great length to provide many turns which make the >> >adjudication of infractions sometimes quite tedious. The practical >> >response is to establish compromises to accommodate these difficulties. >> >These compromises themselves add twists often with intricate >> >complications. The ACBL compromise is such a twist. >> > >> >I hold that the offender has the right to double. However, I think that >> >part of the penalty for the infraction of bidding out of turn is that >> >the OS should not be able to achieve a beneficial score from 1HX [L23] >> >unless absent the infraction, 1D-1H-X the double by agreement was >> >penalty. >>=20 >> Unfortunately you cannot make up Laws, so you have to provide one. >> L23 does not meet this case: it does not apply. How could you know it >> would disadvantage your opponents to force partner to pass at the time >> you called OOT? So, what Law are you going to use to prove that a >> partner who is forced to pass must take your double as takeout? > > >David, > >Your point is well taken. I agree. One of the things addressed by L23 >as you have said, is the adjustment for gaining *deliberately*. But >the law does not stop there- it is not limited solely to that aspect. It >does not matter whether it was deliberate or not [deliberate matters in >the application of L72B1]. It extends to where, if the offender had >known at the time of the infraction he was committing an infraction, he >could have known=85..and in the situation addressed by the ACBL, if the >offender knew he was committing a BOOT he could have known that an >enforced pass could damage the opponents. You must come into the real world. Consider this, as a bidding problem: AQ3 KJ9864 3 J65 Partner opens 1D: what do you bid? Let us say, for sake of argument, that you have no morals whatever, and will take advantage of anything you can. Your call? Put your hand on your heart, or your bible, or your wallet, or whatever you hold most dear, and swear to me that your honest answer to the problem was that you *would* bid 1H *out of turn* because then if LHO does not accept it you *might* be lucky enough to find RHO bidding 1H and then you can double it for penalties. I think you should stop putting that little white powder in your coffee! :))) At the time of the infraction it is not credible that the player would know that there is any real chance *whatever* that it will work to his benefit. What is most likely to happen is that RHO will bid something you cannot double and you have just screwed the auction up for you and your partner by silencing partner. Wonderful! >One does not need to know what will happen to know that when certain >things which are possible do happen, that there are ramifications which >could result in damage. But when the likelihood of such ramifications are close to zero, and the likelihood of ramifications that cause you trouble are far greater, why have you any suspicions? Take the cheat test; consider the actions of an unscrupulous player: what would he do in this situation? Would he bid 1H out of turn? No, because it is so unlikely to be in his interests to do so. >I think it is unfair to require that the NOS has to prove that the >offender was unethical in order receive an adjustment if there was >damage. So do I - doesn't happen. NOs are not required to prove anything - why should they? >The approach you feel is best seems to provide equity only against >provable sharp [unethical] practice. I think that L23 is better used >to include not only that but the area where there might be the >appearance of possible sharp practice. Let us face it. Most >irregularities are not committed with the intent to gain by sharp >practice. But the commission of certain irregularities frequently >creates situations where there are possibilities for unusual results >that may prove profitable at the expense of the opponents. Yes, these >situations make great stories, but if the rules were being followed, >they would not have happened. The approach I feel is best is to apply the Laws as they exist. You want to make a Law up to cover one absurdly unlikely situation, which will only ever occur because of sharp practice if the perpetrator is a total moron whose sharp practice is wildly unlikely to benefit his side - I don't see the point. >Since I have expressed so much interest in damage arising in this >situation I can see two likely sources of damage that are relevant >[depending on the case, I reckon there could be others]: > >[1] Offender got to make a double [of penalty nature] that [probably >according to agreements] it was up to partner to make or not make. The >NOS did not get to experience the outcome of a proper auction. Surely: but it is "rub-of-the-green": there is no reason to suppose that the offender can know this. >[2] The fact that the offender making a penalty double instead of a >penalty pass of a potential reopening double gives opener information >[L16C2] available only because of the BOOT, to expect offender to have >cards they may not be inclined to anticipate offender to hold had >offender passed a reopening double. Such is life. >I am of the opinion that offenders are not to jumped all over. I am >also of the opinion that offenders ought to not be cut any slack, nor >should they be permitted possession of the sorcerer's wand that makes >penalties disappear. In my game, everyone gets respect and equally >good treatment, inexperienced players get kid gloves too. And that >means that offenders do not get preferential treatment even though that >is what the ACBL policy [that sparked this discussion] accords. The ACBL policy does not accord them preferential treatment. It merely interprets a particular Law in a particular position in a way that any TD or AC might judge to be the correct interpretation anyway. I do not think you have thought the effects of a real case. --=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 Fri Feb 19 04:01:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 04:01:17 +1100 Received: from orr.pwgsc.gc.ca (orr.pwgsc.gc.ca [198.103.167.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18008 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 04:01:10 +1100 Received: id LAA15564; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:43:23 -0500 Received: by gateway id ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:42:47 -0500 Message-ID: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F621945C1@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca> From: Dave Kent To: "'JApfelbaum'" , "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Ruling from Last Night Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:42:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk **** Dave Kent's new comments*** The committee ruled as you suggest, however I am interested in the West hand bidding 6C. When East bids 5C, West now knows that East cannot be stretching - the 5C bid must be based on super-solid values since East had no logical alternative to bidding 5C. (Is this AI to West?) If there was no hesitation by West (i.e. he had doubled in tempo), East may well be bidding 5C with fewer values. Knowing that the 5C bid must be full-valued, West bids the slam which he now expects to make. If there was no hesitation, 6C could easily be off 2 cashers since East might have fewer values and he might therefore pass 5C. We ruled that West is allowed to do whatever he wants at this time - he got lucky that 6C was laydown. But was he lucky? > -----Original Message----- > From: JApfelbaum [SMTP:JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 10:36 AM > To: Dave Kent; 'Bridge Laws' > Subject: Re: Ruling from Last Night > > >Last night I was asked to sit on a committee (ACBL rules). > > > > > >Both Vul > >Dlr: W > > > > S - KQxxxxx > > H - xxx > > D - xx > > C - x > >S - x S - > >H - KQJxx H - xx > >D - K9xx D - AJxx > >C - AQx C - KJxxxxx > > S - AJTxx > > H - Axx > > D - QTx > > C - Tx > > > > W N E S > >======================== > > 1H 2S x(1) 4S(2) > > x(3) P 5C P > > 6C AP > > > >(1) E/W play negative free bids, so x is either a normal neg dbl or a > single > >suited hand with 10+ HCP > >(2) S did not use the stop card > >(3) Discernable break in tempo - seems like the hesitation was about 15 > >seconds > > > >E/W play Flannery (5H + 4S) showing 11-16 HCP. > > > >The director ruled the contract back to 4Sx -2. > > > >Your ruling is.....? > > Law 16A states we not to choose from among logical alternatives one that > is > demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information. East has no heart > fit, and no spades. The authorized information strongly suggests that N/S > have at least ten spades. It seems to me the break in tempo does not > demonstrably suggest a hand that would prefer East to bid rather than > pass. > The double suggests a hand with "transferable" values - one that has Aces > and Kings. > > In my opinion, pass is not a logical alternative for East. Too much > offense. > Much too much distribution. Of course, it is always possible to construct > a > hand where pass is the only successful option. However, of all the hands > that West might hold for the double the odds are overwhelming that bidding > will be more successful than passing. > > A break in tempo that improves on a 99% action, making bidding a 100% > choice, is not barred. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 04:03:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 04:03:38 +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 EAA18024 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 04:03:32 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA18028 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:00:25 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199902181700.LAA18028@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Appeal; Opinions sought To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:00:25 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While I am quite sure the opinion you seek is not _mine_, here it is for what it's worth. > 1H Pass Pass > 1NT (1) Pass 2NT (2) Pass > 3D Pass 3NT All pass > > (1) 11-14 HCP (Could be shaded to 15 HCP after a major suit opening) > (2) Alerted as a transfer to diamonds > > You are East and you hold: > > S K J 10 > H Q x x > D J 9 x > C A x x x > > Two members of the committee felt East knew from the unauthorized > information that West didn’t like diamonds and probably had a minimum hand. > Without the "alert", and the unauthorized information it conveyed, East > would have to consider 3D as natural and not forcing. Pass would be a > logical alternative. The unauthorized information makes 3D a suicide > contract - bidding becomes mandatory. This certainly sounds like sensible reasoning to me. > It seems to me that had West bid 3C (instead of 3D) over East's 2NT bid, > then East should be allowed to bid 3NT. My reason is that East has a very > strong club fit, making it likely that the Club suit will run at NT. To me, > therefore, passing a 3C bid in not a logical alternative. East's relatively I think it's close, but fortunately we don't need to decide this. > poor diamond fit (compared to clubs, anyway), suggests that a significant > number of East's would "seriously consider" passing. In fact, I suggest that > a number would actually choose to pass. I agree. Without the alert, the 3D bid must be expressing doubt as to whether NT is the best contract. [It cannot, after all, be asking about the proper _level_, since 6NT is impossible {for everyone except DWS :):):)} and we've gone past 2NT.] E is not at the maximum for his bid [I assume he thought it showed 11-12 or a bad 13], and has decent but not outstanding diamonds. I think he would have to at least consider passing absent the alert. > The Committee also gave E/W a quarter board procedural penalty for appealing > the director's ruling. This decision was not unanimous. One member > dissented. I think this is much more debateable. I think one should only issue a PP in cases where it should have been obvious that the appeal had no merit. This is not such a case, and I would not have voted for the PP. > He argued that if no Alert had been given, East would have bid 3NT over 3D. I take it he means "if no alert had been given, none of E's peers would have seriously considered passing". What arguments did he use to show this? > He also suggested that he wouldn’t need the Alert procedure to know that > something had gone wrong and he would have worked it out if he had been I don't see why _he_ is making this argument. Did East himself make this argument? Can E show something in their agreements or his bridge knowledge that shows that pass cannot be [or is extremely unlikely to be] the right action in this auction even without knowledge of the alert? If E can convince me that my initial bridge judgement that Pass must be seriously considered is wrong, I can respect that. What _did_ E argue? [That is, I think E's arguments will help us understand how E's peers would reason, although having seen the results we must take them with a grain of salt.] > playing behind a screen. He thought that East had no idea his 3NT bid was > going to be the winning action but he had to like his heart stopper and > having North trapped between two hands with the balance of power. He also I think this contradicts the earlier argument. In order for pass not to be a LA, 3NT must be obvious even without the UI. If E 'had no idea his 3NT bid was going to be the winning action' then he must admit that Pass is an LA. The UI obviously makes 3NT more attractive and Pass less attractive. Q.E.D. > suggested this was a "rub of the green" case. If 3NT had gone down two, the > Director (least of all the Committee) would never have heard the case. Since > it made, the cops were called. Had there been no damage, the TD wouldn't have been called. Isn't that usually the case? If N/S had engaged in some questionable action themselves, one might have argued that they were double-shotting. But there is no suggestion of this here. I find this argument completely without merit. > He disagreed with the procedural penalty. The dissent would not have > considered calling the director in this situation. He thought North-South > were given a huge bonus they didn’t deserve for a minor infraction by > East-West. The minor infraction led to EW making a game instead of a part-score. The 'bonus' NS received resulted in their getting back the score they might have had. That sounds fair to me. I do agree with the dissenter, however, that the case is not obvious enough to warrant a PP, absent some other information. > I would appreciate your comments on the Committee's decision and rationale, > and any comments on the dissenter's reasoning. > > Jay Apfelbaum > > Pittsburgh, PA > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 04:53:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 04:53:12 +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 EAA18204 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 04:52:39 +1100 Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id MAA01711 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:52:18 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199902181752.MAA01711@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:52:17 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199902181522.KAA08824@cfa183.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at Feb 18, 99 10:22:39 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 Steve Willner writes: > > > Someone > > >did say Kaplan once did this; I sincerely hope that was > > >before Law 73B1 took shape in 1987 (before which the law > > >was more nebulous). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > > > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > > Kaplan (at least) was of the > > opinion that such conduct was not merely legal, as it almost certainly was > > at that time, but consistent with his judgement of how the game ought to be > > played. > > The "Kaplan question," which is documented in a Bridge World editorial, > was a response to his opponent's infraction of misinformation. Kaplan > was aware of the MI, but his partner (Kay) was not. Rather than sit > silent and look for an adjustment at the end, Kaplan asked a further > question to clear up the misinformation right away. > > If this is illegal, then I vote to change the Laws. > Kaplan made it clear that this was a single example and that he had done similar things and would continue to do so. Quoting from the editorial in question (BW August 1981) "[...] If he had it all to do over again, he'd do the same again. In fact, he has done the same again, often. And he will do so in the future. No one can convince him that Proprieties II, B1 was intended to outlaw such conduct (particularly since he wrote that section himself). [...]" I'm not aware that he changed his mind after 1987. Here we have specific evidence of the intent. Just last week the following happened in a club game. The opponents bid (without opposition or alerts) 1S-2N-3N-4S. From the look of anguish on the 2N bidder's face I knew some wheels had come off and she didn't know how to deal with it. 2N was intended as Jacoby. They had no card. My partner didn't know what Jacoby was and made the whole thing even more surreal by leading out of turn (to 3NT no less). I knew what was happening the whole time but asking anything before the auction ended didn't seem to be in my best interest. I know I'd have liked to clue him in that 2N was a strong spade raise. Not because I wanted him to do anything in particular. Just seems a handy thing to know. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 05:23:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 05:23:57 +1100 Received: from smtp04.nwnexus.com (smtp04.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA18264 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 05:23:51 +1100 Received: from coho.halcyon.com (bbo@coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by smtp04.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA00558; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:23:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by coho.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA05965; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:23:44 -0800 Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:23:43 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Dave Kent cc: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Re: Ruling from Last Night In-Reply-To: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F621945C0@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Dave Kent wrote: > Both Vul > Dlr: W > > S - KQxxxxx > H - xxx > D - xx > C - x > S - x S - > H - KQJxx H - xx > D - K9xx D - AJxx > C - AQx C - KJxxxxx > S - AJTxx > H - Axx > D - QTx > C - Tx > > W N E S > ======================== > 1H 2S x(1) 4S(2) > x(3) P 5C P > 6C AP > > (1) E/W play negative free bids, so x is either a normal neg dbl or a single > suited hand with 10+ HCP > (2) S did not use the stop card It does not matter whether S used the card or not. The ACBL Regulations required experienced players to observe proper tempo [i. e., hesitate approximately ten seconds while intently studying one's hand - not tolling off the time like the timekeeper at a knockdown] before calling. > (3) Discernable break in tempo - seems like the hesitation was about 15 > seconds I don't believe that 15 seconds can be distinguished from 10 seconds at the table! Was someone watching his/her watch? In that case one could argue either way depending on the result, whether the hesitation were 9.9 seconds or 10.1 seconds. Most people have no idea what ten seconds is. Test them and they usually say stop after five or six seconds, so a real ten second pause to them would seem like 15 seconds! Even if it were 15 seconds, there are times when one is required to think that long without any suspicion. Bridge is a thinking man's game. Not even Zia makes every bid like an automaton without pause for thought. It seems to me that West observed the proper procedure, and there is no UI. > E/W play Flannery (5H + 4S) showing 11-16 HCP. > > The director ruled the contract back to 4Sx -2. > > Your ruling is.....? Result stands, retain the NS deposit, if any. R. B. Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 06:01:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 06:01:21 +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 GAA18392 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 06:01:13 +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 OAA19723 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:01:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:01:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902181901.OAA11282@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <006401be5b52$19242e40$412c4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> (JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net) Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JApfelbaum writes: > Here is an appeal from a hand from a recent regional. The facts of the case: > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1H Pass Pass > 1NT (1) Pass 2NT (2) Pass > 3D Pass 3NT All pass > (1) 11-14 HCP (Could be shaded to 15 HCP after a major suit opening) > (2) Alerted as a transfer to diamonds > Result: 3NT made four, +430 for East-West > The director was called after the dummy was tabled. He ruled that East had > unauthorized information that might have suggested the 3NT bid. The contract > was changed to 3D making three, +110 for East-West. This is a fairly common situation, in which partner gives UI from an alert or explanation, and then makes a bid which would be impossible with your understanding of the bid. (The most common situation is a Lebensohl 2NT with a 3C reply.) > It seems to me that had West bid 3C (instead of 3D) over East's 2NT bid, > then East should be allowed to bid 3NT. My reason is that East has a very > strong club fit, making it likely that the Club suit will run at NT. To me, > therefore, passing a 3C bid in not a logical alternative. East's relatively > poor diamond fit (compared to clubs, anyway), suggests that a significant > number of East's would "seriously consider" passing. In fact, I suggest that > a number would actually choose to pass. This is a reasonable line of argument if the bid is disallowed. > The Committee also gave E/W a quarter board procedural penalty for appealing > the director's ruling. This decision was not unanimous. One member > dissented. Penalties for frivolous appeals should not be given where there is significant dissent. In this case, there is a legitimate issue, as he pointed out: > He also suggested that he wouldn’t need the Alert procedure to know that > something had gone wrong and he would have worked it out if he had been > playing behind a screen. I believe that, in the case of an impossible bid, the AI of the bid tells you that partner has forgotten the bid. Behind screens, if partner bid this 3D, would you assume that he had a diamond suit, or that he thought 2NT was a transfer? > He disagreed with the procedural penalty. The dissent would not have > considered calling the director in this situation. That goes too far. WHen there is a possible problem such as UI or MI, the director should be called. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 06:04:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 06:04:49 +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 GAA18416 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 06:04:43 +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 OAA20158 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:04:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:04:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902181904.OAA11449@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F621945C0@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca> (message from Dave Kent on Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:59:12 -0500) Subject: Re: Ruling from Last Night Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dave Kent writes: > W N E S > ======================== > 1H 2S x(1) 4S(2) > x(3) P 5C P > 6C AP > (1) E/W play negative free bids, so x is either a normal neg dbl or a single > suited hand with 10+ HCP > (2) S did not use the stop card > (3) Discernable break in tempo - seems like the hesitation was about 15 > seconds Is this even a sufficient break in tempo to give UI? Since most players who use the STOP card leave it out for the time that the opponent is expected to wait, West would be on his own estimating the time, and even if he had a clear decision, he could have spent 15 seconds thinking it was the proper 10. If anything, South's failure to use the STOP card should jeopardize his right to claim a moderate tempo break. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 06:10:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 06:10:45 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA18442 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 06:10:38 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10DYrF-000Ck8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:11:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:14:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <006401be5b52$19242e40$412c4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> In-Reply-To: <006401be5b52$19242e40$412c4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JApfelbaum wrote: >The Committee also gave E/W a quarter board procedural penalty for appealing >the director's ruling. This decision was not unanimous. One member >dissented. > > >He argued that if no Alert had been given, East would have bid 3NT over 3D. >He also suggested that he wouldnt need the Alert procedure to know that >something had gone wrong and he would have worked it out if he had been >playing behind a screen. He thought that East had no idea his 3NT bid was >going to be the winning action but he had to like his heart stopper and >having North trapped between two hands with the balance of power. He also >suggested this was a "rub of the green" case. If 3NT had gone down two, the >Director (least of all the Committee) would never have heard the case. Since >it made, the cops were called. > > >He disagreed with the procedural penalty. The dissent would not have >considered calling the director in this situation. He thought North-South >were given a huge bonus they didnt deserve for a minor infraction by >East-West. > > >I would appreciate your comments on the Committee's decision and rationale, >and any comments on the dissenter's reasoning. The AC made a reasoned decision. NP. However, the dissenter showed a lack of understanding of the Law. It is of no interest whatever what a player might have worked out behind a mythical screen. What matters is whether there was UI [clearly] and if so, whether a player chose amongst LAs one that was sug... blah blah blah. [WAPCALAOTWSOABTUI?] The dissenter also referred to a rub-of-the-green case, which it wasn't. RotG is when an offender happens to gain by good luck after the application of the relevant Law [until a certain American strings him up as a reward!]. This is a case where we are applying the Law. The dissenter also referred to an infraction followed by a poor result, and commented that if the NOs had got a good result, the TD would never have heard about it. Well, stap me vitals, I am surprised. This also occured in the other 7,999,999 times that rights were reserved in the ACBL this decade followed by the NOs doing badly. Someone should tell the dissenter that this is the normal situation. The dissenter's final comment suggests that he is one who would prefer to judge as his gut feeling tells him with no respect for the Laws. It is just not done that way. -- 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 Feb 19 06:10:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 06:10:54 +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 GAA18449 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 06:10:48 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10DYqP-000434-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:10:42 +0000 Message-ID: <06acfZA4NEz2Ewdm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:44:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990217174516.0069cbc4@pop.cais.com> <36CBB32E.AFA44E23@home.com> <3.0.1.32.19990218093253.0068df4c@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990218093253.0068df4c@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 10:29 PM 2/17/99 -0800, Jan wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> you >>> should at least lose the right to call the Zero Tolerance cops when someone >>> calls you what you are. >> >>And that is...? C'mon Eric - spell it out rather than making innuendo > >The seven-letter word I had in mind denotes a vital portion of the anatomy >normally found between one's chair and the rest of one's body. You call people a buttock? Very strange! :) -- 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 Feb 19 07:20:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 07:20:51 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f210.hotmail.com [207.82.251.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA18617 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 07:20:45 +1100 Received: (qmail 8304 invoked by uid 0); 18 Feb 1999 20:20:10 -0000 Message-ID: <19990218202010.8303.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.128.179 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:20:09 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.128.179] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:20:09 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Grant Sterling) > While I am quite sure the opinion you seek is not _mine_, here >it is for what it's worth. > Ok, me too (I am a learner, not a master, especially at committee rulings - I have been at one, and served on none). > Jay Apfelbaum: >> 1H Pass Pass >> 1NT (1) Pass 2NT (2) Pass >> 3D Pass 3NT All pass >> >> (1) 11-14 HCP (Could be shaded to 15 HCP after a major suit >>opening) >> (2) Alerted as a transfer to diamonds >> >> You are East and you hold: >> >> S K J 10 >> H Q x x >> D J 9 x >> C A x x x >> >> Two members of the committee felt East knew from the unauthorized >> information that West didn?t like diamonds and probably had a >> minimum hand. Without the "alert", and the unauthorized >> information it conveyed, East would have to consider 3D as natural >> and not forcing. Pass would be a >> logical alternative. The unauthorized information makes 3D a >> suicide contract - bidding becomes mandatory. > > This certainly sounds like sensible reasoning to me. And me, though I might be convinced that 3D natural and non-forcing makes no sense, depending on how diverse their "shading" qualities. What kind of hand would bid 3D in this situation (1NT overcall, raised to 2NT naturally)? Does the 1NT overcall guarantee anything about spades (less than 4? 3? nothing?)? What kind of heart stopper does 1NT balancing overcall guarantee in that partnership? How off-shape could the hand be before it becomes a 2D (or some sort of minors bid, like 2NT) overcall? I can't think of a hand that guarantees a good heart stopper, and isn't too offshape, that would prefer 3D to 2NT, knowing nothing about partner's hand except that he doesn't expect an 8-card spade fit. Maybe I don't think too good. But if I am right, I can't think of an explanation for 3D other than "something's come off the wheels". >> The Committee also gave E/W a quarter board procedural penalty for appealing >> the director's ruling. This decision was not unanimous. One member >> dissented. > > I think this is much more debateable. I think one should only >issue a PP in cases where it should have been obvious that the appeal had >no merit. This is not such a case, and I would not have voted for the PP. > Just an editing note: I don't like the way that the article is written with this line. I am sure that the committee didn't mean what the line says, but that the PP was applied for "appeal substantially without merit." After all, it is explicitly legal to "appeal[] the director's ruling." Having said that, I don't know what the rules are in the ACBL about how penalties for without merit appeals (do we have an abbreviation for that, DWS?) are to be determined, but I would want the determination of "without merit" to be unanimous for any penalties to apply - so I disagree with the PP determination, also. I may be out of my tree here, also. [Grant's evaluation of the dissenter's opinion deleted; I can't add anything to it] >> suggested this was a "rub of the green" case. If 3NT had gone down >> two, the Director (least of all the Committee) would never have >> heard the case. Since it made, the cops were called. > > Had there been no damage, the TD wouldn't have been called. >Isn't that usually the case? If N/S had engaged in some questionable >action themselves, one might have argued that they were >double-shotting. But there is no suggestion of this here. I find >this argument completely without merit. > One thing to watch here - the writeup says that the director was called when dummy was tabled. So the cops were called before it was known whether we were making or going down 2. And the appeal was filed by the people who believed that they had been ruled against unduly harshly (which TDs are expected to do, at times, rule at the table resolving any doubtful points in favour of the NOS, and allowing the AC to do the time-consuming deliberations that prove that some of those doubtful points in fact weren't). >> He disagreed with the procedural penalty. The dissent would not >> have considered calling the director in this situation. He thought >> North-South were given a huge bonus they didn?t deserve for a minor >> infraction by East-West. > > The minor infraction led to EW making a game instead of a >part-score. The 'bonus' NS received resulted in their getting back >the score they might have had. That sounds fair to me. > I do agree with the dissenter, however, that the case is not >obvious enough to warrant a PP, absent some other information. > I agree with this, too. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 07:34:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 07:34:43 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f236.hotmail.com [207.82.251.127]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA18676 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 07:34:36 +1100 Received: (qmail 14145 invoked by uid 0); 18 Feb 1999 20:34:01 -0000 Message-ID: <19990218203401.14144.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.128.179 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:34:01 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.128.179] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling from Last Night Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:34:01 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I just have a question for the august presences I am among... >From: Dave Kent >(2) S did not use the stop card >(3) Discernable break in tempo - seems like the hesitation was about >15 seconds When I am on OKB (unix version), I get a "hand clock" and a "my time clock". I have used this feature to time my "10-second" pauses after skip bids, and they range from 9 to 12 seconds. So, provided I am not actually thinking about something (where they could probably go a second more either way, as I don't know how to gauge how long I have thought well yet) that's where the pause is, whether or not RHO used the stop card. So, is 15 seconds "discernably longer" than 10? Especially to people who don't have watches available to practice with? I really don't know (I tend to play in a club where random hesitations occur, sometimes even with no thought going on behind them). So I ask. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 08:39:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:39:29 +1100 Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA18880 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:39:24 +1100 Received: from salsa (salsa.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.112]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA03816 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:39:20 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990219103935.009438e0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:39:35 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Re: Seeding question In-Reply-To: <199902181600.LAA27506@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: <199902172225.RAA08297@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A combination of Ron Johnson (>) and Steve Willner (>>) wrote: >> >> Isn't "high seeds meet late" an invitation for sportsmanlike dumping? > >Yes. > >> What order is really most desirable to discourage that? > >Doesn't the Bermuda Bowl use probable qualifiers meet early? > >That combined with round robin winner picks opponents (but can't >pick 2nd place team. Prevents the Poland/USA II scenario. At least >one pair from Poland seemed to be trying to dump the match in oreder >to finish 4th.) > >> (I don't see how it can be entirely prevented in any round-robin >> with multiple qualifiers.) > >Hostages? > In a round robin to be followed by multiple qualification for playoffs this is undoubtedly a problem. Though I did not make it clear in the original, the local situation is that we need to select three pairs to form a team. Owing to lack of numbers it would be infeasible/unfair to ask for teams (of either 4 or 6) to enter the trials, so the procedure has generally been to have contestants enter as pairs, and conduct the trials on a cross-imped or Butler basis. A typical sort of entry would be anywhere from 8 to 12 pairs (3 to be selected to the team.) In the lower case we'd have 7x24 board matches, in the upper probably 11x16 board matches (cross imped or Butlered, then converted to VP's) Of course this has problems all of its own -- and for future reference I'd be happy to hear of any more enlightened methods for carrying out such selection. M --------------------------------------------------------- Michael H. Albert Ph: (64)-03-479-7778 Senior Teaching Fellow Fax: (64)-03-479-8427 Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 09:04:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:04:55 +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 JAA18948 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:04:45 +1100 Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id RAA10504 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:04:19 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199902182204.RAA10504@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Ruling from Last Night To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:04:18 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199902181904.OAA11449@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> from "David Grabiner" at Feb 18, 99 02:04:34 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 David Grabiner writes: > If anything, South's failure to use the STOP card should jeopardize his > right to claim a moderate tempo break. > I like the word jeopardize. Seems the correct standard. Still it seems like a UI case to me. Did E have UI? Did the UI suggest pulling the double? It seems to me that if you answer yes to both , you have to adjust Stop card or no. (Though I recall reading about rulings that suggest otherwise. And I could live with a rule that says no Stop card? Forget about a hesitation ruling.) I think it's close on both questions. I'd argue to adjust but with no strong feelings. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 09:22:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:22:34 +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 JAA19009 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:22:24 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-44.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.44]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA60601241 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:24:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CC9206.935CB26A@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:19:50 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Re: Ruling from Last Night References: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F621945C0@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The negative free bid agreement I am familiar with occurs only in the auction 1X-bid-2Y. The agreements described do not make bridge sense. A negative double in this auction would normally promise a limit raise or better values 10+ hcps, and a later bid of a new suit would be non forward going [ie willing to play doubled at the 4 level if he decides to bid at the 4 level]- the 'opposite' of the agreements. In order to adjust, there needs to be UI present. After every skip bid, a pause of about 10 seconds is proper. Imo, when the pause is between 8-15 seconds this does not convey UI unless there were accompanying mannerisms. In this case there was no mention of accompanying mannerisms and the pause was within a normal skip bid pause. I find that there was no UI and therefore EW are entitled to any action they see fit. However, I might be convinced that there was UI because of the strange agreements that were claimed seem to conveniently support the actual auction more than good bridge agreements and play. And the auction is a bit strange if 'normal agreements' were actually in use: [a] The promised quick tricks by responder should be .adequate information to choose a [penalty] double over bidding 5D or vice versa. To contend that E has no defense is totally erroneous because they have filling honors in the minors to compliment partner's minors and hearts and spades. They have a great defensive hand as well as a strong offensive hand. [b] Double suggests that a profitable 5 level contract is not in the offing even though responder probably has a good hand. [c] When responder has the long minor without the good honors, it seems that carrying on to 6 is a risky proposition when partner pulls the double. When responder has the good hand, they already know that opener was not doubling based on trump tricks, and they should have little reason to bid since partner should take them for the non forward going hand with a long suit and not a slam invite. However, screwy bidding and bad bridge are not a valid basis for adjustment. Taking a LA action in the presence of UI that results in damage is. I maintain that no matter how screwy the opponents bid, they are entitled to the results [and so are you] as long as they have been above board. I have no evidence that suggests it is so. Therefore, there is no reason to attempt to find damage nor LAs and the result should stand. Roger Pewick Dave Kent wrote: > > Last night I was asked to sit on a committee (ACBL rules). > > Both Vul > Dlr: W > > S - KQxxxxx > H - xxx > D - xx > C - x > S - x S - > H - KQJxx H - xx > D - K9xx D - AJxx > C - AQx C - KJxxxxx > S - AJTxx > H - Axx > D - QTx > C - Tx > > W N E S > ======================== > 1H 2S x(1) 4S(2) > x(3) P 5C P > 6C AP > > (1) E/W play negative free bids, so x is either a normal neg dbl or a single > suited hand with 10+ HCP > (2) S did not use the stop card > (3) Discernable break in tempo - seems like the hesitation was about 15 > seconds > > E/W play Flannery (5H + 4S) showing 11-16 HCP. > > The director ruled the contract back to 4Sx -2. > > Your ruling is.....? > > Dave Kent > david@magi.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 09:59:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:59:58 +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 JAA19125 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:59:52 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa19222; 18 Feb 99 14:59 PST To: "'Bridge Laws'" CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Ruling from Last Night In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:19:50 PST." <36CC9206.935CB26A@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:59:14 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902181459.aa19222@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > The negative free bid agreement I am familiar with occurs only in the > auction 1X-bid-2Y. The agreements described do not make bridge sense. For what it's worth, my version of the Encyclopedia says that "Most pairs [who use negative free bids] agree to use them at the 2 and 3 levels only." So it can't be considered too strange to use them at the three level. As for whether they usually apply over a weak jump overcall (as opposed to, say, 1S-(2H)-3C), I don't know what common practice is. With one of my partners, we agreed to play NFB's in all situations. At least that has the advantage of consistency. Later, my partner decided we'd use them only over non-jump overcalls. > A negative double in this auction would normally promise a limit raise > or better values 10+ hcps, Now that doesn't seem like a usual agreement. I'd take a negative double after 1H (2S) as minor-suit oriented. I haven't seen negative doubles commonly used as raises. > and a later bid of a new suit would be non > forward going [ie willing to play doubled at the 4 level if he decides > to bid at the 4 level]- the 'opposite' of the agreements. > > . . . > However, I might be convinced that there was UI because of the strange > agreements that were claimed seem to conveniently support the actual > auction more than good bridge agreements and play. I don't think it's your place to judge whether the agreements are strange. So far, the only evidence you've provided is that "you're not familiar with them" and "you don't consider them to make bridge sense". Lots of people play agreements that I don't consider to make bridge sense. In fact, I play agreements that I don't consider to make bridge sense, but my partner (not the same partner as above) likes them. (Sigh.) So believing something doesn't make bridge sense isn't enough reason to suspect that something fishy is going on. The evidence you've provided falls far short of what's required to suspect that E-W may be lying about their agreements. Besides, presumably West explained East's (alertable) double at the time it occurred, which was before any tempo break happened; and there's no evidence to the contrary; so what basis do you have for suggesting that the agreements were being claimed "conveniently" to support East's pull? BTW, I agree that the table result should stand. Sitting for a double with a 7-4 hand and a void in the opponents' suit should generally not be considered a LA, at least not till you get to the 5 or 6 level. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 10:11:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:11:03 +1100 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA19160 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:10:53 +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 SAA28342 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:10:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:10:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902182310.SAA25398@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199902182204.RAA10504@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> (message from Ron Johnson on Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:04:18 -0500 (EST)) Subject: No STOP card used (was Re: Ruling from Last Night) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson writes: > David Grabiner writes: >> If anything, South's failure to use the STOP card should jeopardize his >> right to claim a moderate tempo break. > I like the word jeopardize. Seems the correct standard. > Still it seems like a UI case to me. Did E have UI? Did the UI > suggest pulling the double? > It seems to me that if you answer yes to both , you have to adjust > Stop card or no. (Though I recall reading about rulings that suggest > otherwise. And I could live with a rule that says no Stop card? Forget > about a hesitation ruling.) Experts are expected to protect themselves, and this is why I use "jeopardize", rather than "forfeit". If South opens 4H with no STOP card, and West makes a quick pass, then an expert West is considered to have passed UI and East must bid accordingly. A non-expert West is excused in this situation. I would expect tempo to be less precise following a non-STOP bid, because many players hold out the STOP card for the expected ten seconds. If the jump bidder does this, and then his LHO does not call within a few seconds after the card is removed (and the card was out for a reasonable length of time), this is a marked hesitation, even if the total time was 15 seconds. With no STOP card, LHO is left to time this for himself, and not everyone has the same idea of ten seconds. This is particularly important if LHO needed five of the ten seconds to consider his bid, and now has to guess who much additional time to take. I recognize that the policy of some organizations is that the STOP card is removed immediaelty, but even so, this serves as a reminder for a player to be careful with his tempo. If the first thing on the table to my right is a 4S bid, the first thing I think about is whether I can beat 4S or make a contract at the 5-level. If the first thing on the table is a STOP card, the first thing I think about is that I should wait ten seconds before doing anything. A suggested general intepretation: if the STOP card is not used when it should be used, any tempo of 5-15 seconds is acceptable. A tempo of less than 5 seconds from an experienced player, or more than 15 seconds from any player, passes 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 Fri Feb 19 10:47:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:47:22 +1100 Received: from orr.pwgsc.gc.ca (orr.pwgsc.gc.ca [198.103.167.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA19287 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:47:15 +1100 Received: id PAA28616; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:28:12 -0500 Received: by gateway id ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:27:37 -0500 Message-ID: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F621945C2@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca> From: Dave Kent To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Re: Ruling from Last Night Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:00:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: Ruling from Last Night Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:04:34 -0500 (EST) From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Dave Kent writes: > W N E S > ======================== > 1H 2S x(1) 4S(2) > x(3) P 5C P > 6C AP > (1) E/W play negative free bids, so x is either a normal neg dbl or a single > suited hand with 10+ HCP > (2) S did not use the stop card > (3) Discernable break in tempo - seems like the hesitation was about 15 > seconds Is this even a sufficient break in tempo to give UI? Since most players who use the STOP card leave it out for the time that the opponent is expected to wait, West would be on his own estimating the time, and even if he had a clear decision, he could have spent 15 seconds thinking it was the proper 10. If anything, South's failure to use the STOP card should jeopardize his right to claim a moderate tempo break. -- 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. ************************************************************** What I intended to imply was that all parties at the table indicated that there was a noticeable hesitation - clearly more than the expected 10 seconds but not as long as 30 seconds (my assumption from questioning the parties involved). If you do not like this assumption, use whatever length of time you would identify as being 'out of tempo' for a situation in which the Stop card was not used. Dave Kent david@magi.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 11:36:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:36:03 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA19407 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:35:57 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Ddw8-0000LX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:36:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:20:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <006401be5b52$19242e40$412c4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> <199902181901.OAA11282@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199902181901.OAA11282@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >JApfelbaum writes: >> He also suggested that he wouldnt need the Alert procedure to know that >> something had gone wrong and he would have worked it out if he had been >> playing behind a screen. > >I believe that, in the case of an impossible bid, the AI of the bid >tells you that partner has forgotten the bid. Behind screens, if >partner bid this 3D, would you assume that he had a diamond suit, or >that he thought 2NT was a transfer? It is not impossible. We have discussed this in the past at considerable length on RGB. At least 30% of people have bid 1N - 2N - 3C/D as a natural bid [judging from RGB]. If you open 1NT on Qx KJx Axxxxx KQ then 3D is a good bid if partner raises to 2NT, since he may bid 3NT with a D fit, and pass without. It is not the same as Lebensohl, where 3C is demanded. -- 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 Feb 19 11:40:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:40:56 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA19425 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:40:50 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA21355 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:40:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id TAA09510 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:40:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:40:56 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902190040.TAA09510@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought X-Sun-Charset: ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "JApfelbaum" > Two members of the committee felt East knew from the unauthorized > information that West didnt like diamonds and probably had a minimum hand. > Without the "alert", and the unauthorized information it conveyed, East > would have to consider 3D as natural and not forcing. Pass would be a > logical alternative. The unauthorized information makes 3D a suicide > contract - bidding becomes mandatory. Thanks for an interesting hand. As Eric Leong pointed out some time ago, "UI from correct explanation" cases are really hard. Unlike "UI from mis-explanation," you have to invent some fantasy bidding system in which the misbid was correct. In this case, no doubt East thought 2NT was a natural raise -- fine so far -- but what should 3D mean in that system? Unless we have some further evidence, there is no way to decide except general bridge knowledge of what is common among equivalent players. Personally, I cannot imagine playing 3D non-forcing in that sequence. If 2NT is a game invitation, why wouldn't a weak hand simply pass? A player who wants to accept, on the other hand, might want to explore for 5D instead of 3NT. Anyway, I'd certainly take 3D as forcing if it came up undiscussed at the table. Still, no doubt there are players who play this sequence as weak and non-forcing, and if the AC wants to attribute that meaning to the bid, no one can say they are wrong. Perhaps they were influenced by the specious arguments produced by the East player and decided to give him the worst of it. Perhaps they even thought it was a L73C case. :-) (I say that facetiously, but in fact it would not be a silly ruling.) What this case really points up is the difficulty of ruling this sort of infraction. Life would be much easier if the laws (or possibly just their interpretation) were changed. I don't think the game would suffer much. It is quite likely that this East _would_ have remembered the true agreements, even behind screens. > The Committee also gave E/W a quarter board procedural penalty for appealing > the director's ruling. This decision was not unanimous. One member > dissented. This I don't understand at all. The appeal raises very difficult issues and is far from frivolous. Even if you disagree, is it normal to give a score penalty rather than a conduct penalty (e.g. warning, probation, suspension)? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 11:52:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:52:06 +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 LAA19456 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:52:00 +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 TAA21657 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:51:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id TAA09528 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:52:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:52:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902190052.TAA09528@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson >. But I hate producing regulations to cover > situations that are [a] cheating and [b] covered by another Law. Yes, me too. > If a pair did this, L72B1 means that we give them 30% or less. L90 > means we fine them. If you want to invoke L72B1, it means you will give something lower than 40% whenever a pair receives an avg- against a well known expert pair, regardless of the score the expert pair is actually achieving in the particular session. Unless, I suppose, the offending pair are also experts. That is perhaps workable but not simple. > But I worry about all the other pairs who did not deserve this. Deserve? The NOS is scoring >60% against the other pairs in the section (and thus taking >60% for their avg+). Why does the OS "deserve" as much as 40% when other pairs in their section are scoring less by playing the boards? The more I think about it, the more reasonable the ACBL's position becomes. Scary, isn't it? :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 12:14:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:14:23 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA19500 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:14:05 +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 <19990219011359.XMBQ23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:13:59 -0800 Message-ID: <36CCBBC3.EEA969B8@home.com> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:17:55 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <006401be5b52$19242e40$412c4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm sure I'll be offending someone here but, with all due respect, I find the dissender showed either a lack of respect for, or a lack of knowledge of, the law. For those who find 3D can only be a "the wheels are off" bid, I don't see why. Particularly with a wide-range NT overcall it is not unlikely that overcaller has a minimum with say DKQxxxx where he feels that now when game is not on, 3D will be much safer than 2NT. Finally, someone argued that behind screens advancer couldn't be sure whether 3D was natural NF or confirming a misunderstanding. Well, tell you what, after the alert all doubt is surely removed! JApfelbaum wrote: > > Here is an appeal from a hand from a recent regional. The facts of the case: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 1H Pass Pass > > 1NT (1) Pass 2NT (2) Pass > > 3D Pass 3NT All pass > > (1) 11-14 HCP (Could be shaded to 15 HCP after a major suit opening) > > (2) Alerted as a transfer to diamonds > > Result: 3NT made four, +430 for East-West > > The director was called after the dummy was tabled. He ruled that East had > unauthorized information that might have suggested the 3NT bid. The contract > was changed to 3D making three, +110 for East-West. > > You are East and you hold: > > S K J 10 > > H Q x x > > D J 9 x > > C A x x x > > East sometimes sits on appeals committees at NABC tournaments. He is playing > with his wife. > > The Chairman of this committee asked questions and discovered that East-West > ’s agreement was that transfers were on in this situation. He also > discovered that East-West played super accepts over minor suit transfers. > The 3D bid declined an invitation. > > Two members of the committee felt East knew from the unauthorized > information that West didn’t like diamonds and probably had a minimum hand. > Without the "alert", and the unauthorized information it conveyed, East > would have to consider 3D as natural and not forcing. Pass would be a > logical alternative. The unauthorized information makes 3D a suicide > contract - bidding becomes mandatory. > > The Committee decided that the final contract would be 3D - making three. > The hand is not provided here, but the committee was satisfied that all > lines of play led to nine tricks. > > ********* > > It seems to me that had West bid 3C (instead of 3D) over East's 2NT bid, > then East should be allowed to bid 3NT. My reason is that East has a very > strong club fit, making it likely that the Club suit will run at NT. To me, > therefore, passing a 3C bid in not a logical alternative. East's relatively > poor diamond fit (compared to clubs, anyway), suggests that a significant > number of East's would "seriously consider" passing. In fact, I suggest that > a number would actually choose to pass. > > ********* > > The Committee also gave E/W a quarter board procedural penalty for appealing > the director's ruling. This decision was not unanimous. One member > dissented. > > He argued that if no Alert had been given, East would have bid 3NT over 3D. > He also suggested that he wouldn’t need the Alert procedure to know that > something had gone wrong and he would have worked it out if he had been > playing behind a screen. He thought that East had no idea his 3NT bid was > going to be the winning action but he had to like his heart stopper and > having North trapped between two hands with the balance of power. He also > suggested this was a "rub of the green" case. If 3NT had gone down two, the > Director (least of all the Committee) would never have heard the case. Since > it made, the cops were called. > > He disagreed with the procedural penalty. The dissent would not have > considered calling the director in this situation. He thought North-South > were given a huge bonus they didn’t deserve for a minor infraction by > East-West. > > I would appreciate your comments on the Committee's decision and rationale, > and any comments on the dissenter's reasoning. > > Jay Apfelbaum > > Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 14:06:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:06:20 +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 OAA19698 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:06:04 +1100 Received: from michael (user-38lcitr.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.187]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA17388 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:05:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990218220553.0072494c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:05:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <199902181522.KAA08824@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:22 AM 2/18/99 -0500, you wrote: >> Someone >> >did say Kaplan once did this; I sincerely hope that was >> >before Law 73B1 took shape in 1987 (before which the law >> >was more nebulous). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> Kaplan (at least) was of the >> opinion that such conduct was not merely legal, as it almost certainly was >> at that time, but consistent with his judgement of how the game ought to be >> played. > >The "Kaplan question," which is documented in a Bridge World editorial, >was a response to his opponent's infraction of misinformation. Kaplan >was aware of the MI, but his partner (Kay) was not. Rather than sit >silent and look for an adjustment at the end, Kaplan asked a further >question to clear up the misinformation right away. > >If this is illegal, then I vote to change the Laws. Thanks for the backup, and thanks to Ron Johnson for the reference to the August 1981 editorial. But I would quarrel with your characterization of his opponents' action as MI. Kaplan was aware of a subtle inference available from a weakness in the opponents' Roman club system. He knew that Kay was almost certainly unaware of the inference, and asked questions of Belladonna with the specific intent of making sure his partner understood the inference as well. According to the article, everyone enjoyed a friendly chuckle at the conclusion of the exchange. Whether the Italians should have volunteered a more complete disquisition on the subject at hand is beyond my level of expertise. The point is that Kaplan was quite firm in his conviction that it is entirely proper to ask questions for the purpose of ensuring that partner receives the information to which he is entitled, so long as it is only the answer to the question, and not the question itself, which communicates information. Or at least he held that view in 1981. Whether he subsequently moderated his views, particularly post-1987, would be better addressed by someone (such as Grattan) who might have had occasion to discuss such matters with him personally. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 14:25:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:25:26 +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 OAA19729 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:25:19 +1100 Received: from michael (user-38lcitr.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.187]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA19931 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:25:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990218222509.0072d6b8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:25:09 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Ruling from Last Night In-Reply-To: <818C0760AFE5D111A82C0000F81F0F621945C1@MB-NCR-008.ncr.pwgs c.gc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:42 AM 2/18/99 -0500, Dave Kent wrote: > **** Dave Kent's new comments*** > > The committee ruled as you suggest, however I am interested in the >West hand bidding 6C. When East bids 5C, West now knows that East cannot be >stretching - the 5C bid must be based on super-solid values since East had >no logical alternative to bidding 5C. Not quite. West has some reason to believe that Pass was not a logical alternative, but has no way of knowing what other alternatives East might have dealt with, since it is hard to argue that his hesitation had suggested any particular bid over any other, even if we agree that it suggested bidding over passing. >(Is this AI to West?) This is the more interesting question to me, and I will be very interested to hear the replies on this point. If there was >no hesitation by West (i.e. he had doubled in tempo), East may well be >bidding 5C with fewer values. Knowing that the 5C bid must be full-valued, >West bids the slam which he now expects to make. If there was no >hesitation, 6C could easily be off 2 cashers since East might have fewer >values and he might therefore pass 5C. This seems like a stretch to me. In fact East's hand is not substantially stronger than one would expect, even without the restriction imposed by the hesitation. But I don't wish for my carping over the particulars of this case to obscure your interesting problem: are the fact that I have hesitated, and the inference that my ethical partner would realize and adhere to his legal obligations, AI or UI? I don't really know. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 15:52:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA20092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 15:52:27 +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 PAA20087 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 15:52:18 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA27042 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 20:52:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902190452.UAA27042@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 20:51:42 -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: > > I must say, though, that I'm relieved that even in this case, when all the > facts were in, no adjustment was granted. I'm still inclined to agree with > Mr. Wolff that when an explanation correctly reflects both the bidder's > holding and the explainer's understanding it's probably best to leave well > enough alone and not confuse the issue with a correction that's far more > likely to confuse the opponents than to help them. > On the other hand, it doesn't seem right that a player should surrender an advantage that his system possesses, just because partner misexplains the system in a way that removes the advantage. All this was the subject of a previous thread. Although often violated, I think L75D2, which requires that the TD be called at the earliest legal opportunity, should be followed in this case. Then, I would ask the TD privately if he/she can figure out a way for partner to correct the explanation, rather than have me correct it. While legal, I would not want to personally correct a misexplanation that gives a better picture of my hand than a true explanation would. But someone should. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 19:03:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA20282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:03:32 +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 TAA20277 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:03:26 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n2c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.44]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA21588 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:03:20 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902190803.AAA21588@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:02:02 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 7:22 AM > > > Someone > > >did say Kaplan once did this; I sincerely hope that was > > >before Law 73B1 took shape in 1987 (before which the law > > >was more nebulous). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > > > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > > Kaplan (at least) was of the > > opinion that such conduct was not merely legal, as it almost certainly was > > at that time, but consistent with his judgement of how the game ought to be > > played. > > The "Kaplan question," which is documented in a Bridge World editorial, > was a response to his opponent's infraction of misinformation. Kaplan > was aware of the MI, but his partner (Kay) was not. Rather than sit > silent and look for an adjustment at the end, Kaplan asked a further > question to clear up the misinformation right away. Ah, just as I suspected, thanks, Steve. Clearing up MI is a lot different from asking questions out of the blue for partner's benefit. I'm sure EK would never have condoned that. I still wonder if the MI was a mistaken explanation or an insufficient explanation. > > If this is illegal, then I vote to change the Laws. That could be a difficult Law to write. In any such case, can't we call the TD, take him aside and explain the problem, and let him take care of it as he sees fit? Do we have to help partner out? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 19 22:28:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 22:28:29 +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 WAA20672 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 22:28:23 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Do6M-0002Tr-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:28:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:58:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902190052.TAA09528@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199902190052.TAA09528@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 >Deserve? The NOS is scoring >60% against the other pairs in the >section (and thus taking >60% for their avg+). Why does the OS >"deserve" as much as 40% when other pairs in their section are >scoring less by playing the boards? I take the score-sheet out of the board and look at it - whoops! Wrong board! Oh dear! Now I score .......... Why on earth should it matter against whom I am playing? -- 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 Feb 20 00:23:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 00:23:59 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA23203 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 00:23:47 +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 IAA02701 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:22:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990219082503.0070cb98@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:25:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought In-Reply-To: <006401be5b52$19242e40$412c4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by stmpy.cais.net id IAA02701 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:19 AM 2/18/99 -0500, JApfelbaum wrote: >Here is an appeal from a hand from a recent regional. The facts of the c= ase: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 1H Pass Pass > >1NT (1) Pass 2NT (2) Pass > >3D Pass 3NT All pass > >(1) 11-14 HCP (Could be shaded to 15 HCP after a major suit opening) > >(2) Alerted as a transfer to diamonds > >Result: 3NT made four, +430 for East-West > >The director was called after the dummy was tabled. He ruled that East h= ad >unauthorized information that might have suggested the 3NT bid. The cont= ract >was changed to 3D making three, +110 for East-West. > >You are East and you hold: > >S K J 10 >H Q x x >D J 9 x >C A x x x > >East sometimes sits on appeals committees at NABC tournaments. He is pla= ying >with his wife. > >The Chairman of this committee asked questions and discovered that East-= West >=92s agreement was that transfers were on in this situation. He also >discovered that East-West played super accepts over minor suit transfers. >The 3D bid declined an invitation. > >Two members of the committee felt East knew from the unauthorized >information that West didn=92t like diamonds and probably had a minimum = hand. >Without the "alert", and the unauthorized information it conveyed, East >would have to consider 3D as natural and not forcing. Pass would be a >logical alternative. The unauthorized information makes 3D a suicide >contract - bidding becomes mandatory. > >The Committee decided that the final contract would be 3D - making three. >The hand is not provided here, but the committee was satisfied that all >lines of play led to nine tricks. > >********* > >It seems to me that had West bid 3C (instead of 3D) over East's 2NT bid, >then East should be allowed to bid 3NT. My reason is that East has a ver= y >strong club fit, making it likely that the Club suit will run at NT. To = me, >therefore, passing a 3C bid in not a logical alternative. East's relativ= ely >poor diamond fit (compared to clubs, anyway), suggests that a significan= t >number of East's would "seriously consider" passing. In fact, I suggest = that >a number would actually choose to pass. > >********* > >The Committee also gave E/W a quarter board procedural penalty for appea= ling >the director's ruling. This decision was not unanimous. One member >dissented. > >He argued that if no Alert had been given, East would have bid 3NT over = 3D. Irrelevant. >He also suggested that he wouldn=92t need the Alert procedure to know th= at >something had gone wrong and he would have worked it out if he had been >playing behind a screen. This is his only valid argument. If the bidder can show that there's no possible hand on which partner could bid 3D naturally (i.e. he would have bid 2D instead of 1NT with any hand that would want to play in 3D over a 2NT advance), then he's entitled to bid 3NT. It looks like the committee didn't see it that way. >He thought that East had no idea his 3NT bid was >going to be the winning action but he had to like his heart stopper and >having North trapped between two hands with the balance of power. Irrelevant. >He also >suggested this was a "rub of the green" case. If 3NT had gone down two,= the >Director (least of all the Committee) would never have heard the case. S= ince >it made, the cops were called. Least relevant of all. >He disagreed with the procedural penalty. The dissent would not have >considered calling the director in this situation. He thought North-Sout= h >were given a huge bonus they didn=92t deserve for a minor infraction by >East-West. No comment. I wouldn't expect a PP against an unknown appellant, but apparently this committee knew their customer, so it's their call. >I would appreciate your comments on the Committee's decision and rationa= le, >and any comments on the dissenter's reasoning. Decision sounds reasonable to me. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 00:38:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 00:38:02 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA23248 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 00:37:56 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-162.uunet.be [194.7.14.162]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA21425 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:37:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36CD63C4.B0F1D2DF@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:14:44 +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: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <19990218202010.8303.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Consider this a me-too post. After reading the responses, I feel most for what : Michael Farebrother wrote: > > > And me, though I might be convinced that 3D natural and non-forcing > makes no sense, depending on how diverse their "shading" qualities. > What kind of hand would bid 3D in this situation (1NT overcall, raised > to 2NT naturally)? Does the 1NT overcall guarantee anything about > spades (less than 4? 3? nothing?)? What kind of heart stopper does > 1NT balancing overcall guarantee in that partnership? How off-shape > could the hand be before it becomes a 2D (or some sort of minors bid, > like 2NT) overcall? > > I can't think of a hand that guarantees a good heart stopper, and isn't > too offshape, that would prefer 3D to 2NT, knowing nothing about > partner's hand except that he doesn't expect an 8-card spade fit. > Maybe I don't think too good. But if I am right, I can't think of an > explanation for 3D other than "something's come off the wheels". > This must certainly be one strong argument for allowing 3NT. No doubt the AC considered it and decided to reject the argument. But in that case, why the PP, and certainly why consider the appeal frivolous ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 00:42:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 00:42:12 +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 AAA23267 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 00:42:06 +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 IAA03439 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:41:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990219084329.00719b00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:43:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Words that violate ZT [WAS: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings] In-Reply-To: <06acfZA4NEz2Ewdm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990218093253.0068df4c@pop.cais.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990217174516.0069cbc4@pop.cais.com> <36CBB32E.AFA44E23@home.com> <3.0.1.32.19990218093253.0068df4c@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:44 PM 2/18/99 +0000, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >>At 10:29 PM 2/17/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >> >>>Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> you >>>> should at least lose the right to call the Zero Tolerance cops when someone >>>> calls you what you are. >>> >>>And that is...? C'mon Eric - spell it out rather than making innuendo >> >>The seven-letter word I had in mind denotes a vital portion of the anatomy >>normally found between one's chair and the rest of one's body. > > You call people a buttock? Very strange! :) Sorry, David; when I wrote the above I overlooked the fact that it's an eight-letter word on your side of the Atlantic. 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 Feb 20 00:58:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 00:58:57 +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 AAA23317 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 00:58:48 +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 IAA04048 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:57:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990219090012.00719220@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:00:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings In-Reply-To: <36CC726D.DBAF3E15@home.com> References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990218084238.0071178c@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:05 PM 2/18/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> I'm still inclined to agree with >> Mr. Wolff that when an explanation correctly reflects both the bidder's >> holding and the explainer's understanding it's probably best to leave well >> enough alone and not confuse the issue with a correction that's far more >> likely to confuse the opponents than to help them. > >.....and then they were three (RW, HdW and EL) :-) > >I maintain it is too dangerous to start along these routes, i.e. >secondguessing the law and try to determine what is best for the >opponents. Play according to the rules and let the TD/AC sort out any >problems. I have no sympathy for anyone who tries to "out-smart" the >laws and end up in trouble, however well-meant the action (or lack >thereof in this case). OK, make it two. The discussion on this point has convinced me to change my position -- a good example of why I find BLML so useful. It's sort of sad, though... After all this time I thought maybe I had actually managed to agree with Mr. Wolff about something, but I guess it just wasn't to be. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 01:27:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 01:27:40 +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 BAA23445 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 01:27:34 +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 JAA05537 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:26:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990219092852.00713700@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:28:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: No STOP card used (was Re: Ruling from Last Night) In-Reply-To: <199902182310.SAA25398@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <199902182204.RAA10504@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:10 PM 2/18/99 -0500, David wrote: >Experts are expected to protect themselves, and this is why I use >"jeopardize", rather than "forfeit". If South opens 4H with no STOP >card, and West makes a quick pass, then an expert West is considered to >have passed UI and East must bid accordingly. A non-expert West is >excused in this situation. > >I would expect tempo to be less precise following a non-STOP bid, >because many players hold out the STOP card for the expected ten >seconds. If the jump bidder does this, and then his LHO does not call >within a few seconds after the card is removed (and the card was out for >a reasonable length of time), this is a marked hesitation, even if the >total time was 15 seconds. With no STOP card, LHO is left to time this >for himself, and not everyone has the same idea of ten seconds. This is >particularly important if LHO needed five of the ten seconds to consider >his bid, and now has to guess who much additional time to take. > >I recognize that the policy of some organizations is that the STOP card >is removed immediaelty, but even so, this serves as a reminder for a >player to be careful with his tempo. If the first thing on the table to >my right is a 4S bid, the first thing I think about is whether I can >beat 4S or make a contract at the 5-level. If the first thing on the >table is a STOP card, the first thing I think about is that I should >wait ten seconds before doing anything. > >A suggested general intepretation: if the STOP card is not used when it >should be used, any tempo of 5-15 seconds is acceptable. A tempo of >less than 5 seconds from an experienced player, or more than 15 seconds >from any player, passes UI. I think we're too hung up on counting seconds. I think we (bridge players in general, SOs in particular) put far too much emphasis on tempo at the expense of other factors. We argue over, and make policy about, exactly how many seconds somebody takes to make a call, overlooking the fact that time is very subjective, especially when one's attention is focused elsewhere. People aren't clocks. Player A, in one situation, squirms, scratches his head, chews his lip, and calls after exactly 10 seconds; in another, he stares vacantly into space with his head moving regularly slightly side to side and calls after exactly 10 seconds. Player B, in one situation, looks at his hand with a poker face and calls after 4.5 seconds; in another, he looks at his hand with the identical poker face and calls after 16 seconds. I find it disquieting that, in real life situations, it is player B who is far more likely to find himself in front of a committee. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 02:31:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 02:31:25 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23840 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 02:31:19 +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 KAA02429 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:31:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id KAA09879 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:31:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:31:26 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902191531.KAA09879@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Ruling from Last Night X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > are the fact that I have > hesitated, and the inference that my ethical partner would realize and > adhere to his legal obligations, AI or UI? This came up a year or so ago, and a knowledgeable correspondent (possibly Karen Allison) told us that it was AI, and in fact that one was _obliged_ to bid accordingly. There seemed to be general agreement at the time. The reasoning, if I remember correctly, was that legal obligations are AI. Does anyone have a better memory? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 02:35:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 02:35:33 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23856 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 02:35:26 +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 KAA03384 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:35:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id KAA09889 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:35:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:35:35 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902191535.KAA09889@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Thanks for the backup, and thanks to Ron Johnson for the reference to the > August 1981 editorial. Yes, indeed. I have not rechecked the editorial, so possibly my memory is wrong. > But I would quarrel with your characterization of > his opponents' action as MI. Kaplan was aware of a subtle inference > available from a weakness in the opponents' Roman club system. The original explanation was "shows such and such distribution." The full explanation should have added "or this other, slightly different, distribution with a particular strength range." If only the first part had been given, and Kaplan and Kay were damaged when the actual hand was the second type, would you really have refused redress? The Italians certainly knew the hand could be the second type, and Kaplan knew it. Why shouldn't Kay have known it? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 05:17:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 05:17:11 +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 FAA24205 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 05:17:05 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10DuTw-0001vD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:16:57 +0000 Message-ID: <4XUP0eADAZz2Ewuo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:23:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Revokes MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Some time ago, the following was posted on RGB [I have edited it]. Unlike BLML, where there can be 85 replies and no consensus, on RGB there were only two replies - but no consensus! :) ----------- ----------- MP pairs T954 W/NS J85 853 AK63 JT9 J KT963 AQ4 T9 AKJ2 86 Q872 AK732 72 Q764 Q54 East-West found the 7H contract by West, NS passing throughout. N led the J of clubs and Dummy's Ace won the first trick. The Ace and Queen of trumps were played on which South has dropped the H2 and a diamond (!!!). The declarer realized that because of the bad trump break he would be down in this contract. For 1 down he played a spade to the Ace, ruffed a spade, planned to enter to his hand by playing the King of clubs and ruffing a club, but instead of this normal play, he led a small club(!) from Dummy and ruffed it(!!!) at the 6th trick. He played a diamond to the Ace and now South realized he had one more trump, and told declarer. West called the Director, and before he arrived West realized his own fault as well. The hand was played out, and Declarer made 12 tricks. What would be your solution if you are the TD? Please, send your replies to my e-mail address as well as the newsgroup. -- Hegedus Laszlo mailto:hegelaci@cs.elte.hu http://www.cs.elte.hu/~hegelaci/ -- 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 Feb 20 06:44:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 06:44:26 +1100 Received: from pandora.pinehurst.net (root@pandora.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA24453 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 06:44:20 +1100 Received: from nancy (tc-106.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.207]) by pandora.pinehurst.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA23912 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:53:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002d01be5c40$79d4bcc0$cf61040c@nancy> From: "Nancy T. Dressing" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: L50 - not a penalty card Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:45:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Nancy T. Dressing Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 9:16 AM Subject: Re: L50 - not a penalty card >If you had to rule that the 7 was a penalty card, (if you even would have >been called to the table, had you knot already been there), all the fun has >gone out of bridge!!! Nancy (What fun I had with that virus!!!! ;-(( ) >-----Original Message----- >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 7:03 AM >Subject: L50 - not a penalty card > > >>L50 has a special proviso, saying "unless the TD designates >>otherwise". >> >>A funny example wher I ruled this way happened at my table >>yesterday evening. >> >>The bidding : >> >>LHO part RHO me >>1Di 1Sp pass 2Sp >>Dbl Rdbl 3Cl Dbl >>3Di 3Sp all pass. >> >>RHO led the King of diamonds, and I put down ... A Q J 9 8 >>of that suit. >>Partner and RHO began to smile. The smiles turned into >>laughs when partner contributed the 10 to the first trick. >>At that moment I said "looks like Hugo has bid twice on 6 to >>the 7", whereupon RHO showed the Di7. It was not a psyche, >>Hugo had indeed bid twice on 5 to the 6! >> >>Under the circumstances, I announced the the Di7 would not >>be a penalty card ! >> >>Agreed ? >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >> > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 08:53:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 08:53:51 +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 IAA24801 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 08:53:45 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA07747; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 13:53:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902192153.NAA07747@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 13:52:15 -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: "Michael S. Dennis" > > Thanks for the backup, and thanks to Ron Johnson for the reference to the > > August 1981 editorial. > > Yes, indeed. I have not rechecked the editorial, so possibly my > memory is wrong. > > > But I would quarrel with your characterization of > > his opponents' action as MI. Kaplan was aware of a subtle inference > > available from a weakness in the opponents' Roman club system. Looks like MI to me, if an explanation was not given fully. > > The original explanation was "shows such and such distribution." The > full explanation should have added "or this other, slightly different, > distribution with a particular strength range." If only the first part > had been given, and Kaplan and Kay were damaged when the actual hand > was the second type, would you really have refused redress? I don't think Michael or anyone else would, except maybe some TDs. With redress available, why not go after "the most favorable result that was likely" instead of letting the opponents off the hook for their MI? > > The Italians certainly knew the hand could be the second type, and > Kaplan knew it. Why shouldn't Kay have known it? He certainly should have known it. However, some of us (or only me?) feel that it is not our duty to make sure during the bidding or play that partner be aware of every agreement that the opponents have. Too much of that is going on, and I find it very unpleasant. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 09:35:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 09:35:55 +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 JAA24995 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 09:35:49 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA27364; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:34:57 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-10.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.42) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma027348; Fri Feb 19 16:34:28 1999 Received: by har-pa1-10.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE5C2E.09FBCAE0@har-pa1-10.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 17:34:01 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE5C2E.09FBCAE0@har-pa1-10.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List , "'Eric Landau'" Subject: RE: Words that violate ZT [WAS: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings] Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 17:33:11 -0500 Encoding: 38 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Rshuckes? ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 8:43 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Words that violate ZT [WAS: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings] At 04:44 PM 2/18/99 +0000, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >>At 10:29 PM 2/17/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >> >>>Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> you >>>> should at least lose the right to call the Zero Tolerance cops when someone >>>> calls you what you are. >>> >>>And that is...? C'mon Eric - spell it out rather than making innuendo >> >>The seven-letter word I had in mind denotes a vital portion of the anatomy >>normally found between one's chair and the rest of one's body. > > You call people a buttock? Very strange! :) Sorry, David; when I wrote the above I overlooked the fact that it's an eight-letter word on your side of the Atlantic. 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 Feb 20 11:29:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 11:29:49 +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 LAA25215 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 11:29:43 +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 TAA30255 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:29:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id TAA10432 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:29:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:29:54 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902200029.TAA10432@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Seeding question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Michael Albert > Though I did not make it clear in the original, the local situation is that > we need to select three pairs to form a team. Owing to lack of numbers it > would be infeasible/unfair to ask for teams (of either 4 or 6) to enter the > trials, so the procedure has generally been to have contestants enter as > pairs, and conduct the trials on a cross-imped or Butler basis. A typical > sort of entry would be anywhere from 8 to 12 pairs (3 to be selected to the > team.) As regular blml readers know, I strongly recommend cross-IMPs and strongly recommend against Butler, at least for serious competition. I believe Herman will second these recommendations. Picking a format for the competition is more difficult, and I don't think there is any perfect solution. If your highest priority were to discourage sportsmanlike dumping, you would probably play to select a single winning pair, and then let them choose their four teammates. That would also ensure a personally compatible team, but I'm not sure it would be an acceptable solution to the players. What if the winning pair picked their buddies who finished last and next to last? Still, the winners have strong incentive to pick pairs who will create the strongest team, so maybe this isn't crazy. Perhaps you might consider a compromise. The first two pairs qualify, and then the top pair gets to pick a third pair. One can still imagine scenarios for sportsmanlike dumping, but they are less likely than if the top three pairs qualify automatically. The thing to worry about is unsportsmanlike dumping, where Team A gives B all the VP's with the understanding that B will then pick A to be on the team. I'm not sure all the evil scenarios can be guarded against except _perhaps_ by having a selection committee to ratify the final results only if the competition seems in order. I think you want the best teams to meet each other early and meet poorer teams at the end. It is harder to gain by dumping against a bad team, and it's dangerous to one's own results to dump at the start. Quite likely some of the above is mistaken, but maybe it will stimulate more thought and comment. Good luck, and let us know how it goes. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 13:12:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA25403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:12:08 +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 NAA25394 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:12:00 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka80q.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.26]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA05154 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 21:11:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 21:11:49 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <199902192153.NAA07747@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:52 PM 2/19/99 -0800, Marv wrote: >He certainly should have known it. However, some of us (or only >me?) feel that it is not our duty to make sure during the bidding >or play that partner be aware of every agreement that the opponents >have. Too much of that is going on, and I find it very unpleasant. > I think that probably nobody regards this as a "duty". The question is whether it is a right under the Laws. The WBFLC says no. Edgar Kaplan, circa 1981, said yes in rather clear terms. It is obvious from his comments that he did not limit this right to the context of opponents' MI, but felt that it applied at any time so long as the asking of the question per se did not communicate information. Since he claimed authorship of the original language concerning the impropriety of communication via questions (what was apparently Proprieties II B1 in 1981, and is now L73B1), his opinion in this regard is not without relevance. I don't have a record of the historical text, and so cannot judge whether the current interpretation offered by the WBFLC coincides with any substantive textual change or is merely a change in interpretation. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 14:37:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 14:37:21 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA25575 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 14:37:15 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10E3E4-0002My-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:37:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 02:06:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Seeding question References: <199902200029.TAA10432@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199902200029.TAA10432@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Michael Albert >> Though I did not make it clear in the original, the local situation is that >> we need to select three pairs to form a team. Owing to lack of numbers it >> would be infeasible/unfair to ask for teams (of either 4 or 6) to enter the >> trials, so the procedure has generally been to have contestants enter as >> pairs, and conduct the trials on a cross-imped or Butler basis. A typical >> sort of entry would be anywhere from 8 to 12 pairs (3 to be selected to the >> team.) > >As regular blml readers know, I strongly recommend cross-IMPs and >strongly recommend against Butler, at least for serious competition. I >believe Herman will second these recommendations. Comments on Butler and Cross-imping may be found on my Lawspage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/butler.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 Feb 20 17:30:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:30:59 +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 RAA25790 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:30:53 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA06322 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 22:30:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902200630.WAA06322@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 22:27:46 -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 > From: Michael S. Dennis Marv wrote: > >He certainly should have known it. However, some of us (or only > >me?) feel that it is not our duty to make sure during the bidding > >or play that partner be aware of every agreement that the opponents > >have. Too much of that is going on, and I find it very unpleasant. > > > I think that probably nobody regards this as a "duty". Colloquial expression, not mean literally. > The question is > whether it is a right under the Laws. The WBFLC says no. Edgar Kaplan, > circa 1981, said yes in rather clear terms. It is obvious from his comments > that he did not limit this right to the context of opponents' MI, but felt > that it applied at any time so long as the asking of the question per se > did not communicate information. > > Since he claimed authorship of the original language concerning the > impropriety of communication via questions (what was apparently Proprieties > II B1 in 1981, and is now L73B1), his opinion in this regard is not without > relevance. I don't have a record of the historical text, and so cannot > judge whether the current interpretation offered by the WBFLC coincides > with any substantive textual change or is merely a change in interpretation. > Yes, the interpretation is very vague, hard to understand: "It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply." (from "Other odds and ends from the minutes" ["Sundries"]) Why can't they say what they mean, instead of beating around the bush? (Another colloquialism) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 18:19:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA25899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:19:19 +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 SAA25894 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:19:13 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA13306; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 23:19:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902200719.XAA13306@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Seeding question Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 23:16:24 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: Michael Albert > >> Though I did not make it clear in the original, the local situation is that > >> we need to select three pairs to form a team. Owing to lack of numbers it > >> would be infeasible/unfair to ask for teams (of either 4 or 6) to enter the > >> trials, so the procedure has generally been to have contestants enter as > >> pairs, and conduct the trials on a cross-imped or Butler basis. A typical > >> sort of entry would be anywhere from 8 to 12 pairs (3 to be selected to the > >> team.) > > > >As regular blml readers know, I strongly recommend cross-IMPs and > >strongly recommend against Butler, at least for serious competition. I > >believe Herman will second these recommendations. > I second the motion! Butler throws out perfectly valid scores, averages scores as if the IMP-scale were linear when it is not, and compares scores with a datum that may or may not include the score being compared. I don't understand why anyone with a computer bothers with it. How much neater and more accurate to XIMP each score against every other result and add up the total IMPs obtained. Dividing the total by the number of results tells a pair the average IMPs they earned on a board, a meaningful number to put on the recap sheet. An adjustment to the IMP-scale that might be in order for a small game, or a game in which pairs do not play all the boards, is to limit the maximum/minimum IMP score per result to something like +/-18 instead of the normal +/-24. Maybe Steve will comment on this. The ACBLScore program can handle XIMP scoring, with the option of printing out total IMPs or average IMPs per board. In averaging, it makes the normal error of dividing by the number of comparisons instead of the number of results, a minor blunder of no real significance. You can also specify a smaller IMP range than +/-24, if desired. It seems strange that the national IMP-Pair championship game at the Chicago NABC last summer was scored with Butler instead of XIMPs. Who decides these things, I wonder? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 18:38:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA25946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:38:06 +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 SAA25934 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:37:59 +1100 Received: from modem45.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.173] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10E6z2-0005xV-00; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 07:37:53 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 07:34:45 -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 "I'm armed with more than complete steel, The justice of my quarrel." - authorship doubtful (? Marlowe). oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > Date: 20 February 1999 02:11 > > At 01:52 PM 2/19/99 -0800, Marv wrote: > >He certainly should have known it. However, some of us (or only > >me?) feel that it is not our duty to make sure during the bidding > >or play that partner be aware of every agreement that the opponents > >have. Too much of that is going on, and I find it very unpleasant. > > > I think that probably nobody regards this as a "duty". The question is > whether it is a right under the Laws. The WBFLC says no. Edgar Kaplan, > circa 1981, said yes in rather clear terms. It is obvious from his comments > that he did not limit this right to the context of opponents' MI, but felt > that it applied at any time so long as the asking of the question per se > did not communicate information. > > Since he claimed authorship of the original language concerning the > impropriety of communication via questions (what was apparently Proprieties > II B1 in 1981, and is now L73B1), his opinion in this regard is not without > relevance. I don't have a record of the historical text, and so cannot > judge whether the current interpretation offered by the WBFLC coincides > with any substantive textual change or is merely a change in interpretation. > > Mike Dennis ++++ "The following acts should be carefully avoided and are considered breaches of ethics when committed intentionally: (a) a remark, question, .......... which might convey information to partner. " (1963 Laws. Kaplan not on committee.} "Communication between partners......should be effected only by.............not through..........nor through questions asked of the opponents" (1975 Laws : WBF International Laws Commission, Chairman G.L. Butler, included a member, E. Kaplan) The 1997 WBFLC statement merely reaffirms what was held to be the position by the committee at an earlier stage (under the 1987 Code), Kaplan not dissenting. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 18:38:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA25937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:38:02 +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 SAA25929 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:37:55 +1100 Received: from modem45.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.173] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10E6yu-0005xV-00; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 07:37:45 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "JApfelbaum" , "BLML Group" Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 05:38:50 -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 "human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information" - Thomas Paine oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > From: JApfelbaum > To: BLML Group > Subject: Appeal; Opinions sought > Date: 18 February 1999 15:19 >---------------------------\x/-------------------------- > I would appreciate your comments on the Committee's decision and rationale, > and any comments on the dissenter's reasoning. > ++++ There is UI. East has a logical alternative call. Pass is less suggested than 3NT by the UI. The dissenter argues that there is no logical alternative to 3NT. From this distance it is now apparent he is wrong. A finding that an appeal lacks merit is not soundly based in my opinion when 33% of a committee argues against the majority view. (I like a committee to be 3-0 or 4-1 in finding an appeal to lack merit). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 18:38:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA25947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:38:08 +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 SAA25936 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:38:01 +1100 Received: from modem45.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.173] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10E6z1-0005xV-00; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 07:37:51 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Words that violate ZT [WAS: ACBL National Laws CommissionRulings] Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 07:02:28 -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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Words that violate ZT [WAS: ACBL National Laws CommissionRulings] > Date: 19 February 1999 13:43 > > >>>Eric Landau wrote: > >>> > >>>> you > >>>> should at least lose the right to call the Zero Tolerance cops when > someone > >>>> calls you what you are. > >>The seven-letter word I had in mind denotes a vital portion of the anatomy > >>normally found between one's chair and the rest of one's body. > > > > You call people a buttock? Very strange! :) > > Sorry, David; when I wrote the above I overlooked the fact that it's an > eight-letter word on your side of the Atlantic. > +++++ "Oh, tell me, friar, tell me, In what vile part of this anatomy Doth my name lodge? Tell me that I may sack the hateful mansion." - Romeo & Juliet. +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 20:16:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:16:36 +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 UAA26069 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:16:29 +1100 Received: from modem62.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.190] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10E8WM-0007H2-00; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 09:16:23 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 09:13:58 -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 "I'm armed with more than complete steel, The justice of my quarrel." - authorship doubtful (? Marlowe). ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > Date: 20 February 1999 02:11 > > > > I think that probably nobody regards this as a "duty". The question is > whether it is a right under the Laws. The WBFLC says no. Edgar Kaplan, > circa 1981, said yes in rather clear terms. It is obvious from his comments > that he did not limit this right to the context of opponents' MI, but felt > that it applied at any time so long as the asking of the question per se > did not communicate information. ++++ I would comment that in my opinion the use of "through" in the 1975 text is the plainest ban of all on asking a question for the purpose of having partner hear the answer. However, I do agree with the WBFLC position that historically the laws have stated it to be improper to do it, and currently this has not changed. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 21:29:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA26207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:29:11 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA26201 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:29:04 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10E9eb-0005QY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 10:28:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:59:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <199902192153.NAA07747@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> 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 Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 01:52 PM 2/19/99 -0800, Marv wrote: >>He certainly should have known it. However, some of us (or only >>me?) feel that it is not our duty to make sure during the bidding >>or play that partner be aware of every agreement that the opponents >>have. Too much of that is going on, and I find it very unpleasant. >I think that probably nobody regards this as a "duty". The question is >whether it is a right under the Laws. The WBFLC says no. Edgar Kaplan, >circa 1981, said yes in rather clear terms. It is obvious from his comments >that he did not limit this right to the context of opponents' MI, but felt >that it applied at any time so long as the asking of the question per se >did not communicate information.=20 > >Since he claimed authorship of the original language concerning the >impropriety of communication via questions (what was apparently Proprieties >II B1 in 1981, and is now L73B1), his opinion in this regard is not without >relevance. I don't have a record of the historical text, and so cannot >judge whether the current interpretation offered by the WBFLC coincides >with any substantive textual change or is merely a change in interpretatio= n. This all worries me. OK, Edgar, was a great man, but we have to move on. I would not really worry if this was as clear and obvious as everyone makes it sound, but normally that will not be the case. Do we not get too theoretical here, and ignore real cases? 1C 1S 2Ca "What's the 2C?" "Inverted minor, 10+ HCP." Surely it can be canap=E9 into a major? "Err - can it be canap=E9?" "Eh?" "I thought it could be canap=E9 into ,,," "Listen, sunshine, I told you what it is, if you don't like it then you know what you can do with yourself!" "But, surely ..." "I have had enough of this. DIRECTOR!" Director arrives. "How can I help?" "This opponent is harassing me with his questions." "Are you, sir? What did you say?" "Well, I asked what 2C was, and he answered, and I thought the answer was wrong, because I know their system, it is Green Club with Bamberger modifications, and I thought my partner may be misled, so I ..." "You asked for your partner's sake, sir? Did you want him to bid something? I hope you are not showing a heart suit." "Of course not, I haven't ... err, well, I may have a heart suit, but I didn't ..." "Just confine yourself to asking the opponents questions where you need to know the answers in future, sir, OK?" "Yes, sorry, I just thought that ..." "WE DON'T PLAY BAMBERGER!" I have great respect for Edgar, and it is a great shame I never met him. However, that does not mean that he is without flaw. In my opinion asking for partner's benefit is not and has never been part of the game, and should not be. If you are damaged by MI, please call the TD at the end of the hand, and ask for a ruling, not produce some possibly very unfortunate remarks during the hand. --=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 Sat Feb 20 21:42:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA26237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:42:34 +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 VAA26232 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:42:27 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-76.uunet.be [194.7.9.76]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26365 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 11:42:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36CD9DD3.A9DEDA49@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:22:27 +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: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990218084238.0071178c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990219090012.00719220@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had left this thread, but now I notice my initials popping up ! Eric Landau wrote: > > At 12:05 PM 2/18/99 -0800, Jan wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> I'm still inclined to agree with > >> Mr. Wolff that when an explanation correctly reflects both the bidder's > >> holding and the explainer's understanding it's probably best to leave well > >> enough alone and not confuse the issue with a correction that's far more > >> likely to confuse the opponents than to help them. > > > >.....and then they were three (RW, HdW and EL) :-) > > I don't see how this reflects on my views. If you are referring to the De Wael school, then yes, this does have some tangents with that, but not in the sense that you mean. I agree with the comments below, which say that a player should not out-guess a committee and try to escape from ... (I don't know what you suppose he's trying to get away from). > >I maintain it is too dangerous to start along these routes, i.e. > >secondguessing the law and try to determine what is best for the > >opponents. Play according to the rules and let the TD/AC sort out any > >problems. I have no sympathy for anyone who tries to "out-smart" the > >laws and end up in trouble, however well-meant the action (or lack > >thereof in this case). > I agree with the statement above, but it is not applicable in any way to the "De Wael school". > OK, make it two. The discussion on this point has convinced me to change > my position -- a good example of why I find BLML so useful. > I did not realise EL was one of only two supporters I have, and I would be sad to lose him. I value his opinion but cannot recall it on any subject relating to DWSchool. For a collection of posts relating to what DB has dubbed the "De Wael school", do check my web-pages. Please don't restart the discussion though, and specifically not in this thread that already seems to cover the whole lawbook from back to front and twice over. > It's sort of sad, though... After all this time I thought maybe I had > actually managed to agree with Mr. Wolff about something, but I guess it > just wasn't to be. > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 20 23:34:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 23:34:31 +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 XAA26505 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 23:34:25 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-194.uunet.be [194.7.13.194]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA06414; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:34:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36CE96CD.4CC0DBB9@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 12:04:45 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , hegelaci@cs.elte.hu Subject: Re: Revokes References: <4XUP0eADAZz2Ewuo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Some time ago, the following was posted on RGB [I have edited it]. > Unlike BLML, where there can be 85 replies and no consensus, on RGB > there were only two replies - but no consensus! :) > > ----------- ----------- > > MP pairs T954 > W/NS J85 > 853 > AK63 JT9 J > KT963 AQ4 > T9 AKJ2 > 86 Q872 AK732 > 72 > Q764 > Q54 > > East-West found the 7H contract by West, NS passing throughout. N led > the J of clubs and Dummy's Ace won the first trick. The Ace and Queen > of trumps were played on which South has dropped the H2 and a diamond > (!!!). The declarer realized that because of the bad trump break he > would be down in this contract. For 1 down he played a spade to the > Ace, ruffed a spade, planned to enter to his hand by playing the King of > clubs and ruffing a club, but instead of this normal play, he led a > small club(!) from Dummy and ruffed it(!!!) at the 6th trick. He played > a diamond to the Ace and now South realized he had one more trump, and > told declarer. West called the Director, and before he arrived West > realized his own fault as well. The hand was played out, and Declarer > made 12 tricks. > > What would be your solution if you are the TD? Please, send your > replies to my e-mail address as well as the newsgroup. > If south does not revoke, declarer's play is simple, and successfull since clubs are 3-3. If now the subsequent declarer's mistake would be in a more difficult play, I would rule that it "could not have happened" and disregard it. However, declarer's mistake could just as easily have happened without the initial revoke, and I will rule against it. So : NS : simple revoke, one trick made later = returned EW : revoke trick made, many trick later made = 2 trick returned Saldo : 11 tricks = 7H-2. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 21 00:13:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 00:13:54 +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 AAA28223 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 00:13:42 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10ECDp-000641-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:13:30 +0000 Message-ID: <+n7OIFA$Apz2Ewsk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 10:36:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Seeding question References: <199902200719.XAA13306@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199902200719.XAA13306@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: >Butler throws out perfectly valid scores, averages scores as if the >IMP-scale were linear when it is not, and compares scores with a >datum that may or may not include the score being compared. I don't >understand why anyone with a computer bothers with it. Naturally, because it has advantages. Players, especially average ones, like to have a datum score so that [a] they can check the scoring easily and [b] they can see what the datum actually is. It is a form of scoring that appeals, which cross-imps is not. We have DALB's word for how much difference it makes [damn all]. It is the general aim of sponsoring organisations to run events in the way that suits the players best: total fairness is not and should not be the only goal. -- 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 Feb 21 01:05:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 01:05:10 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA28973 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 01:04:55 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h49.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id RAA14658; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:04:33 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36CF5BFB.23AA@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:06:03 -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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <199902192153.NAA07747@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David Stevenson wrote: >This all worries me. OK, Edgar, was a great man, but we have to move >on. >SNIP > I have great respect for Edgar, and it is a great shame I never met > him. However, that does not mean that he is without flaw. In my > opinion asking for partner's benefit is not and has never been part of > the game, and should not be. And this time his position is (for me personally) is quite clear. Agreed - though "There can be spots even on the Sun". EK's follower Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 21 04:03:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 04:03:01 +1100 Received: from m4.boston.juno.com (m4.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.198]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA29455 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 04:02:54 +1100 Received: (from paulhar@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id D3WTCASV; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 12:02:21 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 11:20:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Seeding question Message-ID: <19990220.120627.-124749.0.paulhar@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,11-12,16-17,19-20,23-25,27-67 X-Juno-Att: 0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Paul D. Harrington" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think the following will solve a lot of the sportsmanlike dumping problems: Before entering, all teams are allowed to enter the team of three pairs that they would like to play with. If they are first, they get their dream team if the combined total of VP's (or whatever) for their dream team is greater than or equal to the sum of the VP's of the second, third, and fourth place teams. They should also provide an alternate dream team in case their first one doesn't quite hack it, if they desire. So, it's in the best interest of all teams with a huge lead not to dump. If the team that finishes first doesn't provide a dream team, the top three finishers qualify. The second benefit of this is that the matches can be set up in such a way that people play with people on their own dream teams in early rounds, thereby reducing the chances for sportsmanlike dumping by teams out of contention. It shouldn't be hard to determine an algorithm easily adapted to a computer program to determine the round-by-round matches. It's quite possible that if someone doesn't supply a dream team that the seeders should imagine one for them based on frequent teammates or geographical location, in determining early matches. On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:29:54 -0500 (EST) Steve Willner writes: >Picking a format for the competition is more difficult, and I don't >think there is any perfect solution. If your highest priority were >to >discourage sportsmanlike dumping, you would probably play to select a >single winning pair, and then let them choose their four teammates. >That would also ensure a personally compatible team, but I'm not sure >it would be an acceptable solution to the players. What if the >winning >pair picked their buddies who finished last and next to last? Still, >the winners have strong incentive to pick pairs who will create the >strongest team, so maybe this isn't crazy. > >Perhaps you might consider a compromise. The first two pairs >qualify, >and then the top pair gets to pick a third pair. One can still >imagine >scenarios for sportsmanlike dumping, but they are less likely than if >the top three pairs qualify automatically. The thing to worry about >is >unsportsmanlike dumping, where Team A gives B all the VP's with the >understanding that B will then pick A to be on the team. I'm not >sure >all the evil scenarios can be guarded against except _perhaps_ by >having a selection committee to ratify the final results only if the >competition seems in order. > >I think you want the best teams to meet each other early and meet >poorer teams at the end. It is harder to gain by dumping against a >bad >team, and it's dangerous to one's own results to dump at the start. > >Quite likely some of the above is mistaken, but maybe it will >stimulate >more thought and comment. Good luck, and let us know how it goes. > > Paul Harrington paulhar@juno.com ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 21 04:14:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 04:14:18 +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 EAA29492 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 04:14:12 +1100 Received: from modem112.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.112] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10EFyf-0004FC-00; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:14:06 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Words that violate ZT [WAS: ACBL National Laws CommissionRulings] Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 10:10:59 -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 "I'm armed with more than complete steel, The justice of my quarrel." - authorship doubtful (? Marlowe). ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo---------- > >>The seven-letter word I had in mind denotes a vital portion of the anatomy > > >>normally found between one's chair and the rest of one's body. > > > DWS said: > > > You call people a buttock? Very strange! :) > > +++ - All butt the answer, David. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 21 06:07:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 06:07:24 +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 GAA29723 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 06:07:16 +1100 Received: from ip191.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.191]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990220190709.QKFD3288.fep4@ip191.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:07:09 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:07:08 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36d90796.8523325@post12.tele.dk> References: <199902181000520160.20E89613@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902181000520160.20E89613@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, 18 Feb 1999 10:00:52 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >Just to make sure I have understood the position arising from a recent >thread, I would welcome some views on this position (which happened in >practice some time ago).=20 [snip] >North can now deduce from West's reply that he has made an error in >bidding 2S. We seem to believe that West's answer is AI to North; is he >now permitted to take steps to rectify his error in the subsequent >auction? The part of this question that is directly related to our recent long thread seems simple enough to me: though it is possible that somewhere in that thread I have been guilty of sloppy writing and said that "the answer to questions is AI", that is certainly not (exactly) what I meant. What I meant, and what I hope I wrote, is that information about the opponents' system is AI, no matter how you receive it. That does not imply that other information given as part of a reply is AI. The information about the opponents' system that N has received here is "Over a Ghestem 2S, 3D is a cuebid showing...". That information is IMO clearly AI. As we've recently seen, that opinion is not quite unanimous on BLML, but let's not continue that discussion. In addition to information about the EW system, N has received the information that his own call actually was a Ghestem 2S. Whether this is AI is IMO quite unrelated to our previous long discussion. Consider the following 5 possible situations: (a) An opponent who has not been asked a question looks at your CC and mutters "Ah, Ghestem". (b) An opponent who has been asked about your 2S call looks at your CC and says "You're playing Ghestem - in that case, 3D shows...". (c) An opponent who has been asked about your 2S call looks at your CC and says "Over a Ghestem 2S, 3D shows...". (d) David's case: an opponent who has been asked about your 2S call looks at your CC and says "It's a cue bid, showing clubs and values - 3C would be competitive". (e) An opponent who has been asked about your 2S call says "That depends on the meaning of 2S - what is 2S?", your partner says "Ghestem", and the opponent then explains what 3D is. In which of these situations is it AI that you're playing Ghestem? The easy ones first: In (a), it is clearly AI. An opponent is not allowed to burden you with UI by such illegal remarks. In (e), it is just as clearly UI - it is information from partner's answer to a question. (b)-(d) differs from each other only in how explicitly you are told that you play Ghestem. My opinion is that it is UI in all three cases, since the information was given as a result of partner's question, but I would like to hear what others think. >Moreover, if instead of looking at the CC, East had asked South a >question and been told "red suits" (UI to North), and then South had >asked a question and been told "East has just cue bid one of North's >suits, so that shows..." (AI to North, under the new regime), may North >rectify his error in the subsequent auction? No. This is almost (e) above. The fact that W in effect repeats part of the reply S gave should not make it AI to N. I don't understand what you mean by "new regime". If the title of this thread is intended as some kind of protest that some of us have opinions (on the slightly different matter that we've recently discussed) that differ from yours, then it seems to me that such protests do not improve the quality of BLML discussions. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 21 07:29:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 07:29:19 +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 HAA29829 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 07:29:10 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.227]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA03268; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 22:28:51 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36CF1B2A.280014D9@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 22:29:30 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <199902190803.AAA21588@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In spite of my swear not to deal with this thread during this millennium I have a remark about calling TD aside. I think it is the most "misleading" the opponents and worst action taken by a player. As a TD I never accepted it . IMO only a TD summoned to a table can ask a player to speak with him privately... The reason for my definition as the worst action - both by a player and by the TD , IMO - is : ### Asking to talk to the TD shows something "irregular" occurred. And this mislead the opponents for 100% , because they don't know what to think or what the problems is = they have UI ,MI and anything you want.....And now , they will become offenders almost 99% , if there was any doubt before ....### Once , I was told by a clever old person : the thief carry one sin , the poor men stolen by the thief , carries 99 sins (because he think about 100 potential thieves , while 99 isn't right ..). Well , I suggest to change the laws , writing explicitly that a player isn't entitled to ask TD to talk privately , as long as the board is not finished ; the TD is allowed to take a player to a private "inquiry" but he should do it only when it is the only action can help him to run the contest the best and quickest way. Dany Marvin L. French wrote: > > --------- > > From: Steve Willner > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > > Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 7:22 AM > > > > > Someone > > > >did say Kaplan once did this; I sincerely hope that was > > > >before Law 73B1 took shape in 1987 (before which the law > > > >was more nebulous). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > > > > > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > > > Kaplan (at least) was of the > > > opinion that such conduct was not merely legal, as it almost > certainly was > > > at that time, but consistent with his judgement of how the game > ought to be > > > played. > > > > The "Kaplan question," which is documented in a Bridge World > editorial, > > was a response to his opponent's infraction of misinformation. > Kaplan > > was aware of the MI, but his partner (Kay) was not. Rather than > sit > > silent and look for an adjustment at the end, Kaplan asked a > further > > question to clear up the misinformation right away. > > Ah, just as I suspected, thanks, Steve. Clearing up MI is a lot > different from asking questions out of the blue for partner's > benefit. I'm sure EK would never have condoned that. I still wonder > if the MI was a mistaken explanation or an insufficient > explanation. > > > > If this is illegal, then I vote to change the Laws. > > That could be a difficult Law to write. > > In any such case, can't we call the TD, take him aside and explain > the problem, and let him take care of it as he sees fit? Do we have > to help partner out? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 21 08:58:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 08:58:49 +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 IAA00241 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 08:58:37 +1100 Received: from [195.99.47.164] [195.99.47.164] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10EKOL-0006WB-00; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:56:56 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:59:17 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: [snip] >What I meant, and what I hope I wrote, is that information about the opponents' system is AI, no matter how you receive it. That's OK - I think I understand your position. The point I wanted to = clarify was: given that information about the enemy system is always AI, = are you always permitted to use inferences from that information to recover = from your own errors? >The information about the opponents' system that N has received here is "Over a Ghestem 2S, 3D is a cuebid showing...". That information is IMO clearly AI. As we've recently seen, that opinion is not quite unanimous on BLML, but let's not continue that discussion. No indeed. The question, again, is: may North legally "realise" as a result = of AI given to him about the opponents' system that he has forgotten his = own? The aalogy with the previous question, to my mind, was that it appears = to have been established that North may realise, from AI given to him about = the opponents' system, that he has misunderstood an enemy call - that is an = error which he may now correct. What of a different kind of error? >n addition to information about the EW system, N has received the information that his own call actually was a Ghestem 2S. >Whether this is AI is IMO quite unrelated to our previous long discussion. Consider the following 5 possible situations: >(a) An opponent who has not been asked a question looks at your CC and mutters "Ah, Ghestem". >(b) An opponent who has been asked about your 2S call looks at your CC and says "You're playing Ghestem - in that case, 3D shows...". >(c) An opponent who has been asked about your 2S call looks at your CC and says "Over a Ghestem 2S, 3D shows...". >(d) David's case: an opponent who has been asked about your 2S call looks at your CC and says "It's a cue bid, showing clubs and values - 3C would be competitive". >(e) An opponent who has been asked about your 2S call says "That depends on the meaning of 2S - what is 2S?", your partner says "Ghestem", and the opponent then explains what 3D is. >In which of these situations is it AI that you're playing Ghestem? >The easy ones first: >In (a), it is clearly AI. An opponent is not allowed to burden you with UI by such illegal remarks. >In (e), it is just as clearly UI - it is information from partner's answer to a question. >(b)-(d) differs from each other only in how explicitly you are told that you play Ghestem. My opinion is that it is UI in all three cases, since the information was given as a result of partner's question, but I would like to hear what others think. Well, the information given was information about the opponents' system, = which is (apparently) AI even though gven in response to partner's = question. The fact that it has enabled you to make a deduction relating to = your own error should, or so it seems to me, be neither here nor there if = consistency is to be maintained. I may not have made the position as clear = as I would have liked. The notion is that in both cases, the information = given to the player by his opponents consists exclusively of information = about their own methods - "2D was Roman" in the UI/AI debate; "3D shows = clubs" in ths example. In each case, the information given (which is AI) = has enabled the player to make a deduction (that a previous call of his was = an error). >I don't understand what you mean by "new regime". If the title of this thread is intended as some kind of protest that some of us have opinions (on the slightly different matter that we've recently discussed) that differ from yours, then it seems to me that such protests do not improve the quality of BLML discussions. It wasn't. I'm not very good at thinking of titles for things - and I = wanted to call it something other than "UI or AI arising from answer to = partner's question Part Two". Since it seemed to me that the previous = discussion had estabished a new principle - against which I have no = protest, since although it is not one with which I agree, I do not believe = it to be either inconsistent or "unplayable" - I used the words I did. If = they have offended, I apologise; such was not my intention at all. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 21 14:13:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:13:59 +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 OAA02119 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:13:51 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka802.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.2]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA12346 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 22:13:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990220204555.007257f8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:45:55 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:13 AM 2/20/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >++++ I would comment that in my opinion the use of "through" in the >1975 text is the plainest ban of all on asking a question for the purpose >of having partner hear the answer. However, I do agree with the WBFLC >position that historically the laws have stated it to be improper to do it, >and currently this has not changed. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > I can only reiterate that the self-proclaimed author of that language did not share your understanding of its meaning, as he wrote emphatically in his 1981 editorial on the subject. Did he write the original language? Is his opinion in this regard, after all, essentially worthless? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 21 14:16:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:16:27 +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 OAA02136 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:16:19 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka802.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.32.2]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA17548 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 22:15:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990220221545.007300d0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 22:15:45 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> <199902192153.NAA07747@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:59 AM 2/20/99 +0000, DWS wrote: > I have great respect for Edgar, and it is a great shame I never met >him. However, that does not mean that he is without flaw. In my >opinion asking for partner's benefit is not and has never been part of >the game, and should not be. > > If you are damaged by MI, please call the TD at the end of the hand, >and ask for a ruling, not produce some possibly very unfortunate remarks >during the hand. > Your opinion, like nearly everyone else's on this list, is entitled to the utmost respect, and you have mine in any case. My concern is that the alternative (minority) view has been dismissed as self-evidently contrary to the language of the Laws. It is not. Without seeking to canonize EK, it does seem reasonable to consider the unequivocal opinion of the man who authored the original text when seeking to divine its meaning. Whether the asking of questions for this purpose is indeed consistent with the idealized version of bridge which the Laws seek to approximate is an interesting question. On the one hand, such questions further the ideal of full disclosure, and can be considered a positive contribution. OTOH, I am not insensitive to the argument that such questions run counter to the value of limiting the opportunity for partnership assistance to legal calls and plays. I come down on the EK side of this argument, in the end, because of the essential unenforceablity of the alternative position. Given that I am allowed to ask questions, and given (as most of us have agreed) that the answers to such questions are AI for partner, it is simply not possible to enforce a standard concerning the motive for such questions. I am not naive about the honesty of all bridge players; I understand that ultimately the integrity of the game depends upon the integrity of the players. But regulations which rely for their enforcement wholly upon the players' honesty (and knowledge) are not in the best interest of the game, IMO. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 21 15:41:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA02360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:41:10 +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 PAA02354 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:40:50 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA08298 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:40:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902210440.UAA08298@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML Group" Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:39:12 -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 > From: Grattan > > > From: JApfelbaum > > >---------------------------\x/-------------------------- > > I would appreciate your comments on the Committee's decision and rationale, > > and any comments on the dissenter's reasoning. > > > ++++ There is UI. East has a logical alternative call. Pass is > less suggested than 3NT by the UI. > The dissenter argues that there is no logical alternative > to 3NT. From this distance it is now apparent he is wrong. > A finding that an appeal lacks merit is not soundly > based in my opinion when 33% of a committee argues against > the majority view. (I like a committee to be 3-0 or 4-1 in > finding an appeal to lack merit). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ I believe the policy of ACBL ACs at NABCs is to require unanimous opinion of AC members for an appeal to be declared frivolous. Seems reasonable. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 21 18:41:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:41:36 +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 SAA02710 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:41:27 +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 <19990221074121.UYZI23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 23:41:21 -0800 Message-ID: <36CFB98D.ED800362@home.com> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 23:45:17 -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: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <3.0.1.32.19990220204555.007257f8@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 can only reiterate that the self-proclaimed author of that language did > not share your understanding of its meaning, as he wrote emphatically in > his 1981 editorial on the subject. Why don't you read again what GE quoted in his other post (it seems EK thought differently about this at different times)? > Did he write the original language? Is > his opinion in this regard, after all, essentially worthless? Certainly not but, equally certainly, it is not gospel and the only truth. The game and it's laws has to be bigger than one man (however great). In no area of life does one man/woman have all the answers so why should that be the case in bridge, where so few opinions can be empirically proven? We have to move on, but I understand why some people have a tough time with it. Just look at all those who insist on interpreting the US constitution literally, as if the world has stood still for hundreds of years. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 21 22:41:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:41:15 +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 WAA03108 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:41:08 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-43.uunet.be [194.7.13.43]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13253 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:40:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36CFE4FA.5CCD2E82@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 11:50:34 +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: The new regime References: <199902181000520160.20E89613@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When I read what David wrote yesterday, I decided to wait for some answers before giving one myself. It seems not a lot of you are interested in this. I will put my remarks on Jesper's reply in this same post (see below) David Burn wrote: > > Just to make sure I have understood the position arising from a recent > thread, I would welcome some views on this position (which happened in > practice some time ago). This was the auction, with accompanying sound > effects and think bubbles: > > West: 1S > North: 2S (he has hearts and clubs, and thinks he is playing Michaels) > South: (he knows NS are playing Ghestem, and is about to > explain 2S as hearts and diamonds) > East: > East: 3D > West: > West: > South: What does that show, please? > West: It's a cue bid, showing clubs and values - 3C would be > competitive. > > North can now deduce from West's reply that he has made an error in > bidding 2S. We seem to believe that West's answer is AI to North; is he > now permitted to take steps to rectify his error in the subsequent > auction? > > Moreover, if instead of looking at the CC, East had asked South a > question and been told "red suits" (UI to North), and then South had > asked a question and been told "East has just cue bid one of North's > suits, so that shows..." (AI to North, under the new regime), may North > rectify his error in the subsequent auction? This example is becoming very complicated. I would like to perform a "screen test", but I know you are not sure this is a valid thing, so I will try a "double screen test" in stead. Imagine a table where you can see neither opponent, nor partner. You are allowed to ask questions of an automated system of opponents. So, we get : > West: 1S > North: 2S (he has hearts and clubs, and thinks he is playing Michaels) The automated system explains this bid as hearts and clubs to East and West. > South: (he knows NS are playing Ghestem, and is about to > explain 2S as hearts and diamonds) omitted > East: I notice David is deliberately making his example as close as possible to ideal bridge, by also giving East and West the same information, correct, and without intervention from either North or South - they do not get the information that either North or South is wrong, something which they are not entitled to. > East: 3D > West: > West: This alert is also transposed to something very strange in our ideal bridge world : Towards south - something is transmitted about cue bid, the correct systemic meaning. But towards north, what is transmitted is that over Michaels, this shows real diamonds - the correct system in fact ! > South: What does that show, please? > West: It's a cue bid, showing clubs and values - 3C would be > competitive. And this is where the problem lies. In ideal bridge, north gets the information that east has diamonds. This is wrong, but he has gotten correct information about the system nevertheless. If he wants, he can look up opponents system and see what 3D would mean over Ghestem, but since he is (IHO) playing Michaels, there is no need for him to ask about this. He has received complete and correct information about the system. The fact that his deduction is wrong is solely his own fault. In the ideal bridge, he has not received any indication that he has made a mistake. But this is not ideal bridge. Here, North has some additional information, and we must decide whether this is AI or UI. And now there are three possibilities : 1) Either we simply decide that this is UI. Anything not also arising in ideal bridge us UI, unless it clearly comes from opponent mannerism which this doesn't. 2) Or we decide that it is AI when it comes from opponents and UI when it comes from partner. As many examples have shown, this is unworkable. In real life, the same question is sometimes asked as "what is that?" or "is that xxx?", and we should not change our ruling because of different wording with the same intent. This example clearly shows the enormous problems we face when drawing the line there. 3) Or we decide that this info is AI, no matter how the question is put, unless the question is put specifically to alert partner to his mistake. 1) and 3) are equally possible, and while I vote for 1), I will submit to 3) if that is the majority position. I strongly urge people not to vote for 2). remarks on what Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > The part of this question that is directly related to our recent > long thread seems simple enough to me: though it is possible that > somewhere in that thread I have been guilty of sloppy writing and > said that "the answer to questions is AI", that is certainly not > (exactly) what I meant. > > What I meant, and what I hope I wrote, is that information about > the opponents' system is AI, no matter how you receive it. > > That does not imply that other information given as part of a > reply is AI. > Very good distinction, but I don't see how this helps here. > The information about the opponents' system that N has received > here is "Over a Ghestem 2S, 3D is a cuebid showing...". That > information is IMO clearly AI. As we've recently seen, that > opinion is not quite unanimous on BLML, but let's not continue > that discussion. > Even I would agree that "over Ghestem, 3D shows .." is AI. I don't think that the "you are playing Ghestem" part of that answer is AI, but let's indeed pass on. > In addition to information about the EW system, N has received > the information that his own call actually was a Ghestem 2S. > > Whether this is AI is IMO quite unrelated to our previous long > discussion. Consider the following 5 possible situations: > I believe it is the crux of the argument ! > (a) An opponent who has not been asked a question looks at your > CC and mutters "Ah, Ghestem". > > (b) An opponent who has been asked about your 2S call looks at > your CC and says "You're playing Ghestem - in that case, 3D > shows...". > > (c) An opponent who has been asked about your 2S call looks at > your CC and says "Over a Ghestem 2S, 3D shows...". > > (d) David's case: an opponent who has been asked about your 2S > call looks at your CC and says "It's a cue bid, showing clubs and > values - 3C would be competitive". > I don't see the difference between this and the others - North can just as easily deduce from this that he is in fact playing Ghestem, and opponents answer is what put him on that road. > (e) An opponent who has been asked about your 2S call says "That > depends on the meaning of 2S - what is 2S?", your partner says > "Ghestem", and the opponent then explains what 3D is. > > In which of these situations is it AI that you're playing > Ghestem? > Well, I believe they are completely alike - since I don't like the "method of asking" to matter. > The easy ones first: > > In (a), it is clearly AI. An opponent is not allowed to burden > you with UI by such illegal remarks. > Where in the Laws does it say that you are not allowed to tell opponents what they play? You normally don't, and if you do without reason, I might be inclined to rule AI, but in this case you are putting to much emphasis on the wording, not the meaning. IMO, the meaning of all five examples is the same, so the ruling should be too. You are making things far too complicated ! > In (e), it is just as clearly UI - it is information from > partner's answer to a question. > Which is why I think it should be UI in all five cases ! > (b)-(d) differs from each other only in how explicitly you are > told that you play Ghestem. My opinion is that it is UI in all > three cases, since the information was given as a result of > partner's question, but I would like to hear what others think. > You see, you have painted yourself in a corner. By making a) AI and e) UI, you have no idea where to draw the line. If all are AI, or all are UI, the solution is much more consistent ! > >Moreover, if instead of looking at the CC, East had asked South a > >question and been told "red suits" (UI to North), and then South had > >asked a question and been told "East has just cue bid one of North's > >suits, so that shows..." (AI to North, under the new regime), may North > >rectify his error in the subsequent auction? > > No. This is almost (e) above. The fact that W in effect repeats > part of the reply S gave should not make it AI to N. > > I don't understand what you mean by "new regime". If the title > of this thread is intended as some kind of protest that some of > us have opinions (on the slightly different matter that we've > recently discussed) that differ from yours, then it seems to me > that such protests do not improve the quality of BLML > discussions. Well, Jesper, that is not fair. The problem we were facing was one which no-one had mentioned before. Now that you seem to have formed a consensus (minus two minor individuals), there is a "new regime". To summarise : I believe that the part in the answer to a question, that tells a player that his own bid has differed from the one explained to opponents, is UI. Only answers to questions that a player could have asked himself, are AI to that player. If for some reason, a particular question (such as "what does 3D show over Ghestem", when a player thinks he is playing Michaels) is unlikely to be asked by the player, the answer to that same question is UI to him. It is information that results directly from a question by partner and falls under L16. I firmly believe that this is the only self-consistent solution to this problem. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 21 23:15:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:15:13 +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 XAA03211 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:15:06 +1100 Received: from modem9.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.9] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10EXmk-00052Y-00; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:14:58 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:13:25 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "I'm armed with more than complete steel, The justice of my quarrel." - authorship doubtful (? Marlowe). ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ---------- > From: David Burn > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings > Date: 17 February 1999 05:51 > > On 16/02/99, at 19:42, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Just want to remind BLMLers of Appeals Case No. 23 at the Miami > >Summer NABC, 1996, involving Karen McCallum and Benito Garazzo in a > >situation of this sort. To take another look at this complicated > >case, go to http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/miami.html > > The AC in Miami dealt with the problem in exemplary fashion (indeed, having > looked at almost all of the published cases in search of the one Marvin > mentioned, I was greatly impressed with the decisions given in some very > awkward cases). > > This no less interesting case happened in the 1995 Venice Cup in Beijing. ++++ Talking of the Venice Cup - Perth, 1989 - the following summary of Example 75A in the EBL 1993 Commentary on the laws records a case of related interest.. East held 2 / T 3 \ T 8 7 6 4 / A J 6 4 2 and, behind screens of course, observed opponents agree hearts, followed by a South bid which showed an unspecified void and asked North about key cards in the plain suits. North alerted her response and, replying to enquiry, informed East that it showed one or four key cards. South jumped to Six Hearts and became dummy. East led a diamond and the contract rolled home. The singleton Spade to partner's Ace and a ruff would have defeated the contract. It now transpired that North had got her bid wrong; it showed zero or three key cards and not her actual holding. East asserted to the Director that if she had been given the correct explanation of the bid she would most certainly have led the Spade. The Director ruled in her favour, awarding a 14 imps swing to EW. The Appeal Committee "struggled with the thought of what chances there were that the particular piece of information had caused the damage". Not much, it opined, the lead is "not much more likely on the one explanation than the other". ( The combined holdings on which South went to Six are not necessarily much affected). The Committee adjusted the swing from 14 imps to 3 imps. North felt life was hard when you told the truth about your hand. The EBL commentary suggests it requires "a certain cynicism" to complain that if given a less accurate picture of your opponent's hand you would have found the right action. Perhaps in 1999 I would think of the euphemism "worldly-wise"; East came from a much later civilisation than that of her opponents. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 21 23:50:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:50:37 +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 XAA03327 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:50:28 +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 OAA21689; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:50:04 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36D00126.D0F0769C@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:50:46 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: JApfelbaum , BLML Group Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > "human language, more especially as there is not > an universal language, is incapable of being used as > an universal means of unchangeable and uniform > information" - Thomas Paine According to the great above "quote" I feel I am dumb or even worse... You all agreed there was UI ....H O W , W H Y ???????? West alerted 2NT is transfer....On their CC (or as Jay wrote ,the AC is sure that in E-W system the transfer is on) it appears as transfer with pre acceptance ...What are you all talking about Logical Alternatives ??? West must bid 3Cl or 3D accordingly. IMO , from now on it is none's business if E decided to transfer to his void !!!!! and not why (maybe he likes to adorn his cats with diamonds !!??? find any dumb and idiotic reason..) If the TD or AC know East is an almost cheater (or any soft word for this ..) then they should kick him out.. but if everything is according to the CC ....??? I feel I don't understand what is the scope of an auction and the laws governing it !!!!! Can anyone tell me where I am wrong , interpreting the UI here ???? Dany > > oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > > > From: JApfelbaum > > To: BLML Group > > Subject: Appeal; Opinions sought > > Date: 18 February 1999 15:19 > > >---------------------------\x/-------------------------- > > I would appreciate your comments on the Committee's decision and rationale, > > and any comments on the dissenter's reasoning. > > > ++++ There is UI. East has a logical alternative call. Pass is > less suggested than 3NT by the UI. > The dissenter argues that there is no logical alternative > to 3NT. From this distance it is now apparent he is wrong. > A finding that an appeal lacks merit is not soundly > based in my opinion when 33% of a committee argues against > the majority view. (I like a committee to be 3-0 or 4-1 in > finding an appeal to lack merit). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 00:15:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:15:26 +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 AAA05592 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:15:12 +1100 Received: from modem111.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.239] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10EYil-0006TC-00; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:14:56 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:11:09 -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 "That reasoning may be commonsense, but it ignores bridge law" and later "what the law demands of an explanation is not good faith; the law demands accuracy. Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation was, therefore, an infraction of law." (Edgar Kaplan, manuscript letter to Mr. Krishnan, October 8th 1989, following an occurrence in the Venice Cup, Perth, 1989) oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > From: Jan Kamras > To: blml > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > Date: 21 February 1999 07:45 > --------------- \x/ ------------------- > > > Did he write the original language? Is > > his opinion in this regard, after all, essentially worthless? > > Certainly not but, equally certainly, it is not gospel and the only > truth. The game and it's laws has to be bigger than one man (however > great). In no area of life does one man/woman have all the answers so > why should that be the case in bridge, where so few opinions can be > empirically proven? --------------- \x/ ------------------ ++ I think you may read a little between the lines. First that Geoffrey Butler was in the Chair for the 1975 production of the laws; you may be quite sure they were written to mean what satisfied him. In 1981 Edgar was writing for himself and not yet Chairman of WBFLC for several years to come. The 1975 Laws were in force. Somewhere I have exulted upon the triumphant experience if Edgar were ever persuaded against his original judgement of any matter, and even if only subdued into acquiescence. ~Grattan~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 00:43:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:43:01 +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 AAA05760 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:42:52 +1100 Received: from modem61.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.189] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10EZ9h-0006vO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:42:46 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:40:10 -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 "That reasoning may be commonsense, but it ignores bridge law" and later "what the law demands of an explanation is not good faith; the law demands accuracy. Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation was, therefore, an infraction of law." (Edgar Kaplan, manuscript letter to Mr. Krishnan, October 8th 1989, following an occurrence in the Venice Cup, Perth, 1989) oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo +++ Grattan Endicott, extract from letter to Edgar Kaplan, 16th October 1989:- "Thank you for sending me a copy of the exquisitely precise explanation that you have provided to Mr. Krishnan. Your account of the problem faced by the TAC in Perth, and the basis of the decision handed down, will no doubt be extremely helpful. But it is an enigma which could lead to a disturbing trend if players [ - did St. Ignatius Loyola play? - ] were minded to seek rulings on a basis that, although correctly informed as to the intended message to partner and the content of the hand, they were entitled to be given a misleading message and incorrect information (as to the hand) on which basis they might then have acted differently." and later:- "it is to be observed that the requirements specified in your letter to Mr. Krishnan are requirements established by regulation under Law 80E - regulations which deal with explanation of his own call by a player to his screenmate. It follows that the Sponsoring Organization can institute a different regulation if one can be found that will lessen the incongruity." ~ Grattan ~ +++ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings > Date: 19 February 1999 17:22 > > I had left this thread, but now I notice my initials popping > up ! > > > > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > >> I'm still inclined to agree with > > >> Mr. Wolff that when an explanation correctly reflects both the bidder's > > >> holding and the explainer's understanding it's probably best to leave well > > >> enough alone and not confuse the issue with a correction that's far more > > >> likely to confuse the opponents than to help them. > > > > > >.....and then they were three (RW, HdW and EL) :-) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 01:30:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 01:30:13 +1100 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA05868 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 01:30:07 +1100 Received: from ip89.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.89]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990221142942.IHR8569.fep4@ip89.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:29:42 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:29:42 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36d317e6.4430340@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, 20 Feb 1999 21:59:17 +0000, David Burn wrote: >Well, the information given was information about the opponents' system,= which is (apparently) AI even though gven in response to partner's = question. The fact that it has enabled you to make a deduction relating = to your own error should, or so it seems to me, be neither here nor there= if consistency is to be maintained. I may not have made the position as = clear as I would have liked. The notion is that in both cases, the = information given to the player by his opponents consists exclusively of = information about their own methods - "2D was Roman" in the UI/AI debate;= "3D shows clubs" in ths example. Not exclusively. He gets two pieces of information: (1) that opponents play in a certain way over Ghestem and (2) that W considers this part of the EW system relevant to this hand. He can deduce from (2) that his own system includes Ghestem, not Michaels. (1) is AI (because it is information about opponents' system), (2) is UI (because it is information about N's own system). The distinction seems fairly simple to me: information that N might just as well have received by interviewing W about the EW system _before play began_ is AI. Other information from W's answer is not. >If they have offended, I apologise; such was not my intention at all. And I apologise for suggesting that it might have been. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 01:30:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 01:30:05 +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 BAA05855 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 01:29:58 +1100 Received: from ip89.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.89]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990221142950.IHX8569.fep4@ip89.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:29:50 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:29:50 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36d10a80.1000138@post12.tele.dk> References: <199902181000520160.20E89613@mail.btinternet.com> <36CFE4FA.5CCD2E82@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36CFE4FA.5CCD2E82@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, 21 Feb 1999 11:50:34 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: =20 >Even I would agree that "over Ghestem, 3D shows .." is AI. >I don't think that the "you are playing Ghestem" part of >that answer is AI, but let's indeed pass on. Neither do I. The sentence above seems to me to indicate that we agree completely. >> (a) An opponent who has not been asked a question looks at your >> CC and mutters "Ah, Ghestem". >>=20 >> (b) An opponent who has been asked about your 2S call looks at >> your CC and says "You're playing Ghestem - in that case, 3D >> shows...". >>=20 >> (c) An opponent who has been asked about your 2S call looks at >> your CC and says "Over a Ghestem 2S, 3D shows...". >>=20 >> (d) David's case: an opponent who has been asked about your 2S >> call looks at your CC and says "It's a cue bid, showing clubs and >> values - 3C would be competitive". >>=20 > >I don't see the difference between this and the others - >North can just as easily deduce from this that he is in fact >playing Ghestem, and opponents answer is what put him on >that road. As I wrote earlier, I consider (b), (c), and (d) equivalent, and UI. Not much disagreement here. (a) is completely different. >> (e) An opponent who has been asked about your 2S call says "That >> depends on the meaning of 2S - what is 2S?", your partner says >> "Ghestem", and the opponent then explains what 3D is. >>=20 >> The easy ones first: >>=20 >> In (a), it is clearly AI. An opponent is not allowed to burden >> you with UI by such illegal remarks. > >Where in the Laws does it say that you are not allowed to >tell opponents what they play? L74B2. But I agree that the word "illegal" above may be somewhat of an overstatement. >You normally don't, and if >you do without reason, I might be inclined to rule AI, but >in this case you are putting to much emphasis on the >wording, not the meaning. IMO, the meaning of all five >examples is the same, so the ruling should be too. No. In (a), he has NOT been asked a question, so it is exactly the situation in which you say that you "might be inclined to rule AI". If not, I fail to see the difference. Information that an opponent volunteers without reason, in violation of L74B2, has to be AI. There is no basis in law for ruling it UI. (And it would also be quite unreasonable.) I suspect that you simply overlooked the "not" in (a), and that we really agree here. >> In (e), it is just as clearly UI - it is information from >> partner's answer to a question. >>=20 > >Which is why I think it should be UI in all five cases ! If you really mean this about (a), I would like to know which law allows it. >> (b)-(d) differs from each other only in how explicitly you are >> told that you play Ghestem. My opinion is that it is UI in all >> three cases, since the information was given as a result of >> partner's question, but I would like to hear what others think. >>=20 > >You see, you have painted yourself in a corner. By making >a) AI and e) UI, you have no idea where to draw the line.=20 I draw the line between information volunteered by opponents and information received as the result of partner's question. The former is the responsibility of the opponents and is AI; the latter is the responsibility of partner and is UI. What line drawing could be simpler? >If all are AI, or all are UI, the solution is much more >consistent ! If all information without exceptions were either AI or UI, everything would be much more consistent and simple - but it would not be bridge. >To summarise : > >I believe that the part in the answer to a question, that >tells a player that his own bid has differed from the one >explained to opponents, is UI. So we agree completely on that. >Only answers to questions that a player could have asked >himself, are AI to that player. If for some reason, a >particular question (such as "what does 3D show over >Ghestem", when a player thinks he is playing Michaels) is >unlikely to be asked by the player, the answer to that same >question is UI to him. It is information that results >directly from a question by partner and falls under L16. > >I firmly believe that this is the only self-consistent >solution to this problem. You wording seems to suggest that we disagree strongly, but you're saying exactly the same that I said. So I'm now almost certain that you must have overlooked the "not" in (a). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 02:26:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 02:26:42 +1100 Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06161 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 02:26:36 +1100 Received: from default ([195.89.178.90]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 2768300 ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:20:36 -0000 Message-ID: <002701be5dae$88b04a60$5ab259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "Grattan" , , Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:25:13 -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 cookbury@purplenet.co.uk Perhaps you mean younger rather than later? -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings >. Perhaps in 1999 I would think >of the euphemism "worldly-wise"; East came from a much later >civilisation than that of her opponents. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 02:45:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 02:45:36 +1100 Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06206 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 02:45:30 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id IFDUa20555; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:43:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <24e3a960.36d029a2@aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:43:30 EST To: mlfrench@writeme.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv French writes: << I believe the policy of ACBL ACs at NABCs is to require unanimous opinion of AC members for an appeal to be declared frivolous. >> Well, not quite true. First we don't use the word "frivolous" any more, speaking of appeals as "without merit." And there is a system of "appeals without merit" points which, over time, can cause problems for those who acquire several. But the committees do not work by unanimity; rather a majority vote suffices, although in a close vote committee members will reexamine their feelings and may take a second vote in the light of the other members' obvious feelings that the case has merit. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 02:51:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 02:51:59 +1100 Received: from pm2-84.dial.qual.net (moorebj@pm2-84.dial.qual.net [205.212.1.84]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06230 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 02:51:51 +1100 Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by pm2-84.dial.qual.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA07623 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:51:29 -0500 Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:51:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "Bruce J. Moore" Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge.blml References: <006401be5b52$19242e40$412c4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> Organization: Me, organized? The ruling of the committee (upholding the director's decision to adjust) certainly seems reasonable. Let me play devil's advocate for a minute. I'll put myself in the East chair (and I've never sat on a committee at any level). When she bids 3D it is sufficiently unusual that I will carefully reconsider our agreements. It is at least possible that I would consider 3D to be natural and nonforcing. However, I'd say it's better than 95% that this bid would "wake me up" to my misbid even without the alert. At this point pass is no longer a LA. I think it would have been useful to question East to determine whether he had ever played 1N-2N-3D as natural in other partnerships. This would determine the likelyhood of his passing in the actual situation. The more unusual this situation was for *this East* the more likely it was for him to "wake up". Despite a normal "slam-dunk" UI ruling by the director, I think there is merit to the appeal. I believe the committee decision to be closer than the automatic uphold I decided on the first read. Had East stated that he had *never* had this sequence, it is at least reasonable for the committee to restore the actual table result. Without knowledge of East's history, uphold director's decision and return the deposit. No PP. Bruce JApfelbaum wrote: : Here is an appeal from a hand from a recent regional. The facts of the case: W N E S - 1H P P 1N P 2N P 3D P 3N AP : (1) 11-14 HCP (Could be shaded to 15 HCP after a major suit opening) : (2) Alerted as a transfer to diamonds : Result: 3NT made four, +430 for East-West : The director was called after the dummy was tabled. He ruled that East had : unauthorized information that might have suggested the 3NT bid. The contract : was changed to 3D making three, +110 for East-West. : You are East and you hold: : S K J 10 : H Q x x : D J 9 x : C A x x x : {brevity} : I would appreciate your comments on the Committee's decision and rationale, : and any comments on the dissenter's reasoning. : Jay Apfelbaum : Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 03:19:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:19:57 +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 DAA06332 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:19:45 +1100 Received: from modem112.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.240] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10EbbO-00035Q-00; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:19:31 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "magda.thain" , , Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:51:43 -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 "That reasoning may be commonsense, but it ignores bridge law" and later "what the law demands of an explanation is not good faith; the law demands accuracy. Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation was, therefore, an infraction of law." (Edgar Kaplan, manuscript letter to Mr. Krishnan, October 8th 1989, following an occurrence in the Venice Cup, Perth, 1989) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ---------- > From: magda.thain > To: Grattan ; dburn@btinternet.com; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings > Date: 21 February 1999 15:25 > > cookbury@purplenet.co.uk > > Perhaps you mean younger rather than later? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Grattan > Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings > > > >. Perhaps in 1999 I would think > >of the euphemism "worldly-wise"; East came from a much later > >civilisation than that of her opponents. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > +++ Oh dear me, YES! +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 03:29:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:29:51 +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 DAA06377 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:29:44 +1100 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.79.46.20]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990221162908.FADD15747@jay-apfelbaum>; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:29:08 +0000 Message-ID: <004401be5db6$c3eef100$142e4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> From: "JApfelbaum" To: , "BLML Group" Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 11:05:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mis-statement of ACBL policy. Simple majority vote is sufficient. -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: BLML Group Date: Saturday, February 20, 1999 11:53 PM Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought > >> From: Grattan >> > >> > From: JApfelbaum >> >> >---------------------------\x/-------------------------- >> > I would appreciate your comments on the Committee's decision >and rationale, >> > and any comments on the dissenter's reasoning. >> > >> ++++ There is UI. East has a logical alternative call. Pass is >> less suggested than 3NT by the UI. >> The dissenter argues that there is no logical >alternative >> to 3NT. From this distance it is now apparent he is wrong. >> A finding that an appeal lacks merit is not soundly >> based in my opinion when 33% of a committee argues against >> the majority view. (I like a committee to be 3-0 or 4-1 in >> finding an appeal to lack merit). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > >I believe the policy of ACBL ACs at NABCs is to require unanimous >opinion of AC members for an appeal to be declared frivolous. Seems >reasonable. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 03:30:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:30:02 +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 DAA06383 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:29:54 +1100 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.79.46.20]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990221162919.FAEP15747@jay-apfelbaum>; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:29:19 +0000 Message-ID: <004501be5db6$ca72ba20$142e4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> From: "JApfelbaum" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "Grattan" Cc: "BLML Group" Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 11:24:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >According to the great above "quote" I feel I am dumb or even worse... > >You all agreed there was UI ....H O W , W H Y ???????? > >West alerted 2NT is transfer....On their CC (or as Jay wrote ,the AC >is sure that in E-W system the transfer is on) it appears as transfer >with pre acceptance ...What are you all talking about Logical >Alternatives ??? West must bid 3Cl or 3D accordingly. > >IMO , from now on it is none's business if E decided to transfer >to his void !!!!! and not why (maybe he likes to adorn his cats >with diamonds !!??? find any dumb and idiotic reason..) > >If the TD or AC know East is an almost cheater (or any soft word >for this ..) then they should kick him out.. but if everything is >according to the CC ....??? I feel I don't understand what is >the scope of an auction and the laws governing it !!!!! > >Can anyone tell me where I am wrong , interpreting the UI here ???? The UI is that West's alert awakened East to the fact he forget their agreement that his 2NT bid was a transfer. If East had remembered his agreement on his own, your statements would be reasonable. However, East stated to the AC that it was West's alert that made him realize his error. Law 16A makes it clear that East may not use the information West provided by the alert. If East had continued in his belief that his 2NT bid was natural and invitational, then the only interpretation for East to give to West's 3D bid would be that it is natural. Whether forcing, invitational or to play - natural. And East could not be faulted for bidding or passing on this auction. However, with the UI East can only regard West's 3D bid as a denial of interest in going to game opposite a long diamond suit. Now, stopping in 3D must be suicidal. Passing 3D is an alternative that would be seriously considered by a significant number of players (I really think some would pass on this auction). Because the UI makes a pass untenable, the only way to avoid using the UI is to require East to pass. Otherwise it could be said that East MIGHT have been influenced to bid by the UI. And that is exactly what Law 16A was enacted to prevent. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 03:33:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:33:38 +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 DAA06395 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:33:29 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.227]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA29620; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:33:15 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36D0356C.7AE1C573@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:33:48 +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: Revokes References: <4XUP0eADAZz2Ewuo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My decision , for 102% (not 101% !!!!!) 7H made. The South's revoke disturbed the whole normal play .... I use Law 64C .....(without hatchets for S , this time only ). Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Some time ago, the following was posted on RGB [I have edited it]. > Unlike BLML, where there can be 85 replies and no consensus, on RGB > there were only two replies - but no consensus! :) > > ----------- ----------- > > MP pairs T954 > W/NS J85 > 853 > AK63 JT9 J > KT963 AQ4 > T9 AKJ2 > 86 Q872 AK732 > 72 > Q764 > Q54 > > East-West found the 7H contract by West, NS passing throughout. N led > the J of clubs and Dummy's Ace won the first trick. The Ace and Queen > of trumps were played on which South has dropped the H2 and a diamond > (!!!). The declarer realized that because of the bad trump break he > would be down in this contract. For 1 down he played a spade to the > Ace, ruffed a spade, planned to enter to his hand by playing the King of > clubs and ruffing a club, but instead of this normal play, he led a > small club(!) from Dummy and ruffed it(!!!) at the 6th trick. He played > a diamond to the Ace and now South realized he had one more trump, and > told declarer. West called the Director, and before he arrived West > realized his own fault as well. The hand was played out, and Declarer > made 12 tricks. > > What would be your solution if you are the TD? Please, send your > replies to my e-mail address as well as the newsgroup. > > -- > Hegedus Laszlo > mailto:hegelaci@cs.elte.hu > http://www.cs.elte.hu/~hegelaci/ > > -- > 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 Feb 22 03:56:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:56:33 +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 DAA06475 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:56:22 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.227]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA10254; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:56:05 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36D03AC7.2F344BE@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:56:39 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JApfelbaum CC: Grattan , BLML Group Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <004501be5db6$ca72ba20$142e4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you Jay for the new information : JApfelbaum wrote: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > >According to the great above "quote" I feel I am dumb or even worse... > > > >You all agreed there was UI ....H O W , W H Y ???????? > > > >West alerted 2NT is transfer....On their CC (or as Jay wrote ,the AC > >is sure that in E-W system the transfer is on) it appears as transfer > >with pre acceptance ...What are you all talking about Logical > >Alternatives ??? West must bid 3Cl or 3D accordingly. > > > >IMO , from now on it is none's business if E decided to transfer > >to his void !!!!! and not why (maybe he likes to adorn his cats > >with diamonds !!??? find any dumb and idiotic reason..) > > > >If the TD or AC know East is an almost cheater (or any soft word > >for this ..) then they should kick him out.. but if everything is > >according to the CC ....??? I feel I don't understand what is > >the scope of an auction and the laws governing it !!!!! > > > >Can anyone tell me where I am wrong , interpreting the UI here ???? > > The UI is that West's alert awakened East to the fact he forget their > agreement that his 2NT bid was a transfer. If East had remembered his > agreement on his own, your statements would be reasonable. However, ######^^^^^^^^^East > stated to the AC that it was West's alert that made him realize his error.#######^^^^^^^^^^^^ First - It didn't appear on your original message..!!!! Let say it was UI......Now I ask the second question : Were N-S damaged ???? I don't have a clear-cut answer. If a lot of people bid 3NT , I think there is no damage , but maybe yes. Now the last question: is a linkage between UI and damage ??? If there is no rational way to get less than 9 tricks ..what then ?? Any case - I don't like the appeal was defined as "without merit" , but if and only if East is known as a cheater/troublemaker..... > > Law 16A makes it clear that East may not use the information West provided > by the alert. If East had continued in his belief that his 2NT bid was > natural and invitational, then the only interpretation for East to give to > West's 3D bid would be that it is natural. Whether forcing, invitational or > to play - natural. And East could not be faulted for bidding or passing on > this auction. > > However, with the UI East can only regard West's 3D bid as a denial of > interest in going to game opposite a long diamond suit. Now, stopping in 3D > must be suicidal. > > Passing 3D is an alternative that would be seriously considered by a > significant number of players (I really think some would pass on this > auction). Because the UI makes a pass untenable, the only way to avoid using > the UI is to require East to pass. Otherwise it could be said that East > MIGHT have been influenced to bid by the UI. And that is exactly what Law > 16A was enacted to prevent. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 04:01:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 04:01:35 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA06496 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 04:01:29 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA22351 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:01:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id MAA11388 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:01:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:01:20 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902211701.MAA11388@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Seeding question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > An adjustment to the IMP-scale that might be in order for a small > game, or a game in which pairs do not play all the boards, is to > limit the maximum/minimum IMP score per result to something like > +/-18 instead of the normal +/-24. Maybe Steve will comment on > this. I don't think it matters much. One could argue for modifications of the IMP scale ranging from minor changes like a cutoff at the top to a complete rewrite. I don't see that any one scale is clearly superior to any other, so why not use the one we are all familiar with? > The ACBLScore program can handle XIMP scoring, with the option of > printing out total IMPs or average IMPs per board. In averaging, it > makes the normal error of dividing by the number of comparisons > instead of the number of results, a minor blunder of no real > significance. Unless different boards are played different numbers of times. In that case, boards played fewer times are over-weighted. This program bug ought to be fixed. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 04:12:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 04:12:15 +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 EAA06536 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 04:12:08 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA12946 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:11:18 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 21 Feb 99 17:11 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought 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: <006401be5b52$19242e40$412c4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > Two members of the committee felt East knew from the unauthorized > information that West didn’t like diamonds and probably had a minimum > hand. > Without the "alert", and the unauthorized information it conveyed, East > would have to consider 3D as natural and not forcing. Pass would be a > logical alternative. The unauthorized information makes 3D a suicide > contract - bidding becomes mandatory. It seems to me that the committee should endeavour to discover what 3D would mean in the system East *thought* he was playing. If it shows a 6 card suit to 2 honours in an otherwise balanced hand with a heart stop then 3NT is automatic on the East holding (at least among my peers, the committee needs to identify East's peers). > He also suggested that he wouldn’t need the Alert procedure to know that > something had gone wrong and he would have worked it out if he had been > playing behind a screen. This sounds like a perfectly valid application of the screen test to an "impossible" bid. Obviously it is a judgement issue as to whether the bid is actually impossible and someone who is familiar with the style/methods of the player concerned is better placed to make that judgement than we are. The actual ruling may well have been correct but the write-up does little to inspire confidence that it was. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 05:45:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 05:45:00 +1100 Received: from uno.minfod.com (uno.minfod.com [207.227.70.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA06958 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 05:44:53 +1100 Received: from al32.minfod.com ([207.227.70.32] helo=nichp166) by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10EdsG-0003Mo-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:45:05 -0500 Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:38:18 -0500 To: From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Change of Inadvertant Call Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am a new Club Director (a few months now) and I have a question: Law 25 A - Immediate Correction of Inadvertency Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands without penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the applicable Law. Yesterday I was explaining this to some novice players and the following question was asked. Question: If my fingers get the wrong card from the bidding box do I simply change to the correct bid, or must I call the director first? Myself, when this happens I get my intended bid and make the correction immedeately. Only once that I can recal have the opponents complained. We called the director and got a "Why did you bother me with this, make the bid you intended." On the other hand, if the error is not noticed until RHO has called then I think the situation is more complicated and the director should be called. I asked a couple of the more experienced directors at the club and their response was disappointing. Something like "You just studied this and passed the test. We took the test a long time ago. You probably know better than we do." John S. Nichols jnichols@minfod.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 08:18:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 08:18:21 +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 IAA07476 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 08:18:15 +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 <19990221211810.ZEJF23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:18:10 -0800 Message-ID: <36D078FE.C0563190@home.com> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:22:06 -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: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <36D00126.D0F0769C@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > West alerted 2NT is transfer....On their CC (or as Jay wrote ,the AC > is sure that in E-W system the transfer is on) it appears as transfer > with pre acceptance ...What are you all talking about Logical > Alternatives ??? West must bid 3Cl or 3D accordingly. We are talking about *East's* LAs, not Wests. > IMO , from now on it is none's business if E decided to transfer > to his void !!!!! and not why East didn't decide anything. look at his hand. East intended 2NT as natural, invitational, and misbid unintentionally. > If the TD or AC know East is an almost cheater (or any soft word > for this ..) then they should kick him out.. but if everything is > according to the CC ....??? I feel I don't understand what is > the scope of an auction and the laws governing it !!!!! East was "awakened" to his misbid by pard's alert/explanation. That is UI to East according to L16. Full stop. Even those here who feel that pass is not an LA to East (I strongly disagree with them) seem to accept that UI is present to East, and I frankly don't see why this is so puzzling to you. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 08:46:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 08:46:54 +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 IAA07604 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 08:46:47 +1100 Received: from michael (user-38lcirp.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.121]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA09025 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:46:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990221134726.0072ca04@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:47:26 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <36CFB98D.ED800362@home.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990220204555.007257f8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:45 PM 2/20/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> > >> I can only reiterate that the self-proclaimed author of that language did >> not share your understanding of its meaning, as he wrote emphatically in >> his 1981 editorial on the subject. > >Why don't you read again what GE quoted in his other post (it seems EK >thought differently about this at different times)? > Nothing in GE's post provides any evidence of a contrary interpretation by Kaplan. Yes, he assented to the language conerning "communication via questions", not once, but on numerous occasions. In fact he wrote it in the first place. The difficulty is that he apparently did not consider questions asked for partner's benefit to necessarily fall under that heading. Rather, he distinguished between questions which by their asking, intrinsically communicate information and those which are, apart from the responses, information neutral. The former meaning is clearly what he intended to proscribe when he penned the relevant language, while he regarded the latter as completely proper. >Certainly not but, equally certainly, it is not gospel and the only >truth. The game and it's laws has to be bigger than one man (however >great). In no area of life does one man/woman have all the answers so >why should that be the case in bridge, where so few opinions can be >empirically proven? Obviously. But your earlier comments on such questions took a somewhat more dogmatic line: "This has nothing to do with what anyone's "position" is. It is simply specifically not allowed be the laws, as opposed to an ambiguous matter on which opinions may differ (even those who disagree with DB/HdW here seem to agree on this). Pls remember this, i.e. next time you ask a question solely for that purpose you are in breach of not only L73B1 and L74C4 but also the most serious of them all, L72B2." If the man who wrote the relevant Law understood it to allow such questions, then that "position" is, ipso facto, reasonable, and people who ask such questions are standing on pretty solid ground. In no sense can they be considered in deliberate violation of the Laws. If the present thinking is that such questions should be barred, then the Lawmakers have an opportunity to do so by amending the relevant language in 2007. Until that time, reasonable individuals are free to make their own interpretation, at least within the bounds defined by the contrasting views of such eminences as GE and EK. >We have to move on, but I understand why some people have a tough time >with it. Just look at all those who insist on interpreting the US >constitution literally, as if the world has stood still for hundreds of >years. > Perhaps, but the situations are not nearly comparable. The needs of a twenty-first century world power clearly require a more pragmatic, adaptable approach to constitutional interpretation than can be realized from hewing strictly to an eighteenth-century sensiblity. It is not clear that the world of duplicate bridge has undergone anything like a similar transformation since 1981. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 09:40:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:40:05 +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 JAA07804 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:39:58 +1100 Received: from pdfs11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.224] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10EhXV-00052U-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:39:53 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01be5dea$89548260$e08b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:34:48 -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: 19 February 1999 03:24 Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question >At 10:22 AM 2/18/99 -0500, Michael wrote: >> >>The "Kaplan question," which is documented in a Bridge World editorial, >>was a response to his opponent's infraction of misinformation. Kaplan >>was aware of the MI, but his partner (Kay) was not. Rather than sit >>silent and look for an adjustment at the end, Kaplan asked a further >>question to clear up the misinformation right away. +++++ "Anyone who takes it upon himself, on his private authority, to break a bad law, thereby authorizes everyone else to break the good ones." (Denis Diderot, 1796) For what it is worth it has long been my opinion that Edgar's convenience with Norman was never a good basis for the interpretation of the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 09:40:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:40:19 +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 JAA07811 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:40:11 +1100 Received: from pdfs11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.224] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10EhXT-00052U-00; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:39:52 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01be5dea$887a4f00$e08b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "JApfelbaum" Cc: "Grattan" , "BLML Group" Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:31:44 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: JApfelbaum Cc: Grattan ; BLML Group Date: 21 February 1999 17:32 Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought >Thank you Jay for the new information : > >JApfelbaum wrote: >> >> Dany Haimovici wrote: > >First - It didn't appear on your original message..!!!! > >Let say it was UI......Now I ask the second question : >Were N-S damaged ???? I don't have a clear-cut answer. If a lot >of people bid 3NT , I think there is no damage , but maybe yes. +++ There is damage if the AC is of the opinion that the player would not necessarily get as good a score if he did not possess UI from partner. The damage is a consideration in respect of this particular table, not by comparison with the room at large.+++ > >Now the last question: is a linkage between UI and damage ??? >If there is no rational way to get less than 9 tricks ..what then ?? ++++ But in what contract if the 3NT bid is disallowed? The contract, not the number of tricks, is what is challenged++++ > >Any case - I don't like the appeal was defined as "without merit" , >but if and only if East is known as a cheater/troublemaker..... > +++++ Yours is a doctrine that says we should be biased against "known" cheats and troublemakers in our judgments. "Known" may soon become "reputed"; the 'cheat' is entitled not to be dubbed such until he has had his day in court and been adjudged guilty. In countries signatory to the European Declaration of Human Rights (where it is enforceable in law*) the said 'rights' include, we are told, the right to ask for a disciplinary hearing (as for example by a 'domestic tribunal') to be conducted publicly, right to be represented, to know of what one stands accused, to an argued judgement, and strange concepts of this kind. Judicial reviews of appeal committee actions which make findings of misconduct [as distinct from breaches of procedure under the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge and duly made regulations] strike me as an interesting novelty to be eagerly awaited. Or perhaps we should carefully separate misconduct, and reputed misconduct, from breaches of procedure. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ * ??everywhere in such countries from soon, and in ??most places in the EU already. I do not know that Israel is/is not a signatory; but then Israel is not one of the Fifteen. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 09:45:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:45:23 +1100 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07849 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:45:16 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10Ehcb-00037B-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:45:10 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990221234441.00a92e20@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:44:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Change of Inadvertant Call In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:38 21-02-99 -0500, you wrote: >I am a new Club Director (a few months now) and I have a question: > >Law 25 A - Immediate Correction of Inadvertency >Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for >an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without >pause >for thought. If legal, his last call stands without penalty; if illegal, it is >subject to the applicable Law. > >Yesterday I was explaining this to some novice players and the following >question was asked. > >Question: If my fingers get the wrong card from the bidding box do I simply >change to the correct bid, or must I call the director first? > theoretically, you must (AS stated in the law book) Usually it is better, because TD has to decide if your change was intentional or a misbid by pulling the wrong card. Doing it yourself (as TD) isnt the way it should be handled even in a club game. >Myself, when this happens I get my intended bid and make the correction >immedeately. Only once that I can recal have the opponents complained. We >called the director and got a "Why did you bother me with this, make the bid >you intended. thats not the good spirit for a TD. He gets paid for handling the situation (or given a beer if called -thats why we have beer fines here) " > >On the other hand, if the error is not noticed until RHO has called then I >think the situation is more complicated and the director should be called. > sure, so dont let it go that far >I asked a couple of the more experienced directors at the club and their >response was disappointing. Something like "You just studied this and passed >the test. We took the test a long time ago. You probably know better than we >do." > wow, ACBL-land i guess?? > > > > >John S. Nichols >jnichols@minfod.com > regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 10:04:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:04:09 +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 KAA07897 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:04:02 +1100 Received: from ip77.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.77]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990221230338.CQCL8569.fep4@ip77.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:03:38 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Change of Inadvertant Call Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:03:37 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36d08b3d.754795@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, 21 Feb 1999 13:38:18 -0500, "John S. Nichols" wrote: >I am a new Club Director (a few months now) and I have a question: Welcome to BLML! >Question: If my fingers get the wrong card from the bidding box do I = simply >change to the correct bid, or must I call the director first? =20 "A player may substitute ..." means that it is perfectly correct procedure for the player to substitute the intended call without calling the TD. That is the way it is usually practiced, and it is confirmed by the wording of the rest of L25A, which talks about changing the call (rather than calling the TD) without pause for thought. >Myself, when this happens I get my intended bid and make the correction >immedeately. No problem with that. >Only once that I can recal have the opponents complained. We >called the director and got a "Why did you bother me with this, make the= bid >you intended." On the other hand, there is certainly nothing wrong with calling the TD either. It is a good idea to call the TD if you are in doubt about the rules or if you suspect that your opponents are in doubt about the rules. Players are not required to know L25A, and should of course call the TD whenever they need help on a question of law. So this director call was quite reasonable, and the director would have done better to tell you that though there is nothing wrong with calling the TD, you do not have to do so. Note that the "without pause for thought" requirement means that there must be no pause for thought between the caller's realization of his error and his reaction (whether that reaction is to say "oops", to change the call, or to call the TD). >On the other hand, if the error is not noticed until RHO has called then= I >think the situation is more complicated and the director should be = called. (I assume that you mean LHO, not RHO.) Yes. Now we need the TD to rule that LHO's call can be withdrawn and that it is UI to one side and AI to the other. IMO the law does not _require_ the TD to be called here, but it is necessary in practice. >I asked a couple of the more experienced directors at the club and their >response was disappointing. Something like "You just studied this and = passed >the test. We took the test a long time ago. You probably know better = than we >do." They could be right - L25A was changed in 1997. On the other hand, one might hope that they did something to keep their law knowledge up to date. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 10:12:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:12:11 +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 KAA07937 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:12:05 +1100 Received: from ip77.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.77]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990221231153.CQSH8569.fep4@ip77.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:11:53 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:11:53 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36d190d3.2184070@post12.tele.dk> References: <36d317e6.4430340@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <36d317e6.4430340@post12.tele.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: >Not exclusively. He gets two pieces of information: (1) that >opponents play in a certain way over Ghestem and (2) that W >considers this part of the EW system relevant to this hand. He >can deduce from (2) that his own system includes Ghestem, not >Michaels. That is of course not quite right, and I do (now) see what you mean. He gets the information that 3D can be called a "cue bid", and from that he can deduce that he is playing Ghestem. It is my opinion that even if he only got the bare facts of the meaning of 3D ("it shows clubs and values - 3C would be competitive"), any information about his own system that he can deduce from that should be UI. It might start a train of thought like "strange defense to Michaels; it would be more reasonable as a defense to Ghestem; oops, I'm probably playing Ghestem!". That is information about his own system that he would not have in the "ideal" situation where everybody knew their opponents' system perfectly from the beginning, and I therefore believe it should be UI. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 10:26:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:26:30 +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 KAA07967 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:26:24 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id XAA13928 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:25:34 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 21 Feb 99 23:25 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: The new regime 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: <199902181000520160.20E89613@mail.btinternet.com> David Burn wrote: > > Just to make sure I have understood the position arising from a recent > thread, I would welcome some views on this position (which happened in > practice some time ago). This was the auction, with accompanying sound > effects and think bubbles: > > West: 1S > North: 2S (he has hearts and clubs, and thinks he is playing Michaels) > South: (he knows NS are playing Ghestem, and is about to > explain 2S as hearts and diamonds) > East: > East: 3D > West: > West: > South: What does that show, please? > West: It's a cue bid, showing clubs and values - 3C would be > competitive. > > North can now deduce from West's reply that he has made an error in > bidding 2S. We seem to believe that West's answer is AI to North; is he > now permitted to take steps to rectify his error in the subsequent > auction? Seems logical. a) North received information from opponents about their system b) North would receive the same information behind screens c) There is no indication that South asked intending to benefit North Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 10:41:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:41:13 +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 KAA08032 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:40:57 +1100 Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id SAA04009 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:40:46 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199902212340.SAA04009@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Seeding question To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:40:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990219103935.009438e0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> from "Michael Albert" at Feb 19, 99 10:39:35 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 Michael Albert writes: > > > Though I did not make it clear in the original, the local situation > is that we need to select three pairs to form a team. I can't say I think much of pairs trials to pick a team. Further I think that if players are engaging in dumping to form a team of their choice, I think they're sending a very strong message. Still, in the later days of the 60s team trials, the ACBL came up with a method that's as good as it gets I think. First a qualifying session (otherwise there's a real risk that your team will be made up of what it chess are called rabbit crushers. IE people who score extremely well against relatively weak pairs) In the finals, regular teammates play early. If you can arrange it, people who despise each other playing late should prevent dumping. Kind of subjective I know and I know of no way to arrange this. (Perhaps a poll of all of the pairs before starting. Who do they want to play with and not want to play with. I wonder though if you'd get honest answers - particularly if it the answers are to be used to establish pairings.) The final ACBL method had the captain picking the team. 2 pairs from the top 4 and one at large. As Edgar Kaplan noted though (and this after he and Kay had finished 4th and were picked to the team.) this can be unfair to pairs who haven't yet established a reputation. It can also lead to exclusion of a pair who don't get along with the captain (as happed to Rubin-Feldesman). Not neccessarily ideal. I'm not sure that giving the captain this kind of power is a good idea. Perhaps top team qualifies and can veto either the second or 3rd place pair (but not both). On the other hand, if the captain has no confidence in a pair, they won't play - which sort of makes their selection a waste of time. Of course if the pairs are just going to play in rotation, the captains opinion need not matter. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 10:44:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:44:30 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA08052 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:44:23 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10EiXo-0004JI-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:44:17 +0000 Message-ID: <0NuUBMAJ23z2EwPi@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 03:29:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Seeding question In-Reply-To: <+n7OIFA$Apz2Ewsk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <+n7OIFA$Apz2Ewsk@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Marvin L. French wrote: > >>Butler throws out perfectly valid scores, averages scores as if the >>IMP-scale were linear when it is not, and compares scores with a >>datum that may or may not include the score being compared. I don't >>understand why anyone with a computer bothers with it. > > Naturally, because it has advantages. Players, especially average >ones, like to have a datum score so that [a] they can check the scoring >easily and [b] they can see what the datum actually is. > > It is a form of scoring that appeals, which cross-imps is not. We >have DALB's word for how much difference it makes [damn all]. It is the >general aim of sponsoring organisations to run events in the way that >suits the players best: total fairness is not and should not be the only >goal. > My experience (my data is in Senior's book from the World championships) suggests it doesn't make much difference - but X-imps obviously is better as no information is lost in the calculation. Even so Butler is acceptable because it's checkable by hand. X-imps not easily so. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 10:44:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:44:32 +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 KAA08054 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:44:26 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10EiXs-0001gd-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:44:20 +0000 Message-ID: <8dsWlQAA53z2Ewvc@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 03:32:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Words that violate ZT [WAS: ACBL National Laws CommissionRulings] In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Grattan writes >Grattan >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > >"I'm armed with more than complete steel, >The justice of my quarrel." > - authorship doubtful (? Marlowe). > >ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo---------- >> >>The seven-letter word I had in mind denotes a vital portion of the >anatomy >> > >>normally found between one's chair and the rest of one's body. >> > > >DWS said: >> > > You call people a buttock? Very strange! :) >> > >+++ - All butt the answer, David. ~ Grattan ~ +++ > > cushion? cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 10:50:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:50:30 +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 KAA08100 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:50:21 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA01115 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:50:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902212350.PAA01115@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:50:32 -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 Karen Allison wrote: > > Marv French writes: > > << I believe the policy of ACBL ACs at NABCs is to require unanimous > opinion of AC members for an appeal to be declared frivolous. >> > > Well, not quite true. First we don't use the word "frivolous" any more, > speaking of appeals as "without merit." Ah, yes, sorry. I slipped and failed to use the politically correct terminology. > And there is a system of "appeals > without merit" points which, over time, can cause problems for those who > acquire several. Much better than the $50 fine, which was mere peanuts to at least one particularly litigious player, but deterred some from making meritorious appeals. > But the committees do not work by unanimity; rather a > majority vote suffices, although in a close vote committee members will > reexamine their feelings and may take a second vote in the light of the other > members' obvious feelings that the case has merit. > All I know is what I read in the casebooks, and the only case I remember touching on this subject was one in which there was no fine because a sole member of the AC objected to it. This fact was not included in the case writeup, but was revealed in the panel discussion by someone who was on the AC. I think the vote *should* be unanimous, since an appeal cannot logically be called "without merit" if a supposedly qualified AC member thinks otherwise. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 11:45:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:45:55 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA08254 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:45:48 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Ej6U-0008vj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:20:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:08:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> <199902192153.NAA07747@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990220221545.007300d0@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990220221545.007300d0@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 03:59 AM 2/20/99 +0000, DWS wrote: >> I have great respect for Edgar, and it is a great shame I never met >>him. However, that does not mean that he is without flaw. In my >>opinion asking for partner's benefit is not and has never been part of >>the game, and should not be. >> >> If you are damaged by MI, please call the TD at the end of the hand, >>and ask for a ruling, not produce some possibly very unfortunate remarks >>during the hand. >> >Your opinion, like nearly everyone else's on this list, is entitled to the >utmost respect, and you have mine in any case. My concern is that the >alternative (minority) view has been dismissed as self-evidently contrary >to the language of the Laws. It is not. Without seeking to canonize EK, it >does seem reasonable to consider the unequivocal opinion of the man who >authored the original text when seeking to divine its meaning. > >Whether the asking of questions for this purpose is indeed consistent with >the idealized version of bridge which the Laws seek to approximate is an >interesting question. On the one hand, such questions further the ideal of >full disclosure, and can be considered a positive contribution. OTOH, I am >not insensitive to the argument that such questions run counter to the >value of limiting the opportunity for partnership assistance to legal calls >and plays. > >I come down on the EK side of this argument, in the end, because of the >essential unenforceablity of the alternative position. Given that I am >allowed to ask questions, and given (as most of us have agreed) that the >answers to such questions are AI for partner, it is simply not possible to >enforce a standard concerning the motive for such questions. I am not naive >about the honesty of all bridge players; I understand that ultimately the >integrity of the game depends upon the integrity of the players. But >regulations which rely for their enforcement wholly upon the players' >honesty (and knowledge) are not in the best interest of the game, IMO. I feel that you should try having just a little more respect for the abilities of TDs and ACs. There are many positions where TDs and ACs have to make judgement decisions, and they judge on a lot of things: your assumption that they will automatically fail if the Law is as some of us believe is very sad. Furthermore, we can make this game run better by telling people what they may and may not do. In things of this type, I think that most people are honest, and will do what they consider is required - if they know. -- 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 Feb 22 12:28:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:28:46 +1100 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA08358 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:28:39 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.190]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id DAA00521; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:28:13 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36D0B2D2.C6F79434@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:28:50 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: JApfelbaum , Grattan , BLML Group Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <000c01be5dea$887a4f00$e08b93c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Interesting opinions...... Grattan Endicott wrote: < .....> >Any case - I don't like the appeal was defined as "without merit" , > >but if and only if East is known as a cheater/troublemaker..... > > > +++++ Yours is a doctrine that says we should be biased > against "known" cheats and troublemakers in our judgments. ========= I just said the antipode !!!!!! Don't be biased in judgment : If the TD or AC thinks the appellant is cheating (or any similar definition..) they should kick him out - or any penalty that they are allowed by the ZO or SO . But if not ...they should consider the complain and/or the appeal as the most sincere intention to get equity . Do you think it is wrong ????? > "Known" may soon become "reputed"; the 'cheat' is entitled > not to be dubbed such until he has had his day in court and > been adjudged guilty. In countries signatory to the European > Declaration of Human Rights (where it is enforceable in law*) > the said 'rights' include, we are told, the right to ask for a > disciplinary hearing (as for example by a 'domestic tribunal') > to be conducted publicly, right to be represented, to know of > what one stands accused, to an argued judgement, and > strange concepts of this kind. Judicial reviews of appeal > committee actions which make findings of misconduct [as > distinct from breaches of procedure under the Laws of > Duplicate Contract Bridge and duly made regulations] strike > me as an interesting novelty to be eagerly awaited. Or > perhaps we should carefully separate misconduct, and > reputed misconduct, from breaches of procedure. > ~ Grattan ~ +++++ > * ??everywhere in such countries from soon, and in ??most > places in the EU already. I do not know that Israel is/is not > a signatory; but then Israel is not one of the Fifteen. I don't know if Israel signed on the European Bridge rights' declaration , but it appears on the Human Rights declaration. !! It is so respected that a person is not guilty even if it was decided by a regular court .. even after the High Court of the Supreme Tribunal decides, there is a possibility to ask for a new jury of more judges of the supreme court (the system is British , not american). Some people are not guilty even during their second recarnation ....... but their reputation doesn't change !!!!! And about the less important issue - BRIDGE - reputation isn't defined by a court , but by rumor only ..... Now SERIOUSLY - I agree that trying to "dig in one's mind" shouldn't be a matter neither for TD nor for AC. If the player told AC that only West's alert awaked him , because he forgot the "system on" then I have no doubts , but if not ...(and let assume he was sincere) and he explained he wanted to know about partner's Diamond suit ?? Is it still UI ...?????? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 13:24:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:24:20 +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 NAA08534 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:24:13 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.17] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10El1U-0006NO-00; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 02:23:04 +0000 Message-ID: <199902220223450220.33DF1B57@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> <199902192153.NAA07747@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990220221545.007300d0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 02:23:45 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 22/02/99, at 00:08, David Stevenson wrote: [snip] > Furthermore, we can make this game run better by telling people what >they may and may not do. In things of this type, I think that most >people are honest, and will do what they consider is required - if they >know. I don't think I need to go on record again as agreeing wholeheartedly with this statement. The difficulty I have with it is this: if we do not know what they may or may not do, how on earth are they to know? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 13:31:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:31:04 +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 NAA08565 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:30:54 +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 VAA04924 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:29:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990221213150.00694028@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:31:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings In-Reply-To: <36CD9DD3.A9DEDA49@village.uunet.be> References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990218084238.0071178c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990219090012.00719220@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:22 PM 2/19/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >I had left this thread, but now I notice my initials popping >up ! > >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> At 12:05 PM 2/18/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >> >> >Eric Landau wrote: >> > >> >> I'm still inclined to agree with >> >> Mr. Wolff that when an explanation correctly reflects both the bidder's >> >> holding and the explainer's understanding it's probably best to leave well >> >> enough alone and not confuse the issue with a correction that's far more >> >> likely to confuse the opponents than to help them. >> > >> >.....and then they were three (RW, HdW and EL) :-) >> > > >I don't see how this reflects on my views. >If you are referring to the De Wael school, then yes, this >does have some tangents with that, but not in the sense that >you mean. > >I agree with the comments below, which say that a player >should not out-guess a committee and try to escape from ... >(I don't know what you suppose he's trying to get away >from). > >> >I maintain it is too dangerous to start along these routes, i.e. >> >secondguessing the law and try to determine what is best for the >> >opponents. Play according to the rules and let the TD/AC sort out any >> >problems. I have no sympathy for anyone who tries to "out-smart" the >> >laws and end up in trouble, however well-meant the action (or lack >> >thereof in this case). >> > >I agree with the statement above, but it is not applicable >in any way to the "De Wael school". > >> OK, make it two. The discussion on this point has convinced me to change >> my position -- a good example of why I find BLML so useful. >> > >I did not realise EL was one of only two supporters I have, >and I would be sad to lose him. I value his opinion but >cannot recall it on any subject relating to DWSchool. > >For a collection of posts relating to what DB has dubbed the >"De Wael school", do check my web-pages. > >Please don't restart the discussion though, and specifically >not in this thread that already seems to cover the whole >lawbook from back to front and twice over. I'm lost. I didn't think I was joining any school. I thought I was commenting on what to do as declarer, after the auction, when opponents have asked what your bid means, partner has said it shows A, the correct explanation is that it shows either A or B, and you hold A. Do you correct (the opponents are entitled to correct and complete information about your methods), or do you remain silent (they will correctly assume you have A, while correcting may mislead them into thinking you hold B). Before this thread arose, I would have (and have, on occasion) chosen the latter; the discussion has convinced me that the law requires the former, that I should not vary my action depending on my hand. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 13:51:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:51:46 +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 NAA08641 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:51:39 +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 VAA29072 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:51:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id VAA11823 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:51:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:51:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902220251.VAA11823@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just to clear up a couple of points... In the 1981 August editorial, as Kaplan (presumably) describes the incident with the Italians at the 1967 Bermuda Bowl, there can be no doubt that _by current standards_ the Italians gave misinformation. Kaplan expresses doubt that he could have gotten a favorable ruling at the time, but times have changed. Thus it seems fair to me to distinguish the "Kaplan question" (referring to this incident) from the "pro question," a more general case of asking questions for partner's benefit. On the other hand, in the August editorial and even more in a 1981 March "Ruling the Game" column, Kaplan strongly endorses the "pro question" and also asking for an auction review to clear up partner's confusion. Perhaps he changed his mind later, but there cannot be much doubt about what he thought in 1981. Of course what Kaplan thought 18 years ago cannot and must not control what we think today. Nevertheless, the reasons he gives are still good and worthy of consideration. Michael Dennis' comments about the enforceability of the current doctrine are also worth considering. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 14:41:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:41:19 +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 OAA09053 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:41:13 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10EmEz-0002SQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:41:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:50:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <36D00126.D0F0769C@internet-zahav.net> In-Reply-To: <36D00126.D0F0769C@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >According to the great above "quote" I feel I am dumb or even worse... > >You all agreed there was UI ....H O W , W H Y ???????? > >West alerted 2NT is transfer....On their CC (or as Jay wrote ,the AC >is sure that in E-W system the transfer is on) it appears as transfer >with pre acceptance ...What are you all talking about Logical >Alternatives ??? West must bid 3Cl or 3D accordingly. East bid 2NT as natural. When East alerted it he knew that his partner had not interpreted it as he meant. That information came via the alert so is unauthorised. -- 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 Feb 22 14:46:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:46:29 +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 OAA09084 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:46:24 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10EmK1-000346-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:46:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:44:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> <199902192153.NAA07747@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990220221545.007300d0@pop.mindspring.com> <199902220223450220.33DF1B57@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902220223450220.33DF1B57@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >On 22/02/99, at 00:08, David Stevenson wrote: > >[snip] > >> Furthermore, we can make this game run better by telling people what >>they may and may not do. In things of this type, I think that most >>people are honest, and will do what they consider is required - if >they >>know. > >I don't think I need to go on record again as agreeing wholeheartedly >with this statement. The difficulty I have with it is this: if we do >not know what they may or may not do, how on earth are they to know? > We are trying to sort it out, yes? But, I do not like the idea of deciding based on the idea that people are dishonest. -- 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 Feb 22 14:50:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:50:35 +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 OAA09101 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:50:29 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10EmNv-0003gr-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:50:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:49:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <000c01be5dea$887a4f00$e08b93c3@pacific> <36D0B2D2.C6F79434@internet-zahav.net> In-Reply-To: <36D0B2D2.C6F79434@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >Now SERIOUSLY - I agree that trying to "dig in one's mind" shouldn't >be a matter neither for TD nor for AC. If the player told AC that >only West's alert awaked him , because he forgot the "system on" >then I have no doubts , but if not ...(and let assume he was sincere) >and he explained he wanted to know about partner's Diamond suit ?? >Is it still UI ...?????? Yes. His thoughts are not 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 Mon Feb 22 15:15:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:15:24 +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 PAA09121 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:15:18 +1100 Received: from modem27.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.155] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Emlz-0008VO-00; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 04:15:11 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 04:11:40 -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 laws are not designed to prevent dishonourable practices" "The object of the Proprieties is twofold, to familiarise players with the customs and etiquette of the game, * generally accepted over a long period of years*; and to enlighten those who might otherwise fail to appreciate when or how they are improperly conveying information to their partners - often a far more reprehensible offence than a violation of law." - 'Scope of the Laws', 1975. 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888 > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > Date: 22 February 1999 00:08 > > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >At 03:59 AM 2/20/99 +0000, DWS wrote: > >> I have great respect for Edgar, and it is a great shame I never met > >>him. However, that does not mean that he is without flaw. In my > >>opinion asking for partner's benefit is not and has never been part of > >>the game, and should not be. > >> > >> If you are damaged by MI, please call the TD at the end of the hand, > >>and ask for a ruling, not produce some possibly very unfortunate remarks > >>during the hand. > >> > >Your opinion, like nearly everyone else's on this list, is entitled to the > >utmost respect, and you have mine in any case. My concern is that the > >alternative (minority) view has been dismissed as self-evidently contrary > >to the language of the Laws. It is not. Without seeking to canonize EK, it > >does seem reasonable to consider the unequivocal opinion of the man who > >authored the original text when seeking to divine its meaning. +++ Can one say again that the authority rested in Butler and *not* with Kaplan? The latter's ex-parte statement expresses a personal view, but not that of the man who was responsible for the meaning of the words ( whether or no Kaplan produced them - something we know nothing of since there is no credit or acknowledgement in the book; it leaves us to consider the text a committee job). ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 15:15:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:15:28 +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 PAA09126 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:15:22 +1100 Received: from modem27.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.155] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Emlw-0008VO-00; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 04:15:09 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Dany Haimovici" , "JApfelbaum" Cc: "BLML Group" Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 03:16:34 -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=Default Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "That reasoning may be commonsense, but it ignores bridge law" and later "what the law demands of an explanation is not good faith; the law demands accuracy. Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation was, therefore, an infraction of law." (Edgar Kaplan, manuscript letter to Mr. Krishnan, October 8th 1989, following an occurrence in the Venice Cup, Perth, 1989) oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > From: Grattan Endicott > To: Dany Haimovici ; JApfelbaum > Cc: Grattan ; BLML Group > Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought > Date: 21 February 1999 22:31 > > > Grattan Endicott Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > "Wrong must not win by technicalities" - > (Aeschylus, 458 B.C.) > ******************************************************************* > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dany Haimovici > To: JApfelbaum > Cc: Grattan ; BLML Group > > Date: 21 February 1999 17:32 > Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought > > > > >Any case - I don't like the appeal was defined as "without merit" , > >but if and only if East is known as a cheater/troublemaker..... > > > +++++ Yours is a doctrine that says we should be biased > against "known" cheats and troublemakers in our judgments. > +++ Sorry Dany if I misunderstood. Whence came, then, the idea of only deeming the appeal "without merit" if the player was a "known cheat or troublemaker" ?? It is that thought of pre-judgement that offends. +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 16:01:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:01:57 +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 QAA09239 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:01:51 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.17] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10EnU4-0004Ez-00; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 05:00:44 +0000 Message-ID: <199902220501220840.346F70A8@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> <199902192153.NAA07747@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990220221545.007300d0@pop.mindspring.com> <199902220223450220.33DF1B57@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 05:01:22 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 22/02/99, at 03:44, David Stevenson wrote: >David Burn wrote: >>On 22/02/99, at 00:08, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>> Furthermore, we can make this game run better by telling people what >>>they may and may not do. In things of this type, I think that most >>>people are honest, and will do what they consider is required - if >>they >>>know. >> >>I don't think I need to go on record again as agreeing wholeheartedly >>with this statement. The difficulty I have with it is this: if we do >>not know what they may or may not do, how on earth are they to know? >> > We are trying to sort it out, yes? Given recent disputes, we won't succeed in doing that for many hundreds of years. And in the meantime...? > But, I do not like the idea of deciding based on the idea that people >are dishonest. You may not like it, and I may not like it. But it is the only practicable principle on which to base a set of Laws. Indeed, it is the only principle on which the Laws of every single game apart from ours have been built. I have said, and people thought it was a joke, that there is not an Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List. It was not a joke. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 16:25:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:25:55 +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 QAA09313 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:25:49 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA28222 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:25:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902220525.VAA28222@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML Group" Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:26:07 -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 JApfelbaum wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >I believe the policy of ACBL ACs at NABCs is to require unanimous > >opinion of AC members for an appeal to be declared frivolous. Seems > >reasonable. > Mis-statement of ACBL policy. Simple majority vote is sufficient. Misstatement of ACBL practice. Where are these policies documented, please? I can't find anything in the ACBL's *Handbook for Appeals Committees* or ACBL Tech files concerning appeals that states any such policy. All I know comes from the NABC Appeals casebooks, as I replied to Karen Allison's similar comment. Here is why I believed my statement accorded with ACBL policy: Case 5, Dallas NABC, Rich Colker chairman of the AC, with Bruce Reeve and John Solodar. Rich wanted to retain the deposit, but "it took quite some time to recruit even one member to my viewpoint--thus, no penalty." If anyone knows correct AC policy, it surely is Rich Colker, editor of the casebooks. He restated this policy in comments related to case 13, same NABC, when, again as chairman, he could not get a unanimous vote that the appeal was without merit: "I believe that a Committee needs to be unanimous before issuing a penalty for an appeal without merit. If even one Committee member believes that the appeal had merit, then the appellants should not be held responsible..." Now, it could be that this is a decision for the AC chairman to make, *in the absence of any documented ACBL policy*. It is my opinion that Rich's belief should become official ACBL policy, documented please. It makes good sense. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 18:51:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:51:57 +1100 Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA09631 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:51:49 +1100 Received: from xtra.co.nz ([203.96.104.70]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990222075225.CITI3226200.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:52:25 +1300 Message-ID: <36CC83F0.A17BA032@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:19:44 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misexplanation that describes accurately References: <9902171307.aa06471@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This reply may arrive late but I am out of town and unlikely to be able to connect for a few days. Adam Beneschan wrote: > > But this is exactly the case that I'm claiming where "damage" is due > to bad luck. Suppose South had corrected the misexplanation and said > their agreements promise only a 4+ suit; but a little bird with no > agenda settles on your shoulder and whispers in your ear that South > really has 5 spades. Now, if you refuse to lead a spade, but a spade > lead is necessary to break the contract, is this damage or bad luck? > Well, in the MI case, you have the exact same amount of relevant > information as you do in the little bird case. > This arguement may sound plausible to some but I certainly do not agree with it. Even if I could be convinced that this non-optimal lead was simply my bad luck I find the converse most unreasonable. That is one partnership gives MI about their agreements. This MI leads to an inferior lead/defense even though the MI happened to provide a better discription of the actual hand. Surely we can not say that we are entitled to this good result because we were lucky enough to mis-inform our opponents. L12C2 "...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." An irregularity has occurred L12 allows the director to adjust the score and the non-offender is entitled to the *most favourable* result that was likely had the irregularity *not* occurred. As for damage the non-offenders got a worse result than they would have, without committing a subsequent error, this must be damage. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 18:52:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:52:07 +1100 Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA09646 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:52:02 +1100 Received: from xtra.co.nz ([203.96.104.70]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990222075237.CIUC3226200.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:52:37 +1300 Message-ID: <36CC8A3D.87ED63ED@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:46:38 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Group Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <006401be5b52$19242e40$412c4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JApfelbaum wrote: > > Here is an appeal from a hand from a recent regional. The facts of the case: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 1H Pass Pass > > 1NT (1) Pass 2NT (2) Pass > > 3D Pass 3NT All pass > > (1) 11-14 HCP (Could be shaded to 15 HCP after a major suit opening) > > (2) Alerted as a transfer to diamonds > > Result: 3NT made four, +430 for East-West > > The director was called after the dummy was tabled. He ruled that East had > unauthorized information that might have suggested the 3NT bid. The contract > was changed to 3D making three, +110 for East-West. > > You are East and you hold: > > S K J 10 > > H Q x x > > D J 9 x > > C A x x x > > East sometimes sits on appeals committees at NABC tournaments. He is playing > with his wife. > > The Chairman of this committee asked questions and discovered that East-West > ’s agreement was that transfers were on in this situation. He also > discovered that East-West played super accepts over minor suit transfers. > The 3D bid declined an invitation. > > Two members of the committee felt East knew from the unauthorized > information that West didn’t like diamonds and probably had a minimum hand. > Without the "alert", and the unauthorized information it conveyed, East > would have to consider 3D as natural and not forcing. Pass would be a > logical alternative. The unauthorized information makes 3D a suicide > contract - bidding becomes mandatory. > > The Committee decided that the final contract would be 3D - making three. > The hand is not provided here, but the committee was satisfied that all > lines of play led to nine tricks. > > ********* > > It seems to me that had West bid 3C (instead of 3D) over East's 2NT bid, > then East should be allowed to bid 3NT. My reason is that East has a very > strong club fit, making it likely that the Club suit will run at NT. To me, > therefore, passing a 3C bid in not a logical alternative. East's relatively > poor diamond fit (compared to clubs, anyway), suggests that a significant > number of East's would "seriously consider" passing. In fact, I suggest that > a number would actually choose to pass. > > ********* > > The Committee also gave E/W a quarter board procedural penalty for appealing > the director's ruling. This decision was not unanimous. One member > dissented. > > He argued that if no Alert had been given, East would have bid 3NT over 3D. > He also suggested that he wouldn’t need the Alert procedure to know that > something had gone wrong and he would have worked it out if he had been > playing behind a screen. He thought that East had no idea his 3NT bid was > going to be the winning action but he had to like his heart stopper and > having North trapped between two hands with the balance of power. He also > suggested this was a "rub of the green" case. If 3NT had gone down two, the > Director (least of all the Committee) would never have heard the case. Since > it made, the cops were called. > > He disagreed with the procedural penalty. The dissent would not have > considered calling the director in this situation. He thought North-South > were given a huge bonus they didn’t deserve for a minor infraction by > East-West. > > I would appreciate your comments on the Committee's decision and rationale, > and any comments on the dissenter's reasoning. > I agree with the dissenter. > Jay Apfelbaum > > Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 18:52:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:52:04 +1100 Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA09641 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:51:58 +1100 Received: from xtra.co.nz ([203.96.104.70]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990222075234.CITZ3226200.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:52:34 +1300 Message-ID: <36CC8A3D.87ED63ED@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:46:38 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Group Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <006401be5b52$19242e40$412c4f0c@jay-apfelbaum> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JApfelbaum wrote: > > Here is an appeal from a hand from a recent regional. The facts of the case: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 1H Pass Pass > > 1NT (1) Pass 2NT (2) Pass > > 3D Pass 3NT All pass > > (1) 11-14 HCP (Could be shaded to 15 HCP after a major suit opening) > > (2) Alerted as a transfer to diamonds > > Result: 3NT made four, +430 for East-West > > The director was called after the dummy was tabled. He ruled that East had > unauthorized information that might have suggested the 3NT bid. The contract > was changed to 3D making three, +110 for East-West. > > You are East and you hold: > > S K J 10 > > H Q x x > > D J 9 x > > C A x x x > > East sometimes sits on appeals committees at NABC tournaments. He is playing > with his wife. > > The Chairman of this committee asked questions and discovered that East-West > ’s agreement was that transfers were on in this situation. He also > discovered that East-West played super accepts over minor suit transfers. > The 3D bid declined an invitation. > > Two members of the committee felt East knew from the unauthorized > information that West didn’t like diamonds and probably had a minimum hand. > Without the "alert", and the unauthorized information it conveyed, East > would have to consider 3D as natural and not forcing. Pass would be a > logical alternative. The unauthorized information makes 3D a suicide > contract - bidding becomes mandatory. > > The Committee decided that the final contract would be 3D - making three. > The hand is not provided here, but the committee was satisfied that all > lines of play led to nine tricks. > > ********* > > It seems to me that had West bid 3C (instead of 3D) over East's 2NT bid, > then East should be allowed to bid 3NT. My reason is that East has a very > strong club fit, making it likely that the Club suit will run at NT. To me, > therefore, passing a 3C bid in not a logical alternative. East's relatively > poor diamond fit (compared to clubs, anyway), suggests that a significant > number of East's would "seriously consider" passing. In fact, I suggest that > a number would actually choose to pass. > > ********* > > The Committee also gave E/W a quarter board procedural penalty for appealing > the director's ruling. This decision was not unanimous. One member > dissented. > > He argued that if no Alert had been given, East would have bid 3NT over 3D. > He also suggested that he wouldn’t need the Alert procedure to know that > something had gone wrong and he would have worked it out if he had been > playing behind a screen. He thought that East had no idea his 3NT bid was > going to be the winning action but he had to like his heart stopper and > having North trapped between two hands with the balance of power. He also > suggested this was a "rub of the green" case. If 3NT had gone down two, the > Director (least of all the Committee) would never have heard the case. Since > it made, the cops were called. > > He disagreed with the procedural penalty. The dissent would not have > considered calling the director in this situation. He thought North-South > were given a huge bonus they didn’t deserve for a minor infraction by > East-West. > > I would appreciate your comments on the Committee's decision and rationale, > and any comments on the dissenter's reasoning. > I agree with the dissenter. > Jay Apfelbaum > > Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 21:31:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 21:31:37 +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 VAA09931 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 21:31:30 +1100 Received: from modem122.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.250] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Ese3-0007aZ-00; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:31:24 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:27:32 -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 "The laws are not designed to prevent dishonourable practices" "The object of the Proprieties is twofold, to familiarise players with the customs and etiquette of the game, * generally accepted over a long period of years*; and to enlighten those who might otherwise fail to appreciate when or how they are improperly conveying information to their partners - often a far more reprehensible offence than a violation of law." - 'Scope of the Laws', 1975. 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888 > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > Date: 22 February 1999 00:08 > > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >At 03:59 AM 2/20/99 +0000, DWS wrote: > > > >I come down on the EK side of this argument, in the end, because of the > >essential unenforceablity of the alternative position. Given that I am > >allowed to ask questions, and given (as most of us have agreed) that the > >answers to such questions are AI for partner, it is simply not possible to > >enforce a standard concerning the motive for such questions. I am not naive > >about the honesty of all bridge players; I understand that ultimately the > >integrity of the game depends upon the integrity of the players. But > >regulations which rely for their enforcement wholly upon the players' > >honesty (and knowledge) are not in the best interest of the game, IMO. > ++++ Addition to previous comment. When I first became involved in debating the laws and ethics of the game, as a 25-30 year old 'revolutionary' in the 1950's, it was at the hands of Geoffrey Butler, Dimmie Fleming and Harold Franklin, that I was taught what it was all about. One of the things they insisted upon was that it was partner's adult duty to look after himself and that it was improper for me to act during the auction and play to draw his attention to an ekement of opponents' methods which I feared he might not have grasped. To do this, I was told, was "dishonourable" whether it was simultaneously "dishonorable" is not for me to say. But I know where G. Butler stood, and remained to the end of his distinguished career. It was in keeping with this principle that what is Law 40E2 evolved - it reflects something that was always a matter of ethical standards in the precepts of my early mentors ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 22:11:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:11:32 +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 WAA10032 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:11:26 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-73.uunet.be [194.7.9.73]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25326 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:11:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D042D1.29F4955@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:30:57 +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: The new regime References: <199902181000520160.20E89613@mail.btinternet.com> <36CFE4FA.5CCD2E82@village.uunet.be> <36d10a80.1000138@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > >You see, you have painted yourself in a corner. By making > >a) AI and e) UI, you have no idea where to draw the line. > > I draw the line between information volunteered by opponents and > information received as the result of partner's question. The > former is the responsibility of the opponents and is AI; the > latter is the responsibility of partner and is UI. > > What line drawing could be simpler? > OK, we forget about a) which is not the same (yet) and you make all 4 AI, I make them all UI - 2 perfectly normal pov's. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 22:11:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:11:34 +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 WAA10033 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:11:28 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-73.uunet.be [194.7.9.73]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25335 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:11:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D0438B.4D4C424C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:34:03 +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: The new regime References: <36d317e6.4430340@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hey, look at that ! Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > Not exclusively. He gets two pieces of information: (1) that > opponents play in a certain way over Ghestem and (2) that W > considers this part of the EW system relevant to this hand. He > can deduce from (2) that his own system includes Ghestem, not > Michaels. > > (1) is AI (because it is information about opponents' system), > (2) is UI (because it is information about N's own system). > > The distinction seems fairly simple to me: information that N > might just as well have received by interviewing W about the EW > system _before play began_ is AI. Other information from W's > answer is not. > Exactly what I've been saying all along ! Does this mean that DB, HDW _and_ JD are now in agreement ? This player is NOT allowed to deduce from the response that he was mistaken in his former bid ? If that is so, we have not yet heard any dissenting opinion - David S ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 23:20:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:20:41 +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 XAA10196 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:20:30 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-234.uunet.be [194.7.13.234]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA06980 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:20:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D14739.1FC8E0A3@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:02:01 +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: The new regime References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > > Seems logical. > a) North received information from opponents about their system > b) North would receive the same information behind screens No he would NOT ! He would not ask the same question, so he would not receive the same answer. I'm not saying that the screen-test is the only true one, but if you are going to use it, you should use it correctly ! > c) There is no indication that South asked intending to benefit North > That is true, but I am not certain that matters. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 22 23:20:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:20:36 +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 XAA10195 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:20:30 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-234.uunet.be [194.7.13.234]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA06972; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:20:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D141CC.7028D8D5@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:38:52 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <9902161618.aa23737@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990218084238.0071178c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990219090012.00719220@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990221212844.00699b00@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > > >I did not realise EL was one of only two supporters I have, > >and I would be sad to lose him. I value his opinion but > >cannot recall it on any subject relating to DWSchool. > > > >For a collection of posts relating to what DB has dubbed the > >"De Wael school", do check my web-pages. > > > >Please don't restart the discussion though, and specifically > >not in this thread that already seems to cover the whole > >lawbook from back to front and twice over. > > I'm lost. I didn't think I was joining any school. Neither did I. You are welcome nevertheless. > I thought I was > commenting on what to do as declarer, after the auction, when opponents > have asked what your bid means, partner has said it shows A, the correct > explanation is that it shows either A or B, and you hold A. Do you correct > (the opponents are entitled to correct and complete information about your > methods), or do you remain silent (they will correctly assume you have A, > while correcting may mislead them into thinking you hold B). Before this > thread arose, I would have (and have, on occasion) chosen the latter; the > discussion has convinced me that the law requires the former, that I should > not vary my action depending on my hand. > The points are indeed absolutely seperate. I agree with your final conclusion that the law requires you to tell the system, which in this case is misleading. However, if you follow this, you will on occasion see a ruling against you. Opponents take a (wrong) conclusion from your correction, and the director rules you cannot prove that your system is as you have described. Therefor, following a separate line of not telling opponents before the lead, but telling them after the hand would not contravene my feelings of ethics, and I would not rule additionally against the player (while of course ruling on the infraction if there is any damage). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 00:13:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:13:03 +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 AAA11565 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:12:48 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA07343 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:11:50 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 22 Feb 99 13:11 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: The new regime 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: <36D14739.1FC8E0A3@village.uunet.be> > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mon Feb 22 12:24:13 1999 > Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) > by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA18321 > for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:24:07 GMT > X-Envelope-From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) > id XAA10207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:20:41 +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 XAA10196 for > ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:20:30 +1100 > Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-234.uunet.be > [194.7.13.234]) > by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA06980 > for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:20:24 +0100 > (CET) > Message-ID: <36D14739.1FC8E0A3@village.uunet.be> > Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:02:01 +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: The new regime > References: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > Apparently-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > > Tim West-meads wrote: > > > > > > Seems logical. > > a) North received information from opponents about their system > > b) North would receive the same information behind screens > > No he would NOT ! > > He would not ask the same question, so he would not receive > the same answer. > > I'm not saying that the screen-test is the only true one, > but if you are going to use it, you should use it correctly > ! > North hears a bid alerted by E or W (who read his CC) and the bid would normally (due to his misunderstanding) have a non-alertable meaning. 9/10 times North will then ask and receive the same information. Sorry I didn't quite make this clear. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 01:16:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 01:16:50 +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 BAA12767 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 01:16:42 +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 JAA14001 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:15:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990222091736.00725090@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:17:36 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought In-Reply-To: <24e3a960.36d029a2@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:43 AM 2/21/99 EST, KRAllison wrote: >Marv French writes: > ><< I believe the policy of ACBL ACs at NABCs is to require unanimous > opinion of AC members for an appeal to be declared frivolous. >> > >Well, not quite true. First we don't use the word "frivolous" any more, >speaking of appeals as "without merit." And there is a system of "appeals >without merit" points which, over time, can cause problems for those who >acquire several. But the committees do not work by unanimity; rather a >majority vote suffices, although in a close vote committee members will >reexamine their feelings and may take a second vote in the light of the other >members' obvious feelings that the case has merit. Unbelievable! Until I read this, I would have assumed that the reason the requirement for unanimity Marv cites was not well documented was that it is so self-evident that it was unnecessary that it be formally stated. To fail to require unanimity in order to find an appeal to be without merit is nothing less than holding an appellant to a higher standard than that required of those adjudicating the appeal. It is an official presumption that the judges know less about the law than the players they are judging. The notion that one can base an appeals system on such a presumption is worse than "without merit"; it is ludicrous. When a committee hands out "appeals without merit" points to a player over the dissent of one of its own members, how many such points does the dissenter receive? 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 Feb 23 01:38:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 01:38:31 +1100 Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA12812 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 01:38:25 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id TBXJa23173; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:35:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:35:53 EST To: elandau@cais.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 205 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: << Unbelievable! Until I read this, I would have assumed that the reason the requirement for unanimity Marv cites was not well documented was that it is so self-evident that it was unnecessary that it be formally stated. >> The reason for the policy change was that there were AC members who, while they agreed that certain appeals were without merit, voted against the penalty on "principle." Therefore it was felt that a policy of "majority rules" would allow those members to vote their principles while still achieving the result of penalizing appeals without merit which are certainly an abuse of the Appeals system, not to mention an abuse of AC members. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 04:18:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 04:18:41 +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 EAA13404 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 04:18:26 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA28568; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:17:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-21.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.85) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028390; Mon Feb 22 11:16:21 1999 Received: by har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE5E5D.1012F580@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:15:40 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE5E5D.1012F580@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: blml , "'Jan Kamras'" Subject: RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:13:48 -0500 Encoding: 59 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am one of "those who insist". There is a carefully designed process available to amend the Constitution that allows it to change when needed to meet new demands. But the original document, interpreted in accord with the intent of the framers is the cornerstone of American justice and provides the foundation of our free system of government. It should not be lightly trampled upon by those johnny-come-latelys who think they know better that the men who framed what has stood us in good stead for 200 years. It has been no accident that our nation has become a major power in the world and a beacon of light to the world. The base of constituional government has empowered this. While I do not hold the Laws of bridge equal to the Constitution there is a parallel. They have served reasonably well over the years. There is a workable procedure in place to amend them periodically. In so doing there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath. EK's contributions to bridge law, while of course not gospel, are both considerable and well thought out for a higher purpose than personal advantage. They deserve to be considered, and contravened only when there is compelling necessity to do so. That being said, there will be times when you, I and others may disagree with Kaplan doctrines. We may present worthwhile arguments for improving upon them. This is one good forum for such discussion. I can only suspect that EK would have approved of continuing efforts to improve upon and extend the clarity and effectiveness of the Laws. He certainly spent considerable effort in this regard in his distinguished career. I suspect he would be as disturbed to see us accept his opinion without thought as to challange it without reason. Craig ---------- From: Jan Kamras[SMTP:jkamras@home.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 1999 2:45 AM To: blml Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > I can only reiterate that the self-proclaimed author of that language did > not share your understanding of its meaning, as he wrote emphatically in > his 1981 editorial on the subject. Why don't you read again what GE quoted in his other post (it seems EK thought differently about this at different times)? > Did he write the original language? Is > his opinion in this regard, after all, essentially worthless? Certainly not but, equally certainly, it is not gospel and the only truth. The game and it's laws has to be bigger than one man (however great). In no area of life does one man/woman have all the answers so why should that be the case in bridge, where so few opinions can be empirically proven? We have to move on, but I understand why some people have a tough time with it. Just look at all those who insist on interpreting the US constitution literally, as if the world has stood still for hundreds of years. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 05:06:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 05:06:26 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA13624 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 05:06:19 +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 NAA48046278 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:09:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D19C56.32946B5E@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:05:10 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This thread sparked my interest in what was said in 1981 so I dug up the editorial and read it last night. After reading it I thought 'ok'-- not necessarily attaching a meaning to 'ok'. After sleeping on it I now think 'not ok'. EK held that the BB instance was a clear case of not giving UI to partner and was proper. Consider this excerpt from the august 81 BW editorial : So, Kaplan asked Belladonna, "How many clubs does Walter promise?" "Five," Giorgio replied, accurately if not helpfully. "Could he bid that way with five weak diamonds, four clubs?" "Yes, that's an exception-Walter could have that," said he, repressing a smile (knowing absolutely that Walter did have that, and knowing that Kaplan knew). "Couldn't he have rebid one notrump with five-four9" "Yes but only if he had 15 pts. or so," replied Giorgio, grinning infectiously. All four players laughed. I find it objectionable that EK first confined his interest to club length. Next, I find it objectionable that he showed interest in diamond length and strength and club length via a yes or no question. Next, I find it objectionable that he showed interest in a particular alternative action by another yes or no question, the answer to which was misleading except Belladonna clarified further. All these inquiries could have been answered in accordance with L75C by simply asking 'what is your agreement on this auction?' In any event, by doing so would reduce a lot of the innuendo from leading questions. It seems that EK was leading the defense by means other than his agreements. If this instance was clear cut to do as EK did, it does not seem so clear cut to me. So what about all the other instances that are not so 'clear cut' as this one? Kay knew that EK knew the answers to the questions he asked, so he knew that the questions were being asked for his 'benefit'. However, this interest in questioning can suggest that the bidding inferences may be important to the defense in that it is imperative to be on the same wavelength when 'interpreting and cooperating with partner's line of play'. Kind of analogous to making sure that everyone is on the same page of the play book. This prealert of things to come could be all Kay would need to find the best play when other plays might be chosen. The fact is, once such unnecessary questions are proffered, no one can be certain whether the defense was real or contrived. I still think the best policy is that if a player thinks he has a bridge reason for needing to know about the opponents' agreements, he should exercise his right at the time it is needed. Even though UI may result, the likelihood the side will benefit from it will be much the exception than the rule since far fewer questions will be proffered. Therefore, this also includes a player must not ask for the purpose of informing partner. The result will be a more enjoyable contest and a fairer one as well. Roger Pewick Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > "The laws are not designed to prevent > dishonourable practices" > "The object of the Proprieties is twofold, > to familiarise players with the customs and > etiquette of the game, * generally accepted > over a long period of years*; and to enlighten > those who might otherwise fail to appreciate > when or how they are improperly conveying > information to their partners - often a far more > reprehensible offence than a violation of law." > - 'Scope of the Laws', 1975. > 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888 > > > From: David Stevenson > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > > Date: 22 February 1999 00:08 > > > > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > >At 03:59 AM 2/20/99 +0000, DWS wrote: > > > > > >I come down on the EK side of this argument, in the end, because of the > > >essential unenforceablity of the alternative position. Given that I am > > >allowed to ask questions, and given (as most of us have agreed) that the > > >answers to such questions are AI for partner, it is simply not possible to > > >enforce a standard concerning the motive for such questions. I am not > naive > > >about the honesty of all bridge players; I understand that ultimately the > > >integrity of the game depends upon the integrity of the players. But > > >regulations which rely for their enforcement wholly upon the players' > > >honesty (and knowledge) are not in the best interest of the game, IMO. > > > ++++ Addition to previous comment. > When I first became involved in debating the laws and ethics > of the game, as a 25-30 year old 'revolutionary' in the 1950's, it was at > the hands of Geoffrey Butler, Dimmie Fleming and Harold Franklin, > that I was taught what it was all about. One of the things they insisted > upon was that it was partner's adult duty to look after himself and > that it was improper for me to act during the auction and play to > draw his attention to an ekement of opponents' methods which I > feared he might not have grasped. To do this, I was told, was > "dishonourable" whether it was simultaneously "dishonorable" is not > for me to say. But I know where G. Butler stood, and remained to the > end of his distinguished career. It was in keeping with this principle that > what is Law 40E2 evolved - it reflects something that was always a > matter of ethical standards in the precepts of my early mentors > ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 06:27:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 06:27:06 +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 GAA13781 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 06:26:58 +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 AA035461610; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:26:51 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA265111608; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:26:48 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:26:33 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Is this a 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, With 4 cards left in dummy, declarer, South, was in hand and has successfully tried a D finesse twice. Est did not follow to suit on 2nd finesse. Then, declarer played a low D and said "ten" before East plays his card. Remaining cards: Dummy: D: A 10 x C: x E: D: K x W: D: - C: x x C: Q J x x Declarer: D: x x x C: x =20 East hesitated for a moment, then S said "I will play 10 if you play small, Ace if you put K". The director was called. East said the ten was called from dummy, so he will take the trick with K and play C. The declarer argued the play was so evident and it should be irrational to play 10 under K. What is the correct ruling? 1- Applying Law 45B strictely. Without any claim statement, the card named by declared is played, even though named before LHO played. My choice. 2- Allowing declarer to play the card he wants, saying the play is so evident that it is like a claim (Law 68). The 10 should be irrational. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City =20 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 06:36:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 06:36:13 +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 GAA13815 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 06:35:55 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA02388 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:34:44 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-21.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.85) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma002247; Mon Feb 22 13:34:16 1999 Received: by har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE5E70.553901A0@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:33:37 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE5E70.553901A0@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:20:47 -0500 Encoding: 65 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Michael S. Dennis wrote: (snip) >regulations which rely for their enforcement wholly upon the players' >honesty (and knowledge) are not in the best interest of the game, IMO. DWS replied: I feel that you should try having just a little more respect for the abilities of TDs and ACs. There are many positions where TDs and ACs have to make judgement decisions, and they judge on a lot of things: your assumption that they will automatically fail if the Law is as some of us believe is very sad. ### It is hard for those who have encountered many poorly trained and less than competent directors at the club and sectional levels to automatically imbue the position with the respect it should deserve and that is deserved by the many excellent directors. We really need better education, both initial and continuing for lower level directors. We must also remember that most players below world class play most of their bridge close to home and at club or sectional levels or their equivalent. As you have so correctly pointed out in this forum the same laws apply at every level. It would be good to have the same accuracy in the appliation of the laws at every level. Every professional, competent director at the lower levels helps immensely to add to the enjoyment of the game and to aid in producing the sort of respect for TDs you envision. Unfortunately, every director at whatever level who displays abysmal judgement, arrogance, imperiousness and thundering ignorance of and disregard for the Laws creates the opposite. We MUST teach our directors better. I would have little difficulty in accepting your judgement, or that of TDs you have thoroughly trained as being far more likely than not to be correct in cases such as the ones under discussion. But you must understand that this is not at all typical of what is found in many games. Laws and regulations that are incapable of perversion through misjudgement are much to be preferred over those that require expertise to administer. There will be enough situations to tax the abilities of a TD who really wishes to do his job well without creating any more pitfalls for him than are absolutely inescapable.### (DWS) Furthermore, we can make this game run better by telling people what they may and may not do. In things of this type, I think that most people are honest, and will do what they consider is required - if they know. ### Any government works best with the active participation and consent of the governed. The dishonest should be the exception, and whilst they should not be allowed to ride roughshod over the ethical, are probably very much in the minority. I concur that letting the vast majority of ethical players have clear knowledge of what is right and proper is a fine step toward making such conduct the norm...and such a clear and visible norm that the improper will stand out the more for its relative rarity and be the more visible to receive the punishment which it roundly deserves. Again, education is the key. Very many players have never seen a lawbook, let alone been provided with clear interpretations of what may be expected of them under the Laws. This is an important area for our national authorities to continue to address. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 07:14:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 07:14:36 +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 HAA13920 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 07:14:30 +1100 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-158-69.lsan.grid.net [207.205.158.69]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA09478 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:14:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D1BABC.227E4ACA@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:14:52 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" Organization: I Can't Believe It's a Law Firm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Slam dunk. Ten is played. South loses. Complication: South faces his hand, and says "ten." Now we have some of the apparatus of a claim, and this would be more difficult (and more interesting). Having made this trouble, I shall now run from it. --JRM Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > > Hi all, > > With 4 cards left in dummy, declarer, South, was in hand and has > successfully tried a D finesse twice. Est did not follow to suit on > 2nd finesse. Then, declarer played a low D and said "ten" before > East plays his card. > > Remaining cards: > > Dummy: D: A 10 x > C: x > > E: D: K x W: D: - > C: x x C: Q J x x > > Declarer: D: x x x > C: x > > East hesitated for a moment, then S said "I will play 10 if you play > small, Ace if you put K". > > The director was called. East said the ten was called from dummy, > so he will take the trick with K and play C. The declarer argued the > play was so evident and it should be irrational to play 10 under K. > > What is the correct ruling? > > 1- Applying Law 45B strictely. Without any claim statement, the card > named by declared is played, even though named before LHO > played. My choice. > > 2- Allowing declarer to play the card he wants, saying the play is so > evident that it is like a claim (Law 68). The 10 should be irrational. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 07:20:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 07:20:39 +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 HAA13948 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 07:20:33 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA10507 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:20:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902222020.MAA10507@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:20:34 -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 Roger Pewick wrote: > This thread sparked my interest in what was said in 1981 so I dug up the > editorial and read it last night. After reading it I thought 'ok'-- not > necessarily attaching a meaning to 'ok'. > > After sleeping on it I now think 'not ok'. > > EK held that the BB instance was a clear case of not giving UI to > partner and was proper. Consider this excerpt from the august 81 BW > editorial : > > So, Kaplan asked Belladonna, "How many clubs does Walter promise?" > "Five," Giorgio replied, accurately if not helpfully. "Could he bid that > way with five weak diamonds, four clubs?" "Yes, that's an > exception-Walter could have that," said he, repressing a smile (knowing > absolutely that Walter did have that, and knowing that Kaplan knew). > "Couldn't he have rebid one notrump with five-four?" "Yes but only if he > had 15 pts. or so," replied Giorgio, grinning infectiously. All four > players laughed. > > > I find it objectionable that EK first confined his interest to club > length. > > Next, I find it objectionable that he showed interest in diamond length > and strength and club length via a yes or no question. > > Next, I find it objectionable that he showed interest in a particular > alternative action by another yes or no question, the answer to which > was misleading except Belladonna clarified further. > > All these inquiries could have been answered in accordance with L75C by > simply asking 'what is your agreement on this auction?' No L75C in those days. The same words were in Part IVC, however, so Giorgio was violating the Laws when he did not disclose every agreement they had about the bid. L20F1 allowed the questioning of individual calls in those days, changed in 1987/1997 to allow "an explanation of the auction." It did not allow such pointed questions, however, just a request for a "full explanation of opponent's call." Hence, EK's proper question at that time was, "What are your agreements about that call?" (snip of good stuff) > > I still think the best policy is that if a player thinks he has a bridge > reason for needing to know about the opponents' agreements, he should > exercise his right at the time it is needed. With the words, per L20F1, "Please explain your auction." > Even though UI may result, > the likelihood the side will benefit from it will be much the exception > than the rule since far fewer questions will be proffered. Therefore, > this also includes a player must not ask for the purpose of informing > partner. The result will be a more enjoyable contest and a fairer one > as well. There is a big problem with this policy, however: It's almost impossible to nail players who ask the "pro question" solely for partner's benefit. I don't have a solution, and I hope someone will come up with one. Enforcing L20F1 and L20F2 would help. And how about the unnecessary questioning of the auction, or request for a review of the auction, by a player in the passout position, with partner on lead, when he/she is obviously going to pass? Why can't players be required to wait until the lead is made? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Ceterum censeo prohibitandas esse multas quaestiones From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 07:22:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 07:22:27 +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 HAA13970 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 07:22:02 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA21046 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:20:56 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-21.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.85) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma021005; Mon Feb 22 14:20:30 1999 Received: by har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE5E76.C7E86280@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:19:46 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE5E76.C7E86280@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:12:48 -0500 Encoding: 86 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On the other hand we have extensive discussion of the "Laws" of ice hockey in newspapers and magazines and on talk radio...so much as to dwarf our meagre talk. I suspect there are chat rooms or usenet groups that roundly debate the policy the NHL is testing now at the AHL level to have both sides a skater short throughout overtime. I suspect there was even more debate of the controversy over dislodging the net from its moorings to force a break in the action. And the merits of pugnacity that led to the popular joke that "I went to the fights Friday night and a hockey game broke out" have been debated ad nauseum for at least the past 65 years. Whenever there are rules or laws there will be lack of clarity and extensive debate. Why else does the concept of instant replay keep rearing its head in the NFL? Why does the designated hitter or the umpire-specific strike zone remain such a topic of debate in baseball? Rules and laws are always debated in competitive endeavours...ours in this case conforms to the rule not the exception. In fact, in a world based upon the rule of law, the voluntary compliance of the honest man it the cement which holds the structure together. When it is lacking, such as in the "Noble Experiment" of Prohibition, or more recently the attempt to stamp out marijuana use in North America, the law enforcers are so overwhelmed as to be thoroughly ineffective and render the statutes ridiculous in the eyes of many who choose to ignore or flaunt them. The same applies to speeding on the highway...if everyone travels 5 mph above the posted limit, usually no one is stopped unless they become significantly more flagrant in their violation. Rules and laws that are clearly understood and adjudged worthy of compliance by the honest majority free the enforcers to arrest the minority of violators. They just plain work better. But then that sounds rather like a point you have been making. Are you arguing against your own position in saying that honesty of the majority should not be a focus of laws? Then clearly more unambigous laws would worsen the situation as more people understood how to avoid, evade and bypass them to their profit. This does not seem to agree with what you have been saying. Those clear unambiguous laws can only be of benefit if the majority of honest, ethical people can the better embrace them. Craig ---------- From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 12:01 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question On 22/02/99, at 03:44, David Stevenson wrote: >David Burn wrote: >>On 22/02/99, at 00:08, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>> Furthermore, we can make this game run better by telling people what >>>they may and may not do. In things of this type, I think that most >>>people are honest, and will do what they consider is required - if >>they >>>know. >> >>I don't think I need to go on record again as agreeing wholeheartedly >>with this statement. The difficulty I have with it is this: if we do >>not know what they may or may not do, how on earth are they to know? >> > We are trying to sort it out, yes? Given recent disputes, we won't succeed in doing that for many hundreds of years. And in the meantime...? > But, I do not like the idea of deciding based on the idea that people >are dishonest. You may not like it, and I may not like it. But it is the only practicable principle on which to base a set of Laws. Indeed, it is the only principle on which the Laws of every single game apart from ours have been built. I have said, and people thought it was a joke, that there is not an Ice Hockey Laws Mailing List. It was not a joke. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 08:01:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:01:42 +1100 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA14088 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:01:36 +1100 Received: from ip65.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.65]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990222210128.HXUA8569.fep4@ip65.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:01:28 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:01:27 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36d5c56c.5619780@post12.tele.dk> References: <199902181000520160.20E89613@mail.btinternet.com> <36CFE4FA.5CCD2E82@village.uunet.be> <36d10a80.1000138@post12.tele.dk> <36D042D1.29F4955@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36D042D1.29F4955@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, 21 Feb 1999 18:30:57 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >OK, we forget about a) which is not the same (yet) and you >make all 4 AI, I make them all UI - 2 perfectly normal >pov's. No, if we forget (a) then I make all 4 UI, you make all 4 UI. In other words, we do not disagree and - as far as I can see - never have disagreed on this point. It may be difficult to get used to the idea that we agree, Herman, but please try not to quote me as having the opposite opinions of the ones I have expressed. By the way, what is a "pov"? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 08:02:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:02:01 +1100 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA14095 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:01:54 +1100 Received: from ip65.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.65]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990222210148.HXVM8569.fep4@ip65.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:01:48 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:01:47 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36d6c5a9.5680488@post12.tele.dk> References: <36d317e6.4430340@post12.tele.dk> <36D0438B.4D4C424C@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36D0438B.4D4C424C@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, 21 Feb 1999 18:34:03 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Does this mean that DB, HDW _and_ JD are now in agreement ? I suspect that it does (though David B has not actually expressed an opinion on this subject, only asked for opinions). >This player is NOT allowed to deduce from the response that >he was mistaken in his former bid ? Agreed. The difference from the earlier thread is that here N learns about his own system from the response; in the other thread he only learned about the opponents' system. IMO that makes the difference between UI and AI. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 08:06:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:06:41 +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 IAA14123 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:06:36 +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 <19990222210630.JVOC23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:06:30 -0800 Message-ID: <36D1C7C2.35A7A33B@home.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:10:26 -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 claim? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Although it seems harsh, from the presentation it doesn't seem declarer made any claim of a certain no. of tricks, so I can't see that L68 applies. I fear I'd have to rule as per L55 which deals with declarer's LOOT from hand or dummy. Either opponent has the right to accept the LOOT, so they can win the King if they are so inclined. I wish someone can find a way to rule this as an "irrational claim" situation! Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > > Hi all, > > With 4 cards left in dummy, declarer, South, was in hand and has > successfully tried a D finesse twice. Est did not follow to suit on > 2nd finesse. Then, declarer played a low D and said "ten" before > East plays his card. > > Remaining cards: > > Dummy: D: A 10 x > C: x > > E: D: K x W: D: - > C: x x C: Q J x x > > Declarer: D: x x x > C: x > > East hesitated for a moment, then S said "I will play 10 if you play > small, Ace if you put K". > > The director was called. East said the ten was called from dummy, > so he will take the trick with K and play C. The declarer argued the > play was so evident and it should be irrational to play 10 under K. > > What is the correct ruling? > > 1- Applying Law 45B strictely. Without any claim statement, the card > named by declared is played, even though named before LHO > played. My choice. > > 2- Allowing declarer to play the card he wants, saying the play is so > evident that it is like a claim (Law 68). The 10 should be irrational. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 08:13:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:13:21 +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 IAA14139 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:13:14 +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 <19990222211303.JXBT23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:13:03 -0800 Message-ID: <36D1C94B.279F22BE@home.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:16:59 -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: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <3.0.1.32.19990222091736.00725090@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Allow me a "me too" post. I have seldom agreed so completely with another post as with this one! Additionally, adding insult to injury, in the case at hand one of three AC-members was even making the ruling itself in favour of the appellants. If such an appeal can be judged "without merit", then that AC-member should logically be barred for life from serving, and maybe thrown in jail too! Eric Landau wrote: > > At 10:43 AM 2/21/99 EST, KRAllison wrote: > > >Marv French writes: > > > ><< I believe the policy of ACBL ACs at NABCs is to require unanimous > > opinion of AC members for an appeal to be declared frivolous. >> > > > >Well, not quite true. First we don't use the word "frivolous" any more, > >speaking of appeals as "without merit." And there is a system of "appeals > >without merit" points which, over time, can cause problems for those who > >acquire several. But the committees do not work by unanimity; rather a > >majority vote suffices, although in a close vote committee members will > >reexamine their feelings and may take a second vote in the light of the other > >members' obvious feelings that the case has merit. > > Unbelievable! Until I read this, I would have assumed that the reason the > requirement for unanimity Marv cites was not well documented was that it is > so self-evident that it was unnecessary that it be formally stated. > > To fail to require unanimity in order to find an appeal to be without merit > is nothing less than holding an appellant to a higher standard than that > required of those adjudicating the appeal. It is an official presumption > that the judges know less about the law than the players they are judging. > The notion that one can base an appeals system on such a presumption is > worse than "without merit"; it is ludicrous. > > When a committee hands out "appeals without merit" points to a player over > the dissent of one of its own members, how many such points does the > dissenter receive? > > 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 Feb 23 08:53:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:53:03 +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 IAA14193 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:52:54 +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 QAA09423 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:51:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990222165402.007160e0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:54:02 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:26 PM 2/22/99 -0500, Laval_Dubreuil wrote: >With 4 cards left in dummy, declarer, South, was in hand and has >successfully tried a D finesse twice. Est did not follow to suit on >2nd finesse. Then, declarer played a low D and said "ten" before >East plays his card. > >Remaining cards: > > Dummy: D: A 10 x > C: x > > E: D: K x W: D: - > C: x x C: Q J x x > > Declarer: D: x x x > C: x > >East hesitated for a moment, then S said "I will play 10 if you play >small, Ace if you put K". > >The director was called. East said the ten was called from dummy, >so he will take the trick with K and play C. The declarer argued the >play was so evident and it should be irrational to play 10 under K. > >What is the correct ruling? > >1- Applying Law 45B strictely. Without any claim statement, the card >named by declared is played, even though named before LHO >played. My choice. > >2- Allowing declarer to play the card he wants, saying the play is so >evident that it is like a claim (Law 68). The 10 should be irrational. This seems to happen a lot. Fortunately, most of the time the director isn't called. The correct ruling by the book is that the 10 must be played. L45C4(a). The correct ruling at the table is something along the lines of (looking E in the eye), "Look here, we all know what he meant. If you insist on forcing him to play the 10 under your K, you will win the trick, but you will no longer be welcome at the club." 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 Feb 23 09:30:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:30:58 +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 JAA14285 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:30:52 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka9fi.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.37.242]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA07554 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:30:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990222173040.0073875c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:30:40 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990220221545.007300d0@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> <199902192153.NAA07747@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990219211149.00728088@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990220221545.007300d0@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:08 AM 2/22/99 +0000, DWS wrote: > I feel that you should try having just a little more respect for the >abilities of TDs and ACs. There are many positions where TDs and ACs >have to make judgement decisions, and they judge on a lot of things: >your assumption that they will automatically fail if the Law is as some >of us believe is very sad. > Honestly, David, my beliefs are of far too limited a consequence to be characterized as "very sad", in any case. ;-) But even a well-trained, knowledgeable director is no Svengali. The enforcement of the "no pro questions" doctrine requires an exercise in mind-reading, at least if players are unwilling to 'fess up. Worse, it requires fairly alert (not to say suspicious) opponents to bring the matter to a TD in the first place. How will this work? "Director! My opponent has asked a question for his partner's benefit." "Not at all. I was considering the ramifications for later defensive purposes." "Well, you've played us before, you certainly are familiar with our treatment of Forcing Smathers." "I can hardly be expected to remember the detailed agreements of all of my opponents, can I?" Well, now, even if you're familiar with Mr. Innocent's inclination toward sharp practice, it's going to take a lot more nerve than most of us can muster to publicly call him a liar, which is the unavoidable import of an adverse ruling. And on what basis? There are no useful facts upon which to draw; only a hunch, maybe based on your previous experience with this player or on "table feel". Truly, such a ruling will virtually never be made. So we are forced to fall back on self-enforcement for this regulation to work at all. And like all such regulations, this penalizes the knowledgeable and ethical player while rewarding those who are either ignorant or unethical. Given the conflicting bridge values which are at stake (full disclosure vs. self-reliance), I just don't see how this enhances the game. Do I respect TD's and AC's? I think they have a tough enough job to do without expecting them to function as detectives and mind-readers. Those who are knowlegeable and effective in the enforcement of the Laws certainly have my respect. Unfortunately, they are not the same ones who police my local club games. Please, oh please give me a competent director, and I will happily leave the sleuthing to Dick Tracy. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 10:14:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:14:27 +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 KAA14454 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:14:18 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.196]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA09562; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 01:14:03 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36D1E4DF.31232ABA@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 01:14:39 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kamras CC: blml Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <3.0.1.32.19990222091736.00725090@pop.cais.com> <36D1C94B.279F22BE@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No jail - he/she can escape .......... Hatches or gallows only !!!!!!!!!!!!! Have fun and enjoy to play Dany Jan Kamras wrote: > > Allow me a "me too" post. I have seldom agreed so completely with > another post as with this one! > Additionally, adding insult to injury, in the case at hand one of three > AC-members was even making the ruling itself in favour of the > appellants. If such an appeal can be judged "without merit", then that > AC-member should logically be barred for life from serving, and maybe > thrown in jail too! > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > At 10:43 AM 2/21/99 EST, KRAllison wrote: > > > > >Marv French writes: > > > > > ><< I believe the policy of ACBL ACs at NABCs is to require unanimous > > > opinion of AC members for an appeal to be declared frivolous. >> > > > > > >Well, not quite true. First we don't use the word "frivolous" any more, > > >speaking of appeals as "without merit." And there is a system of "appeals > > >without merit" points which, over time, can cause problems for those who > > >acquire several. But the committees do not work by unanimity; rather a > > >majority vote suffices, although in a close vote committee members will > > >reexamine their feelings and may take a second vote in the light of the other > > >members' obvious feelings that the case has merit. > > > > Unbelievable! Until I read this, I would have assumed that the reason the > > requirement for unanimity Marv cites was not well documented was that it is > > so self-evident that it was unnecessary that it be formally stated. > > > > To fail to require unanimity in order to find an appeal to be without merit > > is nothing less than holding an appellant to a higher standard than that > > required of those adjudicating the appeal. It is an official presumption > > that the judges know less about the law than the players they are judging. > > The notion that one can base an appeals system on such a presumption is > > worse than "without merit"; it is ludicrous. > > > > When a committee hands out "appeals without merit" points to a player over > > the dissent of one of its own members, how many such points does the > > dissenter receive? > > > > 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 Feb 23 10:48:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:48:13 +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 KAA14527 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:48:04 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa28861; 22 Feb 99 15:47 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Misexplanation that describes accurately In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:19:44 PST." <36CC83F0.A17BA032@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:47:28 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902221547.aa28861@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > This reply may arrive late but I am out of town and unlikely to be able > to connect for a few days. > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > But this is exactly the case that I'm claiming where "damage" is due > > to bad luck. Suppose South had corrected the misexplanation and said > > their agreements promise only a 4+ suit; but a little bird with no > > agenda settles on your shoulder and whispers in your ear that South > > really has 5 spades. Now, if you refuse to lead a spade, but a spade > > lead is necessary to break the contract, is this damage or bad luck? > > Well, in the MI case, you have the exact same amount of relevant > > information as you do in the little bird case. > > > > This arguement may sound plausible to some but I certainly do not agree > with it. Even if I could be convinced that this non-optimal lead was > simply my bad luck I find the converse most unreasonable. > > That is one partnership gives MI about their agreements. This MI leads > to an inferior lead/defense even though the MI happened to provide a > better discription of the actual hand. Surely we can not say that we > are entitled to this good result because we were lucky enough to > mis-inform our opponents. > > L12C2 "...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." > > An irregularity has occurred L12 allows the director to adjust the score > and the non-offender is entitled to the *most favourable* result that > was likely had the irregularity *not* occurred. Except that you can't apply L12C2 without applying some other Law first. L12C2 begins, "*When* the director awards an assigned adjusted score . . ." [emphasis mine], implying that the TD must first have some other Law (specific to the situation) telling him that an adjusted score may be awarded, and *then* the director uses L12C telling him how to determine the adjusted score. That is, when an irregularity occurs, Law 12C2 does *not* automatically give the TD the right to award an assigned adjusted score. Some other Law has to be applied first. In this case, this is L40C, If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score. which means that we must apply L40C to see whether L12C2 applies, which means that for your argument to apply, we must *first* determine whether there was damage---which i exactly the question I was raising. > As for damage the non-offenders got a worse result than they would have, > without committing a subsequent error, this must be damage. Which is what I dispute, for the reasons I've given. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 10:54:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:54:37 +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 KAA14564 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:54:30 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa29266; 22 Feb 99 15:53 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Misexplanation leads to bad luck Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:53:53 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902221553.aa29266@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's a question that I think is related to my point in the "Misexplanation that describes accurately" thread. It has to do with distinguishing when damage is caused by MI or bad luck. I'd like opinions on how this hypothetical situation should be ruled. You and your partner have hands that would normally get to a cold 3NT. However, an opponent makes some sort of transfer overcall that they fail to alert. Since you think the bid is natural, and your hand doesn't hold a stopper in the suit you think they have, you steer the hand out of 3NT and end up in 6C. 6C, as it turns out, is a 95% contract that is very difficult to reach using standard methods. It's a contract that you would definitely want to be in if you could peek at both hands, even if you had correct information about the overcaller's hand. However, it goes down on a 5-0 trump break. Does Law 40C apply? Were you damaged by the MI, or by Lady Luck? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 11:29:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:29:47 +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 LAA14614 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:29:40 +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 TAA25221564 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:32:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D1F599.47889F2D@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:26:01 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <199902222020.MAA10507@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why should we want to nail anyone? We should want players to follow the laws. One of the best ways to have this happen is to not give conflicting messages and a bunch of [or for that matter even one] exceptions. What ought to be done is stamp out the precedent popularized by EK and communicate it far and wide. They who don't have the decency to play fair, are likely to be proven so even if it is not the first or fiftieth time. Setting everyone to the straight is a much preferable outcome than seeking punishment and retribution even against a sole violator. The best thing to happen is to never have reason to summon the TD except to tell him how wonderful the opponents are. Roger Pewick Marvin L. French wrote: > > Roger Pewick wrote: -s- > > Even though UI may result, > > the likelihood the side will benefit from it will be much the > exception > > than the rule since far fewer questions will be proffered. > Therefore, > > this also includes a player must not ask for the purpose of > informing > > partner. The result will be a more enjoyable contest and a > fairer one > > as well. > > There is a big problem with this policy, however: It's almost > impossible to nail players who ask the "pro question" solely for > partner's benefit. I don't have a solution, and I hope someone will > come up with one. Enforcing L20F1 and L20F2 would help. And how > about the unnecessary questioning of the auction, or request for a > review of the auction, by a player in the passout position, with > partner on lead, when he/she is obviously going to pass? Why can't > players be required to wait until the lead is made? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > Ceterum censeo prohibitandas esse multas quaestiones > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 12:05:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:05:52 +1100 Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA14740 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:05:46 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10F6I7-0005mx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 02:05:40 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990223020509.00ae2510@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 02:05:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990222165402.007160e0@pop.cais.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk i dissent. I think the declarer showed that he was prepared to take the finesse again and again.................. so, i will give him the benefit of the (no) doubt) and........... i think opps are laywering. i really dont like this at all. In my harsh mood, i give opps a DP : (5 beers at least) arggggggg anton >At 02:26 PM 2/22/99 -0500, Laval_Dubreuil wrote: > >>With 4 cards left in dummy, declarer, South, was in hand and has >>successfully tried a D finesse twice. Est did not follow to suit on >>2nd finesse. Then, declarer played a low D and said "ten" before >>East plays his card. >> >>Remaining cards: >> >> Dummy: D: A 10 x >> C: x >> >> E: D: K x W: D: - >> C: x x C: Q J x x >> >> Declarer: D: x x x >> C: x >> >>East hesitated for a moment, then S said "I will play 10 if you play >>small, Ace if you put K". >> >>The director was called. East said the ten was called from dummy, >>so he will take the trick with K and play C. The declarer argued the >>play was so evident and it should be irrational to play 10 under K. >> >>What is the correct ruling? >> >>1- Applying Law 45B strictely. Without any claim statement, the card >>named by declared is played, even though named before LHO >>played. My choice. >> >>2- Allowing declarer to play the card he wants, saying the play is so >>evident that it is like a claim (Law 68). The 10 should be irrational. > >This seems to happen a lot. Fortunately, most of the time the director >isn't called. > >The correct ruling by the book is that the 10 must be played. L45C4(a). > >The correct ruling at the table is something along the lines of (looking E >in the eye), "Look here, we all know what he meant. If you insist on >forcing him to play the 10 under your K, you will win the trick, but you >will no longer be welcome at the club." > > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com >APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org >1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 13:12:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:12:12 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA14907 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:12:07 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10F7KI-0000mN-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 02:11:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 02:04:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-Reply-To: <36D1BABC.227E4ACA@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <36D1BABC.227E4ACA@mindspring.com>, "John R. Mayne" writes >Slam dunk. Ten is played. South loses. > >Complication: South faces his hand, and says "ten." Now we have some of >the apparatus of a claim, and this would be more difficult (and more >interesting). > >Having made this trouble, I shall now run from it. > >--JRM > > > >Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> With 4 cards left in dummy, declarer, South, was in hand and has >> successfully tried a D finesse twice. Est did not follow to suit on >> 2nd finesse. Then, declarer played a low D and said "ten" before >> East plays his card. >> L45B Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card ... L47F Except as provided in A through E preceding, a card once played may not be withdrawn. The fact it's a POOT is irrelevant. Seems clear to me. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 13:45:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:45:20 +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 NAA14986 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:45:13 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10F7qL-0002Zl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 02:45:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:42:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: >With 4 cards left in dummy, declarer, South, was in hand and has >successfully tried a D finesse twice. Est did not follow to suit on >2nd finesse. Then, declarer played a low D and said "ten" before >East plays his card. So, the ten is a played card, under L45B. I know it was not specified fully, but L46B3B clears that up. >Remaining cards: > > Dummy: D: A 10 x > C: x > > E: D: K x W: D: - > C: x x C: Q J x x > > Declarer: D: x x x > C: x > >East hesitated for a moment, then S said "I will play 10 if you play >small, Ace if you put K". Good try, but too late! >The director was called. East said the ten was called from dummy, >so he will take the trick with K and play C. The declarer argued the >play was so evident and it should be irrational to play 10 under K. East's comments are perfectly correct. I am sorry, but being irrational does not give you the right to retract a played card. >What is the correct ruling? > >1- Applying Law 45B strictely. Without any claim statement, the card >named by declared is played, even though named before LHO >played. My choice. Absolutely. >2- Allowing declarer to play the card he wants, saying the play is so >evident that it is like a claim (Law 68). The 10 should be irrational. Like a claim? It was not a 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 Tue Feb 23 13:45:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:45:20 +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 NAA14985 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:45:13 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10F7qL-0002Zk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 02:45:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 21:11:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Karen wrote: >Eric Landau writes: > ><< > Unbelievable! Until I read this, I would have assumed that the reason the > requirement for unanimity Marv cites was not well documented was that it is > so self-evident that it was unnecessary that it be formally stated. >> > >The reason for the policy change was that there were AC members who, while >they agreed that certain appeals were without merit, voted against the penalty >on "principle." Therefore it was felt that a policy of "majority rules" would >allow those members to vote their principles while still achieving the result >of penalizing appeals without merit which are certainly an abuse of the >Appeals system, not to mention an abuse of AC members. Is it only me, or do I have support for the feeling that the next step after this is for the Chairman's voice to be the deciding factor unless the rest of the Committee is unanimously against him? Now where have I heard that - it seems so familiar? :) -- 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 Feb 23 14:21:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:21:30 +1100 Received: from pm3-112.dial.qual.net (moorebj@pm3-112.dial.qual.net [205.212.1.112]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA15032 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:21:22 +1100 Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by pm3-112.dial.qual.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA11275 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:20:57 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:20:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Procedure for Law 81B2 violation? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings, My partner and I had an unsettling experience at the club recently. This occurred at an ACBL-sanctioned game. The auction began as follows: S W N E P 2N P 2H(1) West announced "transfer" as partner and I called for the director. East attempted to substitute 3H, but we suggested he wait until the director arrived. The director asked partner if he wished to accept the call. He did not. Then the director told East that if he bid anything but 3H his partner would be barred for the remainder of the auction. East again began to bid 3H as both partner and I objected. We stated that it was our belief that if 3H was conventional (and it clearly was) that West should be barred. The director then ruled that there was no harm, so that the auction would be continued. When I pressed further, she indicated that she was aware of the proper ruling, but did not feel it to be appropriate in a club game given that both conventional meanings were identical! The auction continued to 6S by West, and declarer, perhaps flustered by all the commotion, not only misplayed the cold slam, but made an invalid claim to go off 2 tricks for a very cold bottom. Clearly we were not damaged (perhaps the opponents were -- East stated afterward he would have simply bid 6S). The director is a fine lady with a heart of gold. She is one of the nicest people in the unit! However, this unusual situation was most upsetting to all concerned. What recourse is available when a TD violates Law 81B2? "The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organization." It would be nice if there were a gentle way of handling this, without making a federal case. But I'll take other suggestions; perhaps the next time the director won't be so well-intentioned. Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 14:30:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:30:36 +1100 Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA15059 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:30:30 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id TUFCa03210; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:19:28 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:19:28 EST To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 205 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/22/1999 9:46:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: << Is it only me, or do I have support for the feeling that the next step after this is for the Chairman's voice to be the deciding factor unless the rest of the Committee is unanimously against him? Now where have I heard that - it seems so familiar? :) >> Now what about what I wrote leads you to that conclusion? With all due respect, David, no ACBL committee chairman can do what a WBF committee chairman was by regulation permitted to do - overrule the majorityof his committee. The criterion for a finding of lack of merit is easy; the committee members look at one another and say "why are we here?" Oddly, in Orlando, a committee determined that an appeal lacked merit and refused to act on it - read the book for this interesting occurrence. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 18:17:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA15361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:17:15 +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 SAA15356 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:17:10 +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 <19990223071704.QCLX23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:17:04 -0800 Message-ID: <36D256DC.263FE464@home.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:21:01 -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: Appeal; Opinions sought References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk KRAllison@aol.com wrote: > The reason for the policy change was that there were AC members who, while > they agreed that certain appeals were without merit, voted against the penalty > on "principle." Therefore it was felt that a policy of "majority rules" would > allow those members to vote their principles while still achieving the result > of penalizing appeals without merit which are certainly an abuse of the > Appeals system, not to mention an abuse of AC members. Hi Karen - long time no see! I find it somewhat odd that one has more respect for AC members who don't like to follow the rules, than for the rules themselves. Otherwise one would presumably simply exclude such people from ACs rather than altering the rules to accomodate them. :-( From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 18:35:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA15407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:35:11 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA15402 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:35:04 +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 <19990223073459.QFFX23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:34:59 -0800 Message-ID: <36D25B0F.19C06FB0@home.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:38:55 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Misexplanation leads to bad luck References: <9902221553.aa29266@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Fair" it may not be, but I think there: a) was damage since you got a worse result than otherwise - thru no fault of yours, and b) there is linkage between the MI and the damage since without the MI you'd be in 3NT like everyone else. I'd adjust the score, and it seems rather routine. Yes - if 6C makes you'll get to keep that good result as well. Not ideal, but the laws have (sensibly imo) decided to err on the side of the NOs. Looking at other sports things are handled very similarly (like the "advantage" rule), so no need for us to feel so miserable about it! Why do we always expect that our rules should create total equity/fairness, when that is unattainable in any other activity of life? Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Here's a question that I think is related to my point in the > "Misexplanation that describes accurately" thread. It has to do with > distinguishing when damage is caused by MI or bad luck. I'd like > opinions on how this hypothetical situation should be ruled. > > You and your partner have hands that would normally get to a cold 3NT. > However, an opponent makes some sort of transfer overcall that they > fail to alert. Since you think the bid is natural, and your hand > doesn't hold a stopper in the suit you think they have, you steer the > hand out of 3NT and end up in 6C. 6C, as it turns out, is a 95% > contract that is very difficult to reach using standard methods. It's > a contract that you would definitely want to be in if you could peek > at both hands, even if you had correct information about the > overcaller's hand. However, it goes down on a 5-0 trump break. > > Does Law 40C apply? Were you damaged by the MI, or by Lady Luck? > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 20:01:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA15552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:01:50 +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 UAA15547 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:01:44 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA11751 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:00:54 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 23 Feb 99 09:00 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: The new regime 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: <36d6c5a9.5680488@post12.tele.dk> Jesper wrote: > > >Does this mean that DB, HDW _and_ JD are now in agreement ? > > I suspect that it does (though David B has not actually expressed > an opinion on this subject, only asked for opinions). > > >This player is NOT allowed to deduce from the response that > >he was mistaken in his former bid ? > > Agreed. The difference from the earlier thread is that here N > learns about his own system from the response; in the other > thread he only learned about the opponents' system. IMO that > makes the difference between UI and AI. At this point, as the player in question, I leave the table never to return. While I could at least understand the concept that an answer to partner's question was UI I can't cope with "The information about opponent's bidding system is AI but you are restricted in how you make use of it". Does this strange principle apply if it is me who asked the question? What about the auction 1N-(p)-2H-(d) (explained as TO of spades) - am I suddenly required to forget that I am playing transfers. Sometimes you will make a mistaken bid and opponents' subsequent actions will make it obvious that you have done so. Maybe you can capitalise on this bit luck, maybe you can't - that's life. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 20:06:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA15569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:06:09 +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 UAA15564 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:06:03 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA01642; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 01:05:56 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902230905.BAA01642@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bruce Moore" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Procedure for Law 81B2 violation? Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 01:05:29 -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 Bruce J. Moore wrote: - Greetings, > > My partner and I had an unsettling experience at the club > recently. This occurred at an ACBL-sanctioned game. > > The auction began as follows: > > S W N E > P 2N P 2H(1) > > West announced "transfer" as partner and I called for the > director. East attempted to substitute 3H, but we suggested he wait > until the director arrived. > > The director asked partner if he wished to accept the call. > He did not. It seems to me that accepting the call would have been the sporting thing to do, since 3H has practically the same meaning as 2H. Perhaps L27B2 should offer some leeway when a barely sufficient conventional bid in the same strain has the same meaning as the insufficient bid, but L27 is complicated enough as it is. When a TD cannot legally do the obviously fair thing, why not do it for her if you can? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 20:19:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA15589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:19:54 +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 UAA15584 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:19:47 +1100 Received: from modem70.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.198] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10FE0C-0004Qt-00; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:19:40 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , , Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:14:53 -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 fills a chair" - Dr. Samuel Johnson, 1781 (of a British Prime Minister) 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 > From: KRAllison@aol.com > To: elandau@cais.com; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought > Date: 22 February 1999 14:35 > > Eric Landau writes: > > Unbelievable! Until I read this, I would have assumed that the reason the > requirement for unanimity Marv cites was not well documented was that it is > so self-evident that it was unnecessary that it be formally stated. >> > Karen : > The reason for the policy change was that there were AC members who, while > they agreed that certain appeals were without merit, voted against the penalty > on "principle." Therefore it was felt that a policy of "majority rules" would > allow those members to vote their principles while still achieving the result > of penalizing appeals without merit which are certainly an abuse of the > Appeals system, not to mention an abuse of AC members. > ++++ What other Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge do these committee members refuse to apply on "principle"? Oh, Karen, what a sorry state you are in if you are so short of AC members that you have to appoint committee members who, when acting as such, set their own beliefs above their duty to the game. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 21:00:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:00:35 +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 VAA15704 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:00:29 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA05095 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:59:38 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 23 Feb 99 09:58 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought 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: Karen wrote: > The reason for the policy change was that there were AC members who, > while > they agreed that certain appeals were without merit, voted against the > penalty > on "principle." Therefore it was felt that a policy of "majority > rules" would > allow those members to vote their principles while still achieving the > result > of penalizing appeals without merit which are certainly an abuse of the > Appeals system, not to mention an abuse of AC members. > It seems sad that this is necessary. However I don't see a big problem in a simple majority vote to rule "without merit" in cases where the AC was unanimous in upholding the original ruling. It does seem much more of a problem where there is registered dissent to the ruling. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 21:54:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:54:50 +1100 Received: from konig.cs.elte.hu (konig.cs.elte.hu [157.181.14.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA15792 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:54:38 +1100 Received: from cs.elte.hu (lab5 [157.181.14.55]) by konig.cs.elte.hu (8.8.8/8.8.8/3s) with ESMTP id LAA14239; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:54:02 +0100 Message-ID: <36D288C4.614B53FB@cs.elte.hu> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:53:58 +0100 From: Laszlo Hegedus Organization: Lorand Eotvos University, Budapest X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i486) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Revokes References: <4XUP0eADAZz2Ewuo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <36CE96CD.4CC0DBB9@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Some time ago, the following was posted on RGB [I have edited it]. > > Unlike BLML, where there can be 85 replies and no consensus, on RGB > > there were only two replies - but no consensus! :) > > > > ----------- ----------- > > > > MP pairs T954 > > W/NS J85 > > 853 > > AK63 JT9 J > > KT963 AQ4 > > T9 AKJ2 > > 86 Q872 AK732 > > 72 > > Q764 > > Q54 > > > > East-West found the 7H contract by West, NS passing throughout. N led > (...) > So : NS : simple revoke, one trick made later = returned > EW : revoke trick made, many trick later made = 2 > trick returned > Saldo : 11 tricks = 7H-2. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html Hi, I was the man, who told this hand on the rec.games.bridge, and was a bit dissapointed getting very few of replies on it, as you wrote there were lots of replies on BLML which mailing list i've never heard about. Thanks for Herman sending his msg to my mailbox and for the guy, who corrected my (lots of) faults with the english language in the quoted message :). Anyway I'm very interested in your answers to this problem, so if anyone can i ask him to send me all the replies to this problem which were on this mailing list (but only once :)). If someone could, please post me, how to subscribe on the BLML, and how many messages/day are on this mailinglist. thanx all -- Hegedus Laszlo (but this is the hungarian - reverse - order, so my name's: Laszlo Hegedus) mailto:hegelaci@cs.elte.hu http://www.cs.elte.hu/~hegelaci/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 21:57:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:57:34 +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 VAA15812 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:57:27 +1100 Received: from hlyxzurz (dialup-011.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.203]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA18522 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:57:20 GMT Message-ID: <000f01be5f1b$fa8db820$cb307dc2@hlyxzurz> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: CountDown Clock Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:02:15 -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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Gang, Any ideas on where I might purchase a digital countdown clock? Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 22:08:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:08:12 +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 WAA15891 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:08:04 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10FFgt-00056l-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:07:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 02:58:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Misexplanation leads to bad luck References: <9902221553.aa29266@flash.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <9902221553.aa29266@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Here's a question that I think is related to my point in the >"Misexplanation that describes accurately" thread. It has to do with >distinguishing when damage is caused by MI or bad luck. I'd like >opinions on how this hypothetical situation should be ruled. > >You and your partner have hands that would normally get to a cold 3NT. >However, an opponent makes some sort of transfer overcall that they >fail to alert. Since you think the bid is natural, and your hand >doesn't hold a stopper in the suit you think they have, you steer the >hand out of 3NT and end up in 6C. 6C, as it turns out, is a 95% >contract that is very difficult to reach using standard methods. It's >a contract that you would definitely want to be in if you could peek >at both hands, even if you had correct information about the >overcaller's hand. However, it goes down on a 5-0 trump break. > >Does Law 40C apply? Were you damaged by the MI, or by Lady Luck? Yes, it applies. I was damaged by the MI. How can i tell? Without the MI I would have got a better score: that's damage. -- 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 Feb 23 22:08:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:08:10 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA15886 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:07:57 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10FFgt-0007if-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:07:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 02:56:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The new regime References: <199902181000520160.20E89613@mail.btinternet.com> <36CFE4FA.5CCD2E82@village.uunet.be> <36d10a80.1000138@post12.tele.dk> <36D042D1.29F4955@village.uunet.be> <36d5c56c.5619780@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <36d5c56c.5619780@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >By the way, what is a "pov"? Point of view. -- 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 Feb 23 22:08:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:08:19 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA15906 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:08:11 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10FFgv-0007ie-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:07:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 02:53:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <36D1C7C2.35A7A33B@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36D1C7C2.35A7A33B@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >Although it seems harsh, from the presentation it doesn't seem declarer >made any claim of a certain no. of tricks, so I can't see that L68 >applies. >I fear I'd have to rule as per L55 which deals with declarer's LOOT from >hand or dummy. Either opponent has the right to accept the LOOT, so they >can win the King if they are so inclined. I wish someone can find a way >to rule this as an "irrational claim" situation! Why? If someone wants to act like a total prat, why should we find a way to save 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 Tue Feb 23 22:08:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:08:11 +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 WAA15890 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:08:03 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10FFgy-0007if-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:07:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 03:15:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Law 17D MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk East picks the cards from a wrong board, passes throughout the auction and North/South bid a very thin 6C. When dummy hits the table, East discovers that something is wrong. 6C is a poor contract but is unbeatable on the lie of the cards. With the correct cards, East still has no reason to bid. How do you rule? Second question: despite East having no real bid with the correct cards, if you rule that the auction is repeated he will now stick in an overcall because he is afraid 6C will make. Comments? -- 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 Feb 23 23:14:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:14:19 +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 XAA16117 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:14:09 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-28.uunet.be [194.7.13.28]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20763 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:13:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D2783A.BB044815@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:43:22 +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: [Fwd: The new regime] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk sent accidentally to Jesper alone, but I want to bore you all as well : Herman De Wael wrote: > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > > > >> (a) An opponent who has not been asked a question looks at your > > >> CC and mutters "Ah, Ghestem". > > >> > > >> > > > > > >I don't see the difference between this and the others - > > >North can just as easily deduce from this that he is in fact > > >playing Ghestem, and opponents answer is what put him on > > >that road. > > > > As I wrote earlier, I consider (b), (c), and (d) equivalent, and > > UI. Not much disagreement here. (a) is completely different. > > > > It is only different in that it has not yet included an > explanation of the 3Di bid that follows. Once that too > happens, it falls exactly within bcd or e. If there is no > subsequent problem, I agree with you that the remark may be > considered AI (of a very fortunate sort). > But once the problem goes on, I don't see any difference > between the fellow exclaiming 'ah ghestem', and him asking > for the same. > > Or to put it differently, the UI (as I see it) rests not in > the way the opponent has found out what the meaning is, but > in the explanation of his next call, which should be > directed only at partner who knows the correct question to > ask ("what is 3D over Ghestem"), whereas your own question > would be ("what is 3D over Michaels"). > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 23:14:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:14:18 +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 XAA16118 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:14:10 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-28.uunet.be [194.7.13.28]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20800 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:14:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D27C2F.BC27807F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:00:15 +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: The new regime References: <36d317e6.4430340@post12.tele.dk> <36D0438B.4D4C424C@village.uunet.be> <36d6c5a9.5680488@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:34:03 +0100, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >Does this mean that DB, HDW _and_ JD are now in agreement ? > > I suspect that it does (though David B has not actually expressed > an opinion on this subject, only asked for opinions). > BTW, sorry for the misunderstanding in the other post. (and with pov I meant point of view) > >This player is NOT allowed to deduce from the response that > >he was mistaken in his former bid ? > > Agreed. The difference from the earlier thread is that here N > learns about his own system from the response; in the other > thread he only learned about the opponents' system. IMO that > makes the difference between UI and AI. That may be a significant difference. You would suggest that in both cases, when becoming defender, the player has the AI about opponents' system, which he can use in the play. That may be a further point of discussion. But the original case was different. Not only did the player learn through the response that he was mistaken about his opponent's system, but also that he had misbid. In this second case too, the player has learnt that he has misbid. Whatever the circumstances, through the device of question by partner and answer by opponents, is the player informed of his mistake. If we allow him only the "complete knowledge of opponent's system", not the specific knowledge of that part of the system that interests his partner", in neither case will he be awakened to his own mistake. I don't think the specificalities of the mistake should make the difference ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 23:14:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:14:01 +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 XAA16105 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:13:53 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-28.uunet.be [194.7.13.28]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20736 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:13:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D17A2A.93CD605E@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:39:22 +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: The new regime References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > > Tim West-meads wrote: > > > > > > > > > Seems logical. > > > a) North received information from opponents about their system > > > b) North would receive the same information behind screens > > > > No he would NOT ! > > > > He would not ask the same question, so he would not receive > > the same answer. > > > > I'm not saying that the screen-test is the only true one, > > but if you are going to use it, you should use it correctly > > ! > > > North hears a bid alerted by E or W (who read his CC) and the bid would > normally (due to his misunderstanding) have a non-alertable meaning. 9/10 > times North will then ask and receive the same information. Sorry I > didn't quite make this clear. > North would explain his own bid to his own screenmate, and receive an explanation consistent with what he explained. If you are assuming that north does not alert his own bid, and his opponent reads it from the CC, and then explains ..., then we are back to the original problem, and the same dilemma. The screen test is not designed to be infallable, after all. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 23 23:14:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:14:18 +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 XAA16116 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:14:09 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-28.uunet.be [194.7.13.28]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20792 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:14:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D2797C.E0714BE4@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:48:44 +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: Is this a claim? References: <3.0.1.32.19990222165402.007160e0@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 02:26 PM 2/22/99 -0500, Laval_Dubreuil wrote: > > >With 4 cards left in dummy, declarer, South, was in hand and has > >successfully tried a D finesse twice. Est did not follow to suit on > >2nd finesse. Then, declarer played a low D and said "ten" before > >East plays his card. > > > >Remaining cards: > > > > Dummy: D: A 10 x > > C: x > > > > E: D: K x W: D: - > > C: x x C: Q J x x > > > > Declarer: D: x x x > > C: x > > > >East hesitated for a moment, then S said "I will play 10 if you play > >small, Ace if you put K". > > > >The director was called. East said the ten was called from dummy, > >so he will take the trick with K and play C. The declarer argued the > >play was so evident and it should be irrational to play 10 under K. > > > >What is the correct ruling? > > > >1- Applying Law 45B strictely. Without any claim statement, the card > >named by declared is played, even though named before LHO > >played. My choice. > > > >2- Allowing declarer to play the card he wants, saying the play is so > >evident that it is like a claim (Law 68). The 10 should be irrational. > > This seems to happen a lot. Fortunately, most of the time the director > isn't called. > > The correct ruling by the book is that the 10 must be played. L45C4(a). > > The correct ruling at the table is something along the lines of (looking E > in the eye), "Look here, we all know what he meant. If you insist on > forcing him to play the 10 under your K, you will win the trick, but you > will no longer be welcome at the club." > Fine solution. After all, it was east's slow play that prompted this. What was he thinking of ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 00:14:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:14:23 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA17982 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:14:09 +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 IAA25645 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:12:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990223081508.0068e8e4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:15:08 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:11 PM 2/22/99 +0000, David wrote: >Karen wrote: >>Eric Landau writes: >> >><< >> Unbelievable! Until I read this, I would have assumed that the reason the >> requirement for unanimity Marv cites was not well documented was that it is >> so self-evident that it was unnecessary that it be formally stated. >> >> >>The reason for the policy change was that there were AC members who, while >>they agreed that certain appeals were without merit, voted against the penalty >>on "principle." Therefore it was felt that a policy of "majority rules" would >>allow those members to vote their principles while still achieving the result >>of penalizing appeals without merit which are certainly an abuse of the >>Appeals system, not to mention an abuse of AC members. > > Is it only me, or do I have support for the feeling that the next step >after this is for the Chairman's voice to be the deciding factor unless >the rest of the Committee is unanimously against him? Now where have I >heard that - it seems so familiar? :) It certainly sounds like the same mentality at work. Our SOs have people who aren't the least bit competent to serve on appeals committees, either because they don't understand the rules or refuse to follow them, but the organizers want to appoint them anyhow, for purely political reasons, so they make obviously nonsensical policy designed to minimize the damage these people do. And then they bemoan the players' lack of confidence in the committees. IMHO it is the SOs' appointing committee members who won't follow the rules "on 'principle'" that is "an abuse of the Appeals system". 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 Feb 24 00:55:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:55:08 +1100 Received: from mcda__s0.mcda.org (gw1.mcda.org [206.196.37.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA18809 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:55:03 +1100 Received: by MCDA__S0 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 07:52:39 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Kryst, Jack" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Law 17D Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 07:52:36 -0600 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk May I add a third question? Assuming that the East hand was taken from a board that is yet to be play in the same round how is that board to be treated when it gets its turn? ----jk jack.kryst@mcda.org David Stevenson wrote: > East picks the cards from a wrong board, passes throughout the > auction > and North/South bid a very thin 6C. When dummy hits the table, East > discovers that something is wrong. > > 6C is a poor contract but is unbeatable on the lie of the cards. > > With the correct cards, East still has no reason to bid. > > How do you rule? > > Second question: despite East having no real bid with the correct > cards, if you rule that the auction is repeated he will now stick in > an > overcall because he is afraid 6C will make. > > Comments? > > -- > 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 Feb 24 01:04:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:04:05 +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 BAA18838 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:03:37 +1100 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet5 [134.117.136.25]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id JAA21812 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:02:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA01194; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:02:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:02:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902231402.JAA01194@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >At 02:26 PM 2/22/99 -0500, Laval_Dubreuil wrote: > >>With 4 cards left in dummy, declarer, South, was in hand and has >>successfully tried a D finesse twice. Est did not follow to suit on >>2nd finesse. Then, declarer played a low D and said "ten" before >>East plays his card. >> >>Remaining cards: >> >> Dummy: D: A 10 x >> C: x >> >> E: D: K x W: D: - >> C: x x C: Q J x x >> >> Declarer: D: x x x >> C: x >> >>East hesitated for a moment, then S said "I will play 10 if you play >>small, Ace if you put K". >> >>The director was called. East said the ten was called from dummy, >>so he will take the trick with K and play C. The declarer argued the >>play was so evident and it should be irrational to play 10 under K. >> >>What is the correct ruling? >> >>1- Applying Law 45B strictely. Without any claim statement, the card >>named by declared is played, even though named before LHO >>played. My choice. >> >>2- Allowing declarer to play the card he wants, saying the play is so >>evident that it is like a claim (Law 68). The 10 should be irrational. > >This seems to happen a lot. Fortunately, most of the time the director >isn't called. > >The correct ruling by the book is that the 10 must be played. L45C4(a). > >The correct ruling at the table is something along the lines of (looking E >in the eye), "Look here, we all know what he meant. If you insist on >forcing him to play the 10 under your K, you will win the trick, but you >will no longer be welcome at the club." > > >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 > I would like to apply L45C4(a). I really would. However, what about L47B? I would think that playing a card out of turn is illegal. If, however, L45C4(a) is correct, then I would have no problem enforcing it. Players should follow correct procedure, which includes playing in turn. Tony (aka ac342) ps. yes, L47B refers us to L58&L49, but need these be the only instances when an illegality applies? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 02:33:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:33:17 +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 CAA19193 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:33:09 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id LBWLa21771; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:28:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8a3f6547.36d2c927@aol.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:28:39 EST To: jkamras@home.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras writes: << Otherwise one would presumably simply exclude such people from ACs rather than altering the rules to accomodate them. :-( >> Long time no see yourself :-) I'll be in Vancouver for anyone who actually *wants* to see me. Well, in fact we did eventually exclude such people once we had a firm statement from them on the issue. However, not before they had sabotaged some committees which were operating on the "unanimity principle." However, that said, they were excellent AC members apart from that quirk and we tried to keep them working. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 02:39:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:39:51 +1100 Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA19212 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:39:45 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id TQLMa05340; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:37:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <2d00606f.36d2cb2d@aol.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:37:17 EST To: hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk, elandau@cais.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes: << Oh, Karen, what a sorry state you are in if you are so short of AC members that you have to appoint committee members who, when acting as such, set their own beliefs above their duty to the game. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ >> The really sad news is that if you knew who they were you would most likely think they are among our best and brightest committee members. And we did restrict their work on committees as a result. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 02:41:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:41:56 +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 CAA19243 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:41:49 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.245] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10FJwN-0001Jf-00; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:40:07 +0000 Message-ID: <199902231541330830.0395EFA2@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:41:33 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 17D Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 23/02/99, at 15:28, Kryst, Jack wrote: >May I add a third question? > >Assuming that the East hand was taken from a board that is yet to be >play in the same round how is that board to be treated when it gets its >turn? With contempt, in my experience. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 02:43:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:43:36 +1100 Received: from hermes.sron.rug.nl (hermes.sron.rug.nl [129.125.20.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA19272 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:43:17 +1100 Received: from sron.rug.nl (pc-joep.sron.rug.nl [129.125.20.150]) by hermes.sron.rug.nl (8.9.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA22183; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:14:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <36D2C587.7EC36A57@sron.rug.nl> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:13:12 +0100 From: "J.C.Lohmann" Organization: SRON X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CountDown Clock References: <000f01be5f1b$fa8db820$cb307dc2@hlyxzurz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The Dutch Bridge & Book Shop sells them for appr. NLG 570 Phone: +31 30 275 9977 Fax: +31 30 275 9970 Joep Lohmann From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 02:50:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:50:45 +1100 Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA19332 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:50:39 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id FQGUa05501; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:46:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <10a9c40.36d2cd5e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:46:38 EST To: elandau@cais.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric, << IMHO it is the SOs' appointing committee members who won't follow the rules "on 'principle'" that is "an abuse of the Appeals system". >> In general, the committee member who led the "refusal on principle" minimovement is a very desirable person to have on a committee. That person is a top-flight expert player who is called upon in many areas, not least as a commentator in the Appeals books. Appeals has not, until now, been able completely to make its own choices about its membership. And, as you may well be aware, it is not easy to get good players - or good AC members to show up all the time, especially for less interesting cases involving less "important" players. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 02:54:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:54:51 +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 CAA19413 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:54:43 +1100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id QAA21917 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:54:29 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01J839BP4ROK00BOMH@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:52:34 +0100 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:55:55 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:52:33 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C138@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 By absence I was not able to follow these discussions for 10 days. Which means that trying to get through I delete most of your messages. In those I read I missed the following: A player is entitled to know the agreements of his opponents and at his turn to call may either ask or read. How then is it possible to make this information UI, regardless the way it comes to him? I am not talking about the question whether partner may ask with the purpose to inform you, which is the next step in the discussion. What I don't understand is that the WBFLC apparently does not allow this and its former chairman did agree with these questions. Can Grattan explain this: Edgar ill or playing? I know that Edgar hadn't problems with these questions. I asked him myself once and he said that the laws don't make this distinction. A more practical approach is that no player ever will tell you that he wanted to warn his partner, knowing he is not allowed to. So,let it be, academic-philosophical discussion. What worries me is that all those top-players David asked have another idea. May be a reason to ask Grattan to add this subject to our agenda. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Grattan [mailto:hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk] Verzonden: zondag 21 februari 1999 14:11 Aan: Jan Kamras; blml Onderwerp: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "That reasoning may be commonsense, but it ignores bridge law" and later "what the law demands of an explanation is not good faith; the law demands accuracy. Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation was, therefore, an infraction of law." (Edgar Kaplan, manuscript letter to Mr. Krishnan, October 8th 1989, following an occurrence in the Venice Cup, Perth, 1989) oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > From: Jan Kamras > To: blml > Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > Date: 21 February 1999 07:45 > --------------- \x/ ------------------- > > > Did he write the original language? Is > > his opinion in this regard, after all, essentially worthless? > > Certainly not but, equally certainly, it is not gospel and the only > truth. The game and it's laws has to be bigger than one man (however > great). In no area of life does one man/woman have all the answers so > why should that be the case in bridge, where so few opinions can be > empirically proven? --------------- \x/ ------------------ ++ I think you may read a little between the lines. First that Geoffrey Butler was in the Chair for the 1975 production of the laws; you may be quite sure they were written to mean what satisfied him. In 1981 Edgar was writing for himself and not yet Chairman of WBFLC for several years to come. The 1975 Laws were in force. Somewhere I have exulted upon the triumphant experience if Edgar were ever persuaded against his original judgement of any matter, and even if only subdued into acquiescence. ~Grattan~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 02:56:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:56:07 +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 CAA19425 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:56:01 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-77.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.77]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA61249806 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:57:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D2CE56.79818F28@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:50:46 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CountDown Clock References: <000f01be5f1b$fa8db820$cb307dc2@hlyxzurz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There are two main types of digital clocks- LED and mechanical. A large electronic parts store may stock them or parts for them. Radio Shack may be large enough. Dimensions have a large affect on price. If your interest is a bridge clock most of the manufactured bridge clocks I have seen start at US300, but are mostly a lot higher. If you do it yourself, I would think that it could be less than US150 even at retail. Good luck Roger Pewick Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > > Hi Gang, > > Any ideas on where I might purchase a digital countdown clock? > > Regards, > Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 03:22:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 03:22:23 +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 DAA19516 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 03:22:14 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id AXHa003463 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:14:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:14:52 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/21/99 9:27:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > JApfelbaum wrote: > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >I believe the policy of ACBL ACs at NABCs is to require > unanimous > > >opinion of AC members for an appeal to be declared frivolous. > Seems > > >reasonable. > > > Mis-statement of ACBL policy. Simple majority vote is sufficient. > > Misstatement of ACBL practice. Where are these policies documented, > please? I can't find anything in the ACBL's *Handbook for Appeals > Committees* or ACBL Tech files concerning appeals that states any > such policy. > > All I know comes from the NABC Appeals casebooks, as I replied to > Karen Allison's similar comment. Here is why I believed my > statement accorded with ACBL policy: > > Case 5, Dallas NABC, Rich Colker chairman of the AC, with Bruce > Reeve and John Solodar. Rich wanted to retain the deposit, but "it > took quite some time to recruit even one member to my > viewpoint--thus, no penalty." > > If anyone knows correct AC policy, it surely is Rich Colker, editor > of the casebooks. > > He restated this policy in comments related to case 13, same NABC, > when, again as chairman, he could not get a unanimous vote that the > appeal was without merit: > > "I believe that a Committee needs to be unanimous before issuing a > penalty for an appeal without merit. If even one Committee member > believes that the appeal had merit, then the appellants should not > be held responsible..." > > Now, it could be that this is a decision for the AC chairman to > make, *in the absence of any documented ACBL policy*. It is my > opinion that Rich's belief should become official ACBL policy, > documented please. It makes good sense. Marvin may think it makes good sense. But whether our practice is good or bad, each Director of Appeals may set such policies as they see fit. Last year I made it a policy that such decisions are to be made by the majority. That policy may or may not be continued this year. I made it very clear that if a single member felt differently about imposing an "appeal without merit" penalty, that this member should be listened to and each member of the committee should reexamine their position. But, in the final vote, majority still rules. Each issue in a committee is decided by the majority. And once decided, that issue now becomes the basis of any further votes by the committee. If I don't feel there was a "break in tempo" and the committee has voted that such a break took place, I don't have the right to refuse to adjust a score because I still don't feel that there was a break in tempo. That issue has been settled. For those that feel we shouldn't be making this decision by a majority vote, perhaps they also feel that we shouldn't be making decisions about logical alternatives by a majority vote. After all, the arguement can be made that if 2 members of a committee think that a given bid does not meet our stringent criteria for a logical alternative and 3 members believe that it does, than it does not "fit" the definition of how we determine what is and is not a LA. I'm not sure what the practice is in the rest of the world, but we have never had a problem with the belief that this particular jury must make a determination as to whether a bid meets the criteria of a LA. The presence of a "minority opinion" does not force the committee to go in a particular direction. One other issue which is very valid was raised here. And that is the selection process for committee members. Eric has suggested that it is very policical. That is NOT the case and hasn't been the case for a long while. We frequently will select members who are willing and interested provided they are competent bridge players and willing to learn about the Laws and the underlying principles. We will not add someone who we know might be somewhat radical as far as their expressed viewpoints on the Laws. And one of the saddest things is that much too frequently the better players are just "too busy" to serve and won't give the time necessary to improve the process. My personal belief is that if you're not willing to help, you have no right to complain about the manner in which appeals are handled. To Grattan, we don't always discover the "conscientious objectors" that Karen referred to right away. It is only after many cases that these feelings come out. We don't have the luxury of jury interogation to discover the true feelings for "the death sentence". Once we have identified those feelings, we do everything we can to keep from using that member on certain cases. And the chairman frequently has a good idea about what type of case is about to be dealt with by the committee. Our screeners are quite helpful with that. One more issue on finding a case "without substantial merit": It has always been clear to me that if the Committee has to take any amount of time to determine the correct ruling, a finding that the case lacked merit would be totally inappropriate. Karen put it so well - if everyone has left the room and the committee is sitting there and looking at each other and wondering why they are doing so, that is the classic type of an "appeal lacking merit". And I don't believe that some discussion automatically negates such a finding. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 05:00:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 05:00:41 +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 FAA21911 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 05:00:33 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa21605; 23 Feb 99 9:59 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Misexplanation leads to bad luck In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Feb 1999 02:58:04 PST." Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:59:56 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902230959.aa21605@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > >Here's a question that I think is related to my point in the > >"Misexplanation that describes accurately" thread. It has to do with > >distinguishing when damage is caused by MI or bad luck. I'd like > >opinions on how this hypothetical situation should be ruled. > > > >You and your partner have hands that would normally get to a cold 3NT. > >However, an opponent makes some sort of transfer overcall that they > >fail to alert. Since you think the bid is natural, and your hand > >doesn't hold a stopper in the suit you think they have, you steer the > >hand out of 3NT and end up in 6C. 6C, as it turns out, is a 95% > >contract that is very difficult to reach using standard methods. It's > >a contract that you would definitely want to be in if you could peek > >at both hands, even if you had correct information about the > >overcaller's hand. However, it goes down on a 5-0 trump break. > > > >Does Law 40C apply? Were you damaged by the MI, or by Lady Luck? > > Yes, it applies. I was damaged by the MI. > > How can i tell? Without the MI I would have got a better score: > that's damage. Hmmm, I would have thought the definition of "damage" would be narrower than that. But so far, the vote is 2-0 against me. If this were a court of law, I wonder whether the concepts would apply in the same way. A man goes to work on Monday and is told by his boss, "I'm sorry, but the company hasn't been doing well, so we're going to lay you off." The next day, at about 2 PM, the man drives to the grocery store to pick up some milk, but is hit and killed by another driver in a freak accident. The widow sues the man's former company, reasoning, "If they hadn't laid him off, he would have been working at 2 PM instead of driving to the store. Therefore, they caused his death, and they should pay me damages." Now, in my country, she could probably win damages from a jury, based on the legal theory that "If we feel sorry for someone and the defendant has a lot of money, that's enough reason to award damages to the plaintiff." But assuming that the question is to determine whether the company is responsible for the death, I think the answer is clearly "no", and the woman should not succeed in her lawsuit. The point of all this is: The statement "If X hadn't occurred then Y wouldn't have occurred" does *not* necessarily imply the statement "X caused Y" or "X is responsible for Y". In my hypothetical example, therefore, the statement "If the MI hadn't occurred then we would not have a minus score" does not necessarily imply that "The MI caused us to have a minus score." I think one can make a good case that the definition of "damage" needs to have a more direct connection to the reason why the bad result occurs---or something like that; I'm not sure just how to express this. Of course, there's no inherent reason why the definitions of terms in the bridge Laws must parallel those in civil law. Also, I could be mistaken in thinking the term "damage" in L40C is connected with concepts of "causation" and "responsibility"---although my dictionary defines the verb "damage" as "to *cause* damage to" (emphasis mine). I'm not on a moral crusade to free the offenders from penalties in a case like this; they did break the Law, after all, and it wouldn't bother me if the score were adjusted just on that basis. What bothers me most is that the term "damage" in L40C isn't defined, and it's not at all clear how it should be interpreted. (And no, L12C2 doesn't provide the answer.) IMHO, the Powers That Be should come up with a clear definition for this word and add it to the Laws---or remove the word from 40C altogether. As it is, I believe the meaning of the term depends on which side of the Atlantic you're on; if 6C had gone down not because of a bad trump break but because of a gross error by declarer, there would be an Atlantic-sized difference of opinion about whether the MI did any damage. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 05:20:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 05:20:42 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA21978 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 05:19:27 +1100 Received: from p17s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.24] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10FNch-0000BT-00; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:36:04 +0000 Message-ID: <000201be5f58$52bc8580$188d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:58:05 -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: 23 February 1999 16:32 Subject: RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question >By absence I was not able to follow these discussions for 10 days. Which >means that trying to get through I delete most of your messages. In those I >read I missed the following: >A player is entitled to know the agreements of his opponents and at his turn >to call may either ask or read. How then is it possible to make this >information UI, regardless the way it comes to him? I am not talking about >the question whether partner may ask with the purpose to inform you, which >is the next step in the discussion. What I don't understand is that the >WBFLC apparently does not allow this and its former chairman did agree with >these questions. Can Grattan explain this: Edgar ill or playing? I know that >Edgar hadn't problems with these questions. I asked him myself once and he >said that the laws don't make this distinction. A more practical approach is >that no player ever will tell you that he wanted to warn his partner, >knowing he is not allowed to. So,let it be, academic-philosophical >discussion. What worries me is that all those top-players David asked have >another idea. May be a reason to ask Grattan to add this subject to our >agenda. > >ton +++ Hi ton - welcome back I had already printed off some of these exchanges for my subject matters for the committee. As far as I know it was always the case that the answer to a player's question is AI to his partner too; the question itself may convey UI. But it is also the case that, as reaffirmed in Lille, it is an impropriety to ask a question for the purpose of conveying information to one's partner by way of the opponent's reply. This was the case long before Kaplan entered the laws arena and with Geoffrey Butler in the chair of the WBF International Laws Commission it remained so. When in respect of the1987 laws the WBFLC referred to the impropriety Kaplan did not argue the contrary and was assumed to have acquiesced. Kaplan's 1981 editorial was advocacy in defense of his own behaviour, but it was not an official international interpretation of the law. He had no authority at that time to interpret on behalf of the WBF committee. ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 05:20:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 05:20:54 +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 FAA21992 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 05:20:42 +1100 Received: from p44s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.69] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10FLTs-0006ix-00; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:18:48 +0000 Message-ID: <001801be5f50$00f485c0$458a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Eric Landau" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:09:32 -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: Eric Landau ; Bridge Laws >I agree with your final conclusion that the law requires you >to tell the system, which in this case is misleading. >However, if you follow this, you will on occasion see a >ruling against you. Opponents take a (wrong) conclusion >from your correction, and the director rules you cannot >prove that your system is as you have described. Therefor, >following a separate line of not telling opponents before >the lead, but telling them after the hand would not >contravene my feelings of ethics, and I would not rule >additionally against the player (while of course ruling on >the infraction if there is any damage). ++++ My thinking is not a million miles from this. I am leaning to the view that law amendment should provide that " a player whose call has been explained by partner, or who has himself given such an explanation of his own call when law or regulation requires it, and whose hand corresponds to the explanation given, shall defer any correction of the explanation until the end of the play of the hand if the explanation is not in accord with his agreements. An opponent who has acted upon correct information about the hand shall not be entitled to redress for an inferior score thereby obtained." ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 05:37:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 05:37:04 +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 FAA22062 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 05:36:53 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-77.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.77]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA65535930 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:38:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D2F41F.BAFEE2ED@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:31:59 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 17D References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Issue- the auction period is over L17D does not restrict its application solely to the auction period, it says if 'a' happens then do 'b'. [however, it does not seem right to rebid the hand once the dummy has been exposed.] Issue- L17D refers to 'a call' does that include multiple calls? Multiple calls are a group of single calls. This does seem to be within the purveyance of L17D. So, was an incorrect hand in play during the board? Yes. Did offender make a call? Yes. L17D requires that the call be withdrawn and a substitution be made. Offender to be advised of the UI restrictions. I first attempt to recover by employing a substitute for the auction under L16B2. Intending that enforced play to the first trick be repeated. Also that concurrence to employ a substitute is UI to the offending side. If concurrence is not unanimous then I attempt to repeat the auction with the original players with the correct hands. Also that non concurrence to employ a substitute is UI to the offending side. Note: L7B1 does require inspecting the hand prior to bidding. Was there a subsequent call by LHO? Yes. If all calls in the 'corrected' auction are identical, this is a precondition for allowing continued play of the board. Otherwise an artificial adjusted score is given and a procedural penalty. I am having difficulty locating where in the laws that require the other three players to repeat their calls when offender repeats their call [s]. I merely find in 17D "If offender subsequently repeats the cancelled call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards, the Director may allow that board to be played normally". I would think that 'normally' means that the other players are permitted to make any call they wish without penalty. HOWEVER, there is a footnote " * Offender's LHO must repeat the previous call" - that seems to be misapplied to the sentence about offender's call [it should applied to the sentence about 'play normally']. This foot note seems to need expanding to say that all subsequent calls [excluding the withdrawn call[s]] must be repeated. I am not sure that this foot note is in the ACBL version. I think that it is unworkable without it. In every event, a PP is called for under L90. And if offender does not pass? The case made it plain that the only normal call for the correct hand was pass. To do other than pass is several infractions: UI was present and an improper alternative was chosen. I want to adjust the contract to 6C under L16, but this seems to be in conflict with 17D which calls for an artAS. I believe that L17D overrides because it is by this law that the auction was reopened. Also issue a PP. The change of bid was an intentional infraction and that is an infraction of L72b2 which calls for a DP. < I wonder if the Ps might exceed more than a full board?> The errant hand As far as the other affected board. It seems proper to rule that the three NO players did not play the board of the errant hand but that the offending player did. Therefore L15B is explicit, the second time around is unplayable for the offending player and therefore all players receive artAS. [ I so do want to say that the board is playable; but in fact I know that it is not]. Roger Pewick David Stevenson wrote: > > East picks the cards from a wrong board, passes throughout the auction > and North/South bid a very thin 6C. When dummy hits the table, East > discovers that something is wrong. > > 6C is a poor contract but is unbeatable on the lie of the cards. > > With the correct cards, East still has no reason to bid. > > How do you rule? > > Second question: despite East having no real bid with the correct > cards, if you rule that the auction is repeated he will now stick in an > overcall because he is afraid 6C will make. > > Comments? > > -- > 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 Feb 24 05:38:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 05:38:56 +1100 Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA22078 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 05:38:50 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id QNZWa07792; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:27:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9a2b4489.36d2f302@aol.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:27:14 EST To: gester@globalnet.co.uk, hermandw@village.uunet.be, elandau@cais.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes that he is considering an amendment to read: << " a player whose call has been explained by partner, or who has himself given such an explanation of his own call when law or regulation requires it, and whose hand corresponds to the explanation given, shall defer any correction of the explanation until the end of the play of the hand if the explanation is not in accord with his agreements. An opponent who has acted upon correct information about the hand shall not be entitled to redress for an inferior score thereby obtained." ~Grattan~ ++++ >> I think this makes eminent good sense and I would be four square behind such a modification. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 06:08:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 04:15:37 +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 EAA20093 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 04:14:51 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA28661 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:14:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902231714.JAA28661@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Procedure for Law 81B2 violation? Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:13:46 -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 Of course LHO must also do the sporting thing and bid 3S in response to 2H. Maybe that's too much to expect. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > Bruce J. Moore wrote: > > - Greetings, > > > > My partner and I had an unsettling experience at the club > > recently. This occurred at an ACBL-sanctioned game. > > > > The auction began as follows: > > > > S W N E > > P 2N P 2H(1) > > > > West announced "transfer" as partner and I called for the > > director. East attempted to substitute 3H, but we suggested he > wait > > until the director arrived. > > > > The director asked partner if he wished to accept the call. > > He did not. > > It seems to me that accepting the call would have been the sporting > thing to do, since 3H has practically the same meaning as 2H. > Perhaps L27B2 should offer some leeway when a barely sufficient > conventional bid in the same strain has the same meaning as the > insufficient bid, but L27 is complicated enough as it is. When a TD > cannot legally do the obviously fair thing, why not do it for her > if you can? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 06:12:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:12:21 +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 GAA22184 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:12:14 +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 OAA10614 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:12:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:12:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902231912.OAA01276@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <001801be5f50$00f485c0$458a93c3@pacific> (gester@globalnet.co.uk) Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes: > ++++ My thinking is not a million miles from this. I am leaning > to the view that law amendment should provide that > " a player whose call has been explained by partner, or who has > himself given such an explanation of his own call when law or > regulation requires it, and whose hand corresponds to the > explanation given, shall defer any correction of the explanation > until the end of the play of the hand if the explanation is not in > accord with his agreements. An opponent who has acted upon > correct information about the hand shall not be entitled to > redress for an inferior score thereby obtained." ~Grattan~ ++++ One question: what happens if the explanation is partially in accord with your agreements? For example, suppose that you open 1NT in third seat, which partner explains as "11-13". However, in third and fourth seat, you play this as 13-15. You actually hold a 13 count. Should you correct at the end of the bidding? What if your opponents play different defenses against 11-13 and 13-15 notrumps? -- 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 Feb 24 06:14:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:14:35 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [12.15.134.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA22202 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:14:29 +1100 Received: from REW(rew[10.2.1.47]) (2172 bytes) by azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:smtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:14:21 -0500 (EST) (Smail-3.2.0.104 1998-Nov-20 #1 built 1998-Dec-3) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:14:07 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE5F36.C69B6CE0.richard.willey@azure-tech.com> From: Richard Willey Reply-To: "richard.willey@azure-tech.com" To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:14:06 -0500 Organization: GN Nettest X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 44 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes that he is considering an amendment to read: << " a player whose call has been explained by partner, or who has himself given such an explanation of his own call when law or regulation requires it, and whose hand corresponds to the explanation given, shall defer any correction of the explanation until the end of the play of the hand if the explanation is not in accord with his agreements. An opponent who has acted upon correct information about the hand shall not be entitled to redress for an inferior score thereby obtained." ~Grattan~ ++++ >> The amendment that Grattan proposes has the virtue of defining a Law in an area where the existing Laws are somewhat murky. However, I do not agree with the prescription that is being offered. Consider the following Let X be a set of hand types Let Y be a subset of X Player one has a hand of type Y Player one makes a bid showing hand type X The partnership agreement is that the bid means X Player one's partner alerts, and when asked the meaning of the alert, he states that the bid shows hand type Y Bidding continues. Player one declares the hand. I think that the most equitable way to handle this case of mistaken explanation is to alert exactly what happened. Player one should provide a precise definition of the facts of the case. Partner alerted Y I happen to hold Y However, our actual agreement is X I can not see how this could be of any harm to the non-offending side. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 06:39:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:39:11 +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 GAA22245 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:38:58 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA02228; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:37:31 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-05.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.37) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma002195; Tue Feb 23 13:37:06 1999 Received: by har-pa1-05.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE5F39.E235BDE0@har-pa1-05.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:36:22 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE5F39.E235BDE0@har-pa1-05.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "elandau@cais.com" , "'KRAllison@aol.com'" Subject: RE: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:23:12 -0500 Encoding: 44 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This policy change then needs to be changed! Committee members who on "principle" will vote contrary to their belief on whether an appeal has merit have no place on an A/C and ought to be excluded from participating. What other votes will they make on "principle" concerning a law, regulation or interpretation they don't like? It is quite unfair to penalise the appellant because some allegedly "principled" airhead MIGHT vote out of stubbornness (oops I mean principle) rather that sincere belief and judgement. What ever led to this cop out policy? An appeal either has merit or does not. Playing ACBL politics is wholly inappropriate within an A/C and should itself be a C&E matter for the committeeperson involved. Now that directors will be A/C's I would hope they would be strongly ordered by the authorities to rule correctly and not politically. --- Craig ---------- From: KRAllison@aol.com[SMTP:KRAllison@aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 9:35 AM To: elandau@cais.com; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Eric Landau writes: << Unbelievable! Until I read this, I would have assumed that the reason the requirement for unanimity Marv cites was not well documented was that it is so self-evident that it was unnecessary that it be formally stated. >> The reason for the policy change was that there were AC members who, while they agreed that certain appeals were without merit, voted against the penalty on "principle." Therefore it was felt that a policy of "majority rules" would allow those members to vote their principles while still achieving the result of penalizing appeals without merit which are certainly an abuse of the Appeals system, not to mention an abuse of AC members. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 06:47:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:47:48 +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 GAA22283 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:47:41 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.4] by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10FNnt-0007Zj-00; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:47:38 +0000 Message-ID: <199902231947260650.04771487@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C138@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C138@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:47:26 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 23/02/99, at 16:52, Kooijman, A. wrote: >A player is entitled to know the agreements of his opponents and at his turn >to call may either ask or read. How then is it possible to make this >information UI, regardless the way it comes to him? To make the matter as blatant as possible: suppose my LHO opens 1D and my partner says: "That could be a two-card suit, partner" before overcalling 2D (our agreement being that this is natural, while 2D over a potential three-card suit would be Michaels. He does this because he knows that I have forgotten this agreement the last two times the situation has come up. As I understand the majority position, while my partner's action is (of course) illegal, the information that he has conveyed to me is AI. Difficult though I find this position to be in theory, I am now trying to understand how it will work in practice, rather than to furnish more theoretical arguments against it. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 06:48:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:48:09 +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 GAA22291 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:47:59 +1100 Received: from ip119.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.119]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990223194751.NBKU8569.fep4@ip119.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:47:51 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:47:50 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36eb04be.9168914@post12.tele.dk> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C138@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C138@fdwag002s.fd.agro.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, 23 Feb 1999 16:52:33 +0100, "Kooijman, A." wrote: >What worries me is that all those top-players David asked have >another idea. That also worries me a little (but not enough to make me doubt my point of view). I'd like to know David B's opinion about whether these top players had understood the problem properly: i.e., had they realized that the information in question was knowledge about the opponents' system and that they should consider that this might be a different situation from the more usual one where you forget your own system and later realize it? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 06:48:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:48:27 +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 GAA22310 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:48:11 +1100 Received: from ip119.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.119]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990223194804.NBLN8569.fep4@ip119.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:48:04 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:48:02 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36ed0522.9268357@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 23 Feb 99 09:00 GMT0, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: >In-Reply-To: <36d6c5a9.5680488@post12.tele.dk> >Jesper wrote: >>=20 >> Agreed. The difference from the earlier thread is that here N >> learns about his own system from the response; in the other >> thread he only learned about the opponents' system. IMO that >> makes the difference between UI and AI. > >At this point, as the player in question, I leave the table never to=20 >return. While I could at least understand the concept that an answer to=20 >partner's question was UI I can't cope with "The information about=20 >opponent's bidding system is AI but you are restricted in how you make = use=20 >of it". Nobody has suggested any such thing. You are not restricted in how you make use of AI. Any information about your _opponents'_ system that you get from an opponents' answer to a question is AI and can be used freely. Any information about your _own_ system that you get (or can deduce) from an opponents' answer to a question is UI. In addition, of course, there is the general principle that information that you have as AI remains AI even if you later receive the same information in a way that would make it UI if you did not already know it. Quite often you already know your system: that is AI, and it does not become UI just because somebody also tells you that your system is as you already knew. > Does this strange principle apply if it is me who asked the=20 >question? What about the auction 1N-(p)-2H-(d) (explained as TO of=20 >spades) - am I suddenly required to forget that I am playing transfers. No, it is still AI if you've known all along. But if you had forgotten that you were playing transfers and were trying to sign off in hearts (or, for the truly ethical, were about to pass partner's 2H in the belief that it was a sign off), then the information that you are playing transfers is IMO UI. So you are not "suddenly required to forget" - but if you had originally forgotten, then you are required to not suddenly remember . >Sometimes you will make a mistaken bid and opponents' subsequent actions= =20 >will make it obvious that you have done so. Maybe you can capitalise on= =20 >this bit luck, maybe you can't - that's life. That is often the case, but if the mistake was misremembering your own system and the "action" that made it obvious to you was an opponents' reply to your partner's (or your own) question, then IMO it is UI. If it were AI, then we would have the problematic situation that if you cannot remember your system, then you should try interviewing the opponents about their calls in the hope that the answer might tell you or imply something about your own system. I would not like that. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 06:48:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:48:30 +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 GAA22312 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:48:14 +1100 Received: from ip119.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.119]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990223194757.NBLD8569.fep4@ip119.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:47:57 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:47:56 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36ec04ff.9233166@post12.tele.dk> References: <36d317e6.4430340@post12.tele.dk> <36D0438B.4D4C424C@village.uunet.be> <36d6c5a9.5680488@post12.tele.dk> <36D27C2F.BC27807F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36D27C2F.BC27807F@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, 23 Feb 1999 11:00:15 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> Agreed. The difference from the earlier thread is that here N >> learns about his own system from the response; in the other >> thread he only learned about the opponents' system. IMO that >> makes the difference between UI and AI. > >That may be a significant difference. You would suggest >that in both cases, when becoming defender, the player has >the AI about opponents' system, which he can use in the >play. That may be a further point of discussion. > >But the original case was different. Not only did the >player learn through the response that he was mistaken about >his opponent's system, but also that he had misbid. >In this second case too, the player has learnt that he has >misbid. Yes, but the misbids are very different. In the first case, he misbids because he does not know the opponents' system. When he does find out the opponents' system, he is IMO free to bid as he wants to repair the damage. This is consistent, as long as you accept (as I do but Herman does not) that knowledge of opponents' system is always AI, because it is knowledge that all players are allowed to have without having to remember it. In the second case, he has misbid because he has forgotten his own system. This is really his mistake, and the answer to partner's question should not be allowed to save him. His own system is knowledge that he himself is responsible for remembering. >If we allow him only the "complete knowledge of opponent's >system", not the specific knowledge of that part of the >system that interests his partner", in neither case will he >be awakened to his own mistake. In the first case, he would never have made the mistake at all if he had that complete knowledge. In the second case, he would have made the mistake. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 06:48:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:48:36 +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 GAA22318 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:48:17 +1100 Received: from ip119.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.119]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990223194810.NBMA8569.fep4@ip119.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:48:10 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:48:08 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36ee0555.9319660@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990222165402.007160e0@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990222165402.007160e0@pop.cais.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:54:02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >The correct ruling by the book is that the 10 must be played. L45C4(a). Yes. >The correct ruling at the table is something along the lines of (looking= E >in the eye), "Look here, we all know what he meant. If you insist on >forcing him to play the 10 under your K, you will win the trick, but you >will no longer be welcome at the club." I disagree with that. Calling for the 10 too early is a way of playing badly, just like miscounting trumps. Just like other bridge mistakes, it gives the opponents a chance for a good result. Bridge is a game of mistakes, and the TD should not in any way suggest that it is improper to take advantage of an opponents' mistake. At other tables, the same may happen - but if the declarers at those other tables know the law, it will never occur to them to try to change their play or to ask the TD to do it for them. Why should they get a worse score than the one who does not know the law? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 06:48:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:48:41 +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 GAA22338 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:48:31 +1100 Received: from ip119.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.119]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990223194816.NBMI8569.fep4@ip119.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:48:16 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Procedure for Law 81B2 violation? Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:48:14 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36ef0573.9349704@post12.tele.dk> References: <199902230905.BAA01642@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199902230905.BAA01642@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, 23 Feb 1999 01:05:29 -0800, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >It seems to me that accepting the call would have been the sporting >thing to do, since 3H has practically the same meaning as 2H. Let me repeat what I've just written in another thread: bridge is a game of mistakes. When you make a mistake, whether by miscounting a suit or bidding insufficiently, it is perfectly sporting of opponents to do what they can to profit from your mistake. >When a TD >cannot legally do the obviously fair thing, why not do it for her >if you can? The concept of "fairness" of a game cannot really mean anything other than following the letter and intention of its rules. Under the rules of bridge, it is "obviously fair" to benefit from opponents' mistakes, including irregularities. Under other rules, such as what you might call "relaxed rules of bridge for use by beginners", your solution (and the TD's solution) is fine. But when the game is "real bridge", follow the book. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 06:48:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:48:51 +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 GAA22344 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:48:38 +1100 Received: from ip119.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.119]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990223194822.NBMU8569.fep4@ip119.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:48:22 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [Fwd: The new regime] Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:48:21 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36f005a2.9396080@post12.tele.dk> References: <36D2783A.BB044815@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36D2783A.BB044815@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 >Herman De Wael wrote: >> Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> > As I wrote earlier, I consider (b), (c), and (d) equivalent, and >> > UI. Not much disagreement here. (a) is completely different. >>=20 >> It is only different in that it has not yet included an >> explanation of the 3Di bid that follows. Nobody knows that there will be an explanation of 3D (depending on the timing, there may not even be a 3D bid yet). >> Once that too >> happens, it falls exactly within bcd or e.=20 >> If there is no >> subsequent problem, I agree with you that the remark may be >> considered AI (of a very fortunate sort). If I have information as AI, it remains AI no matter how I receive that same information again. A "subsequent problem" cannot turn AI into UI. If I know my system perfectly (AI), then my system does not suddenly become UI because I later get it confirmed by opponents' (or partner's) explanation. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 06:52:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:52:02 +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 GAA22395 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:51:55 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa28124; 23 Feb 99 11:51 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:12:07 PST." <199902231912.OAA01276@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:51:13 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902231151.aa28124@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner writes: > Grattan Endicott writes: > > > ++++ My thinking is not a million miles from this. I am leaning > > to the view that law amendment should provide that > > > " a player whose call has been explained by partner, or who has > > himself given such an explanation of his own call when law or > > regulation requires it, and whose hand corresponds to the > > explanation given, shall defer any correction of the explanation > > until the end of the play of the hand if the explanation is not in > > accord with his agreements. An opponent who has acted upon > > correct information about the hand shall not be entitled to > > redress for an inferior score thereby obtained." ~Grattan~ ++++ > > One question: what happens if the explanation is partially in accord > with your agreements? > > For example, suppose that you open 1NT in third seat, which partner > explains as "11-13". However, in third and fourth seat, you play this > as 13-15. You actually hold a 13 count. Should you correct at the end > of the bidding? Hmmm . . . would this depend on the rest of the auction? If it goes 1NT-3NT, the opponents don't have any inaccurate information about your hand. If it went 1NT-2NT-pass, though, they would have misinformation, since the opponents would assume you have 11 to a bad 12. So I think that here, even though your hand technically accords with the explanation given, it *doesn't* accord with the "implied" explanation which would be derived from the actual explanation given plus from inferences reasonably derived from the rest of the auction. I think the wording in Grattan's proposed amendment covers this case, as long as it's interpreted properly. I also think the "proper" interpretation needs to be put somewhere, such as in a footnote. However, even the 1NT-3NT case still causes problems. Of course, the opponents now can't make any implied inferences about your hand, as they do in the 1NT-2NT case. They've been led to believe that you hold 11-13, and you actually hold 13, so it seems like their misbelief wouldn't cause any problems . . . EXCEPT that the misinformation does change the relative probabilities. As I understand it, the most likely HCP holding for any hand, _a priori_, is 10, and the probabilities get smaller the further away you get from 10. (This is an oversimplification.) So if the opponents believe your range is 11-13, they may defend on the assumption that your having 11 HCP is more likely than having 13; and if this leads to misdefense, I'd consider the opponents to be damaged by the misinformation. Here, I think that the above amendment should not apply. I think this proposal makes sense only if the misexplanation describes a set of possible hands that is a PROPER SUBSET of the set of hands described by the actual agreement. If that's the case, the problems I described in the previous two paragraphs shouldn't occur. So, for example: 1NT-2C-2D-2NT-pass. There is a failure to alert, misleading the opponents into thinking responder promises a 4-card major. Here, the "mistaken explanation" describes a set of balanced invitational hands with at least one 4-card major, and this is a proper subset of the actual agreement, balanced invitational hands with or without a 4-card major, so the proposed amendment wouldn't cause any problem. > What if your opponents play different defenses against 11-13 and 13-15 > notrumps? If you mean different *carding*, I've never seen this sort of thing in practice---it seems too remote to worry about. (Famous last words.) As for different defensive bidding, by the time the current Laws require the explanation to be corrected, it's ALREADY too late, so from that standpoint it wouldn't matter if the correction were deferred to the end of the hand. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 06:53:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:53:24 +1100 Received: from mail1.gte.net (mail1.gte.net [207.115.153.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA22413 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:53:17 +1100 Received: from pavilion (1Cust77.tnt1.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [208.255.105.77]) by mail1.gte.net with SMTP id NAA12812 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:54:42 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <004901be5f63$aeb12ac0$4d69ffd0@pavilion> From: "mike dodson" To: Subject: Re: CountDown Clock Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:35:28 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -From: Fearghal O'Boyle >Hi Gang, > >Any ideas on where I might purchase a digital countdown clock? > >Regards, >Fearghal. > Its a good use for an old computer, one that's no longer of use for anything else makes the price right. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 07:01:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:01:59 +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 HAA22440 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:01:53 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-26.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.26]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA65902366 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:03:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D3080B.5A9D7841@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:56:59 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <001801be5f50$00f485c0$458a93c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I can not agree that it is a good idea to conceal MI any longer than necessary. I see too much resulting injustice; and not enough benefit except to the offenders. Roger Pewick Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > "Wrong must not win by technicalities" - > (Aeschylus, 458 B.C.) > ******************************************************************* > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Eric Landau ; Bridge Laws > > >I agree with your final conclusion that the law requires you > >to tell the system, which in this case is misleading. > >However, if you follow this, you will on occasion see a > >ruling against you. Opponents take a (wrong) conclusion > >from your correction, and the director rules you cannot > >prove that your system is as you have described. Therefor, > >following a separate line of not telling opponents before > >the lead, but telling them after the hand would not > >contravene my feelings of ethics, and I would not rule > >additionally against the player (while of course ruling on > >the infraction if there is any damage). > > ++++ My thinking is not a million miles from this. I am leaning > to the view that law amendment should provide that > > " a player whose call has been explained by partner, or who has > himself given such an explanation of his own call when law or > regulation requires it, and whose hand corresponds to the > explanation given, shall defer any correction of the explanation > until the end of the play of the hand if the explanation is not in > accord with his agreements. An opponent who has acted upon > correct information about the hand shall not be entitled to > redress for an inferior score thereby obtained." ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 07:06:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:06:15 +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 HAA22456 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:06:09 +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 <19990223200601.VRUS23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:06:01 -0800 Message-ID: <36D30B15.18DD243@home.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:09:57 -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 claim? References: <36D1C7C2.35A7A33B@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [JK] > I wish someone can find a way > >to rule this as an "irrational claim" situation! [DS] > Why? If someone wants to act like a total prat, why should we find > a way to save him? > Because I assumed (maybe incorrectly) from the original posting that the "offender" was quite innocent and without bad intent. If this was more of a "bullying" attempt, maybe by a more experienced player, then I too have no compassion. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 07:06:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:06:37 +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 HAA22470 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:06:29 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.4] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10FO5g-0006yV-00; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:06:00 +0000 Message-ID: <199902232006110200.04883DDE@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <9902230959.aa21605@flash.irvine.com> References: <9902230959.aa21605@flash.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:06:11 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misexplanation leads to bad luck Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 23/02/99, at 09:59, Adam Beneschan wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Adam Beneschan wrote: >> > >> >Here's a question that I think is related to my point in the >> >"Misexplanation that describes accurately" thread. It has to do with >> >distinguishing when damage is caused by MI or bad luck. I'd like >> >opinions on how this hypothetical situation should be ruled. >> > >> >You and your partner have hands that would normally get to a cold 3NT. >> >However, an opponent makes some sort of transfer overcall that they >> >fail to alert. Since you think the bid is natural, and your hand >> >doesn't hold a stopper in the suit you think they have, you steer the >> >hand out of 3NT and end up in 6C. 6C, as it turns out, is a 95% >> >contract that is very difficult to reach using standard methods. It's >> >a contract that you would definitely want to be in if you could peek >> >at both hands, even if you had correct information about the >> >overcaller's hand. However, it goes down on a 5-0 trump break. >> > >> >Does Law 40C apply? Were you damaged by the MI, or by Lady Luck? >> >> Yes, it applies. I was damaged by the MI. >> >> How can I tell? Without the MI I would have got a better score: >> that's damage. > >Hmmm, I would have thought the definition of "damage" would be >narrower than that. But so far, the vote is 2-0 against me. If there is going to be a vote, Adam, you can count me on your side (though you may not want to, since this is normally regarded as the kiss of death to anybody's argument). I think that a better working definition of "damage" would be: something that leads directly to loss of equity (rather than something that leads indirectly to a poor result because of some factor wholly unconnected with the nature of the infraction). If we apply this to the case above, your equity in the board absent the MI was the score for 3NT, presumably an average result. As a result of the MI, your equity has now actually increased to the score for 6C - 95% of a top, 5% of a bottom. Hence, the MI has not caused damage - indeed, it has caused whatever the opposite of damage might be. In other cases which have been discussed on this list, this definition would go some way towards removing the difficulties we have encountered. The enemy use UI to reach a poor contract which will fail on normal (or even inferior) defence. Thus, your equity in the board has increased as a result of the infraction, so there is no damage arising therefrom. When you misdefend absurdly and allow the contract to make, then, you do not have any redress. I do not believe that such a definition of "damage" is inconsistent with the Laws. However, I am aware that it is not easy to persuade others of a contrary view to adopt it. DWS's argument: "if they hadn't offended, we'd have been plus 630; they did and now we're minus 100; so we were damaged by their infraction" has a great deal of superficial attraction for the average player (and even for the above-average tournament director). Moreover, the concept of "loss of equity" would not be easy to define within the Laws, and would certainly not be easy to implement in a country where someone who drives a car with a cup of coffee on his lap, and has an accident when the coffee spills and scalds him, can sue the company who supplied him with the cup of coffee - and win! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 07:27:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:27:14 +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 HAA22534 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:27:02 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA01813 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:26:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:26:47 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: <199902231947260650.04771487@mail.btinternet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > On 23/02/99, at 16:52, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >A player is entitled to know the agreements of his opponents and at > his turn > >to call may either ask or read. How then is it possible to make this > >information UI, regardless the way it comes to him? > > To make the matter as blatant as possible: suppose my LHO opens 1D and > my partner says: "That could be a two-card suit, partner" before > overcalling 2D (our agreement being that this is natural, while 2D over > a potential three-card suit would be Michaels. He does this because he > knows that I have forgotten this agreement the last two times the > situation has come up. > > As I understand the majority position, while my partner's action is (of > course) illegal, the information that he has conveyed to me is AI. > Difficult though I find this position to be in theory, I am now trying > to understand how it will work in practice, rather than to furnish more > theoretical arguments against it. > I would allow it as AI, but the partnership would get a hefty procedural penalty or partner would be shot after the session. Depends on the local gun laws. We haven't had a Bennett style case in the last 50 years. -- 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 Wed Feb 24 07:42:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:42:34 +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 HAA22586 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:42:18 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA10794 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:41:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-05.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.37) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010767; Tue Feb 23 14:41:07 1999 Received: by har-pa1-05.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE5F42.D4788120@har-pa1-05.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:40:25 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE5F42.D4788120@har-pa1-05.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Misexplanation leads to bad luck Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:34:55 -0500 Encoding: 13 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If we are taking a headcount, I think an Occam's razor approach is called for. Damage in an MI case means getting a poorer result than would have been the case otherwise without committing any egregious error to bring about the poor result yourself. There is no need to complicate the matter. This appears to be an open and shut case. Adjust to 3N making whatever. (And yes, if the 6C makes somehow, result stands.) Wtp? Craig ---------- From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] If there is going to be a vote, Adam, you can count me on your side ... From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 07:52:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:52:10 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA22621 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:52:02 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA00293 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:51:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id PAA13369 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:51:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:51:58 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902232051.PAA13369@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > Any information about your _opponents'_ system that you get from > an opponents' answer to a question is AI and can be used freely. > > Any information about your _own_ system that you get (or can > deduce) from an opponents' answer to a question is UI. Thank you, Jesper, for producing a distinction that seems workable. That doesn't, alas, mean it is also desirable. > No, it is still AI if you've known all along. And this is the mind reading that some of us find so troubling. Is the alternative, although perhaps unfamiliar, really so bad? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 08:05:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:05:10 +1100 Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA22653 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:05:04 +1100 Received: from salsa (salsa.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.112]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA13802 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:05:00 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990224100540.0094ad00@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:05:40 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Incorrect board played (idle curiosity) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why is it that the Laws are so reticent about prescribing how the "artificial adjusted scores" arising from an incorrectly played board are to be distributed? I'm coming to the opinion that it's because "circumstances alter cases" but perhaps others have different views? To make things clear, in one typical situation (in a pairs game) there are four pairs involved: Abel and Baker play board 17 or bid it sufficiently to make it subsequently unplayable (by Abel), when Baker have played it previously and Abel were due to play it later against Charlie. The board was passed to the table by Delta (alternatively, taken from a relay stand, delivered by the director ...) As far as I can see the laws are unambiguous only about the treatment of Charlie (average plus) and Baker (original result). Is there a consensus about how to treat the others? In particular is anyone out there prepared generally to issue some sort of a penalty to Abel and Baker? The relevant laws (there may be others): 15B. One or More Players Have Previously Played Board If any player plays a board he has previously played, with the correct opponents or otherwise, his second score on the board is cancelled both for his side and his opponents, and the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score. 15C. Discovered during Auction If, during the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated and that they are informed of their rights both now and at future rounds. A second auction begins. Players must repeat calls they made previously. If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction, the Director shall cancel the board. Otherwise, play continues normally. Law 12C1: When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. ------------ Law 7D Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table. ------------ --------------------------------------------------------- Michael H. Albert Ph: (64)-03-479-7778 Senior Teaching Fellow Fax: (64)-03-479-8427 Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 08:54:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:54:29 +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 IAA22779 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:54:23 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.4] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10FPmA-0003Vm-00; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:53:58 +0000 Message-ID: <199902232154090060.04EB19EF@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <36ed0522.9268357@post12.tele.dk> References: <36ed0522.9268357@post12.tele.dk> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:54:09 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 23/02/99, at 20:48, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Tue, 23 Feb 99 09:00 GMT0, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim >West-meads) wrote: > >>In-Reply-To: <36d6c5a9.5680488@post12.tele.dk> >>Jesper wrote: >>> >>> Agreed. The difference from the earlier thread is that here N >>> learns about his own system from the response; in the other >>> thread he only learned about the opponents' system. IMO that >>> makes the difference between UI and AI. This is not quite clear to me (and, from Tim's post and Herman's, I suspect that it is not quite clear to them either). In the original case, the South player bid 2H over a 2D opening that he thought was Flannery, so his "system" was that 2H was takeout of hearts. As a result of an answer by an opponent to a question from partner, it became clear that the 2D opening was in fact Roman, over which his "system" was that 2H was natural. In the later case, the South player made a bid that he thought showed hearts and a minor, though his system was that it showed hearts and diamonds. As a result of an answer by an opponent to a question from partner, it became clear that he had in fact shown hearts and diamonds when he actually held hearts and clubs. It seems to me that in both cases, it is possible to argue that the player had "learned about his own system" from the explanation given by an opponent to his partner. One might argue that in the former case, the subsequent developments would cause him to obtain the necessary information by authorised means, while in the latter case they would not. However, I regard the matter of "subsequent developments" as secondary; the primary question is whether or not a player may legitimately be alerted to his own misbid as a result of a (legal) question from his partner and an opponent's (legal) reply to that question. >Any information about your _opponents'_ system that you get from >an opponents' answer to a question is AI and can be used freely. > >Any information about your _own_ system that you get (or can >deduce) from an opponents' answer to a question is UI. That seems OK as a principle, but the cases we are discussing have revealed a (potential) flaw. I should stress, perhaps, that both cases are from actual play - this is not a case of unlikely positions being invented in order to invalidate a principle that will work in the majority of cases. My point of view would be that in both cases, the player has received information about his own system: in the latter case, this is obvious; in the former, the information that he has received ("or can deduce") is that "over the 2D opening played by this pair, we use 2H as natural" (contrary to his belief when he bid 2H). >In addition, of course, there is the general principle that >information that you have as AI remains AI even if you later >receive the same information in a way that would make it UI if >you did not already know it. Quite often you already know your >system: that is AI, and it does not become UI just because >somebody also tells you that your system is as you already knew. I have no difficulty with this at all. >> Does this strange principle apply if it is me who asked the >>question? What about the auction 1N-(p)-2H-(d) (explained as TO of >>spades) - am I suddenly required to forget that I am playing transfers. > >No, it is still AI if you've known all along. But if you had >forgotten that you were playing transfers and were trying to sign >off in hearts (or, for the truly ethical, were about to pass >partner's 2H in the belief that it was a sign off), then the >information that you are playing transfers is IMO UI. > >So you are not "suddenly required to forget" - but if you had >originally forgotten, then you are required to not suddenly >remember. Well, in the original case, the player had (in effect) "forgotten" that over a 2D opening by the player on his right, his 2H overcall showed hearts. Is he now "required to not suddenly remember"? >>Sometimes you will make a mistaken bid and opponents' subsequent actions >>will make it obvious that you have done so. Maybe you can capitalise on >>this bit luck, maybe you can't - that's life. Indeed. But when the "subsequent actions" include not a call or play by an opponent, but an explanation to partner, may you still regard this as a "bit of luck" on which you can now capitalise? >That is often the case, but if the mistake was misremembering >your own system and the "action" that made it obvious to you was >an opponents' reply to your partner's (or your own) question, >then IMO it is UI. Quite so. Perhaps, as Herman suggested, the three of us are in agreement after all! >If it were AI, then we would have the problematic situation that >if you cannot remember your system, then you should try >interviewing the opponents about their calls in the hope that the >answer might tell you or imply something about your own system. >I would not like that. Neither would I. Still less would I like it if partner were permitted to conduct the interview on my behalf! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 09:49:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:49:03 +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 JAA22941 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:48:55 +1100 Received: from modem66.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.194] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10FQdE-0001V8-00; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:48:49 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , , Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:47:11 -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 "No player should ever ask for a review of the auction, or for an explanation, in order to ensure that partner has understood correctly; this is a deliberate use of an unauthorized channel of communication (see Law 73B1) and is grossly improper." (statement authorized by the European Bridge League 1992). 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 ---------- > From: KRAllison@aol.com > To: hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk; elandau@cais.com; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought > Date: 23 February 1999 15:37 > > Grattan Endicott writes: > > << Oh, Karen, what a sorry state you > are in if you are so short of AC members that you have to appoint committee > members who, when acting as such, set their own beliefs above their duty to > the game. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ >> > > The really sad news is that if you knew who they were you would most likely > think they are among our best and brightest committee members. And we did > restrict their work on committees as a result. > ++++ Well, yes, Karen, I do understand. The great pity is that such eminent people cannot see their duty to set aside their personal beliefs whilst applying the laws entrusted to them. But I think I should refrain from naming those ACBL members for whom I have the highest regard in ACs; they might just be embarrassed, and my experience is limited to the small field encountered internationally. [I presume it would not happen that a judge would be appointed to a State case which might involve a death penalty if that judge held a, wholly proper, conviction that would lead to a refusal to pass sentence of death?] ~Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 10:23:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:23:28 +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 KAA23031 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:23:21 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa11631; 23 Feb 99 15:22 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:47:11 PST." Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:22:41 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902231522.aa11631@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > [I presume it would not happen that a judge would be appointed to a > State case which might involve a death penalty if that judge held a, wholly > proper, conviction that would lead to a refusal to pass sentence of > death?] Where I live, it's usually up to a jury, chosen at random from the voter registration rolls, to decide whether to impose the death penalty; and jurors can be excluded from a jury in such a case if they are personally opposed to the death penalty. So your presumption is approximately correct. At least that's how I think it is. However, I should be careful about making pronouncements about the law when everything I know about it comes from John Grisham novels. :) I don't really know whether personal convictions about the death penalty play a part in assigning judges to cases. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 11:58:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:58:18 +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 LAA23273 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:58:05 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.66] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10FSeN-0000R8-00; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:58:08 +0000 Message-ID: <199902240057500520.05934D04@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <9902231522.aa11631@flash.irvine.com> References: <9902231522.aa11631@flash.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:57:50 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 23/02/99, at 15:22, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Grattan wrote: > >> [I presume it would not happen that a judge would be appointed to a >> State case which might involve a death penalty if that judge held a, wholly >> proper, conviction that would lead to a refusal to pass sentence of >> death?] > >Where I live, it's usually up to a jury, chosen at random from the >voter registration rolls, to decide whether to impose the death >penalty; and jurors can be excluded from a jury in such a case if they >are personally opposed to the death penalty. So your presumption is >approximately correct. > >At least that's how I think it is. However, I should be careful about >making pronouncements about the law when everything I know about it >comes from John Grisham novels. :) > >I don't really know whether personal convictions about the death >penalty play a part in assigning judges to cases. This is, perhaps, a much wider issue. But I would have thought that, in a bridge context at least, one's personal convictions should not matter in the slightest - one's job, as a TD or AC member, is to implement the Laws as they are written, not as one would like them to be. (That is why, in case you hadn't noticed, I am having difficulty with the majority verdict on BLML in the UI/AI case.) I hope that judges in civil or criminal cases would act in the same way also - if they can't, then they are not (in my view) capable of carrying out the duties they have undertaken. This is, of course, a purely theoretical statement that is easy to make from, as Terence Reese put it, "the over-stuffed armchair". In practice, it's not so easy, because no individual ever really knows how they (rotten grammar, but 10/10 for PC) will react when push comes to shove. I'm not in any way qualified to comment on the wider issues, but even in a bridge context, there arise many conflicts between one's personal view and the "official" position. Last night. I led a card that RHO (an indifferent player) ruffed in dummy and underruffed (instead of following) in his hand. It made no difference, and I did not even notice, for the result of the deal was a foregone conclusion and I had mentally returned my cards to the wallet with four tricks to play. But partner noticed, and partner was the man whose duty it was to fill in the travelling score slip. There was an extremely uncomfortable silence. LHO was a professional player, a very good and scrupulously ethical one, and a regular drinking companion of both myself and partner. This meant that the difference between 2D making and 2D one down (about an 80% swing in terms of match points) meant far more to his client (and therefore to him) than it did to us. At the end of the pause, partner (who thinks that the revoke law is bonkers anyway) scored the board as if the revoke had not occurred. I made no protest. Should I have done? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 11:58:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:58:24 +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 LAA23278 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:58:15 +1100 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-158-53.lsan.grid.net [207.205.158.53]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA27447; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:58:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D34EB9.6FBBCB31@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:58:33 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" Organization: I Can't Believe It's a Law Firm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Beneschan CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: OT: Death penalty in U.S. References: <9902231522.aa11631@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Grattan wrote: > > > [I presume it would not happen that a judge would be appointed to a > > State case which might involve a death penalty if that judge held a, wholly > > proper, conviction that would lead to a refusal to pass sentence of > > death?] > > Where I live, it's usually up to a jury, chosen at random from the > voter registration rolls, to decide whether to impose the death > penalty; Partly wrong. The judge can overrule the jury to deny (but not impose) the death penalty. The jury also must find certain facts. and jurors can be excluded from a jury in such a case if they > are personally opposed to the death penalty. Wrong. Jurors can be excluded if their personal views will forbid them from imposing the death penalty. Big difference. Brief on-topic digression: If I believe in Protecting The Field rather than Enforcing UI is good policy, I ought to be eligible for a committee. If I believe in it, and desire to enforce it contrary to law, I ought not. So your presumption is > approximately correct. No, Grattan is entirely correct. A judge must recuse himself if he cannot pass the appropriate sentence. (Back to family court...) > > At least that's how I think it is. However, I should be careful about > making pronouncements about the law when everything I know about it > comes from John Grisham novels. :) Right! That's one! > > I don't really know whether personal convictions about the death > penalty play a part in assigning judges to cases. Not typically. The vast majority of judges handling criminal trials are former Deputy District Attorneys (prosecutors). --JRM, attorney > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 12:11:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:11:58 +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 MAA23373 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:11:51 +1100 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-158-53.lsan.grid.net [207.205.158.53]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA32150 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:11:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D351F2.908E1B4A@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:12:18 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" Organization: I Can't Believe It's a Law Firm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <199902231402.JAA01194@freenet5.carleton.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > [Eric Landau on claim thread] > >This seems to happen a lot. Fortunately, most of the time the director > >isn't called. > > > >The correct ruling by the book is that the 10 must be played. L45C4(a). > > > >The correct ruling at the table is something along the lines of (looking E > >in the eye), "Look here, we all know what he meant. If you insist on > >forcing him to play the 10 under your K, you will win the trick, but you > >will no longer be welcome at the club." [Marv French on an insufficient transfer] > It seems to me that accepting the call would have been the sporting > thing to do, since 3H has practically the same meaning as 2H. > Perhaps L27B2 should offer some leeway when a barely sufficient > conventional bid in the same strain has the same meaning as the > insufficient bid, but L27 is complicated enough as it is. When a TD > cannot legally do the obviously fair thing, why not do it for her > if you can? Because bridge is a competitive event? I'll tell you: I play DOOP, a one-table duplicate game with my friends. There's frequently drinking, always snacks, stuff on TV, etc. If the auction goes 1S-P-4H-P-P-P, the 1S bidder announces a failure to alert the splinter, and either plays 4H or concedes down 5 or so. If there's a bad claim, you eat it. *No one* complains that the rules are enforced. There is zero social pressure. On the problem Eric comments on, the ten is played, and no one complains about the ruling, although there may be an amusing commentary on the wisdom of playing to early. On the insufficient bid, transfer person gets to guess the contract. As it should be. Now, to put social pressure on people who try to win in a tournament through utterly fair and legal means is improper. Sure, most of us (including me) have let the newbies pick a card up at the club, but I would expect no hassle if I didn't let them. The idea that it's somehow improper to take advantage of the rules seems decidedly odd to me. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 12:20:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:20:25 +1100 Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA23408 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:20:18 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id TABDa07792; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:43:27 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:43:27 EST To: tsvecfob@iol.ie Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Check out Welcome to Time Technology Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal- Here is the web address for the timer that we use. We have been very impressed with the product. If there is any problem accessing this site or contacting them let me know. Click here: Welcome to Time Technology Take care, Alan From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 12:22:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:22:55 +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 MAA23427 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:22:49 +1100 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-158-53.lsan.grid.net [207.205.158.53]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA06977 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:22:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D35482.D2BAC471@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:23:14 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" Organization: I Can't Believe It's a Law Firm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 2/21/99 9:27:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, > mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > > JApfelbaum wrote: > > > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > >I believe the policy of ACBL ACs at NABCs is to require > > unanimous > > > >opinion of AC members for an appeal to be declared frivolous. > > Seems > > > >reasonable. > > > > > Mis-statement of ACBL policy. Simple majority vote is sufficient. > > > > Misstatement of ACBL practice. Where are these policies documented, > > please? I can't find anything in the ACBL's *Handbook for Appeals > > Committees* or ACBL Tech files concerning appeals that states any > > such policy. > > [snip] > > Each issue in a committee is decided by the majority. And once decided, that > issue now becomes the basis of any further votes by the committee. If I don't > feel there was a "break in tempo" and the committee has voted that such a > break took place, I don't have the right to refuse to adjust a score because I > still don't feel that there was a break in tempo. That issue has been > settled. Wow. Why? This is interesting -- 5 committee members, 2 feel no break in tempo, 3 say yes -- break in tempo. The two who felt no break rule LA exists, 1 of the 3 who felt no break rule LA exists, 3-5, adjustment. Why force the "no break" people into a situation where they are forced to lie or vote against their legal opinions? While below I agree strongly with Alan, I can't see any reason to do it this way. On three-stage rulings, this could be a disaster -- I can construct something where the collective vote goes against every individuals vote. How could that be right? One other note: I've never seen an appeal broken down this way, with different votes on different subjects. I'm not sure what this means. > > For those that feel we shouldn't be making this decision by a majority vote, > perhaps they also feel that we shouldn't be making decisions about logical > alternatives by a majority vote. After all, the arguement can be made that if > 2 members of a committee think that a given bid does not meet our stringent > criteria for a logical alternative and 3 members believe that it does, than it > does not "fit" the definition of how we determine what is and is not a LA. > I'm not sure what the practice is in the rest of the world, but we have never > had a problem with the belief that this particular jury must make a > determination as to whether a bid meets the criteria of a LA. The presence of > a "minority opinion" does not force the committee to go in a particular > direction. Right. I saw this error a lot in law school, sometimes by instructors. If you draw the line at the middle (I think Tim West-Meads pointed this out, but I've lost the message), where if someone actually dissents as to the ruling, that's a different issue -- I think a rule where if there's a *dissent*, it must be meritorious, is logical. However, if we are looking at the line for unmeritorious, we might all agree that it's close to the line. Just because I thought the appeal was wrong, but borderline, doesn't mean that I should be able to overrule the rest of the bunch. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 12:36:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:36:43 +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 MAA23478 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:36:34 +1100 Received: from p36s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.55] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10FTFQ-0005my-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:36:25 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Is it all in the believing? Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:23:43 -0000 Message-ID: <01be5f94$5193ecc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE5F94.5193ECC0" 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_0006_01BE5F94.5193ECC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable E/W Game Dealer S. Match Pointed Pairs. National Final. (all players = competent.) North KQJT J AKJ98 Q83 West East 763 A4 T942 KQ7 T2 764 KJ76 T9542 South 9843 A8653 Q53 A Bidding (E/W Pass throughout) N S - 1H 1S 2S 4D ( A)1 4H(A)2 4NT (A)3 5H(A)4 ....5S (A)5 5NT(6) 6S Result 6S tick. No questions were asked during the auction, but at the end of the = auction=20 West called the TD and brought attention to the hesitation before the 5S = bid. The hesitation was agreed. The bids on request of E/W were described as: 1 Cue bid. 2 Cue bid. 3. RKCB. 4. 2/5 5 We've agreed hearts so it is forcing.(not a misprint). 6 I don't know. At the end of play the TD is called back. E/W are not happy. How do you rule? This one went to appeal and the TD's ruling was amended. Anne. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE5F94.5193ECC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 E/W Game  Dealer S. Match = Pointed=20 Pairs.
          &nbs= p;            = ;          =20 National Final. (all players competent.)
 
          &nbs= p;       =20 North
          &nbs= p;       =20 KQJT
          &nbs= p;       =20 J
          &nbs= p;       =20 AKJ98
          &nbs= p;       =20 Q83
 
West          =             &= nbsp;  =20 East
763          &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;     =20 A4
T942          =             &= nbsp;   =20 KQ7
T2          &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;       =20 764
KJ76          =             &= nbsp;   =20 T9542
 
          &nbs= p;      =20 South
          &nbs= p;      =20 9843
          &nbs= p;      =20 A8653
          &nbs= p;      =20 Q53
          &nbs= p;      =20 A
 
Bidding (E/W Pass = throughout)
 
    =20 N            =             &= nbsp;  =20 S
   =20 -            =             &= nbsp; =20 1H 
   =20 1S            = ;           =20 2S
    4D  (=20 A)1           &nbs= p;  =20 4H(A)2 
    4NT=20 (A)3           &nb= sp;  =20 5H(A)4 
....5S =20 (A)5           &nb= sp;   =20 5NT(6) 
    6S 
 
Result 6S tick.
 
No questions were asked during the auction, but at = the end of=20 the auction
West called the TD and brought attention to the = hesitation=20 before the 5S bid. 
The hesitation was agreed. 
The bids on request of E/W were described=20 as: 
1 Cue bid. 
2 Cue bid. 
3. RKCB. 
4. 2/5 
5  We've agreed hearts so it is forcing.(not a=20 misprint). 
6  I don't = know.
 
At the end of play the TD is called back. E/W are = not=20 happy. 
 
How do you rule?
This one went to appeal and the TD's ruling was = amended.
 
Anne.
 
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE5F94.5193ECC0-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 12:49:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:49:17 +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 MAA23516 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:49:10 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.66] by carbon with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10FTQ8-0007B0-00; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:47:29 +0000 Message-ID: <199902240148550470.05C2133C@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <36ec04ff.9233166@post12.tele.dk> References: <36d317e6.4430340@post12.tele.dk> <36D0438B.4D4C424C@village.uunet.be> <36d6c5a9.5680488@post12.tele.dk> <36D27C2F.BC27807F@village.uunet.be> <36ec04ff.9233166@post12.tele.dk> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:48:55 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I read this message from Jesper after I had posted my penultimate message in this thread. The views that Jesper expresses in this message are a complete answer to the questions that I asked in mine, and seem to crystallize the issues involved. I would like to see if some progress might be made from the standpoint of Jesper's message below. On 23/02/99, at 20:47, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:00:15 +0100, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >>Jesper Dybdal wrote: [JD] >>> Agreed. The difference from the earlier thread is that here N >>> learns about his own system from the response; in the other >>> thread he only learned about the opponents' system. IMO that >>> makes the difference between UI and AI. >> [HDW] >>That may be a significant difference. You would suggest >>that in both cases, when becoming defender, the player has >>the AI about opponents' system, which he can use in the >>play. That may be a further point of discussion. >> >>But the original case was different. Not only did the >>player learn through the response that he was mistaken about >>his opponent's system, but also that he had misbid. >>In this second case too, the player has learnt that he has >>misbid. > [JD] >Yes, but the misbids are very different. In the first case, he >misbids because he does not know the opponents' system. When he >does find out the opponents' system, he is IMO free to bid as he >wants to repair the damage. This is consistent, as long as you >accept (as I do but Herman does not) that knowledge of opponents' >system is always AI, because it is knowledge that all players are >allowed to have without having to remember it. > >In the second case, he has misbid because he has forgotten his >own system. This is really his mistake, and the answer to >partner's question should not be allowed to save him. His own >system is knowledge that he himself is responsible for >remembering. I suppose that my point of view here may be coloured by my role as coach to our national teams. My job is to scrutinise the methods played by our opponents, and to ensure that "my" men (or women) are sent into battle knowing everything there is to know about those methods. If one of "my" players came out of the room saying: "We got an awful result because I assumed they were playing Flannery when they were actually playing Roman", then I would look very hard at the notes I had given to that player before he went into the room. If I had told him they were playing Flannery when they were in fact playing Roman, I would at once resign my job, and hang myself from the nearest tree. So far, however, I am still alive (jeers, and cries of "Shame!"...) I contend (as Jesper might not) that it is the duty of a player to know, as part of his own "system", what counter-methods he will adopt to conventional openings by his opponents. Thus, I think that a player who mistakenly bids 2H (takeout of hearts) over a Roman 2D opening is just as culpable as a player who mistakenly bids 2S (hearts and diamonds) over a 1S opening when he has hearts and clubs. I do not see the distinction, and I am somewhat puzzled that Jesper now seems to see one where none should exist (if the application of Law is to be consistent, which is the overriding priority - whether it's "right" or "wrong" does not matter a hill of beans). [HDW] >>If we allow him only the "complete knowledge of opponent's >>system", not the specific knowledge of that part of the >>system that interests his partner", in neither case will he >>be awakened to his own mistake. [JD] >In the first case, he would never have made the mistake at all if >he had that complete knowledge. In the second case, he would >have made the mistake. This is superficially compelling, but only in respect of the particular case, not as a general principle. I think, as I have said above, that "complete knowledge of opponents' system" should in effect be part of your own system (as long as the opponents' system is properly disclosed in accordance with L40), and that there ought not to be a distinction between the types of mistake. If you "forget" what the opponents' system is, and you therefore misbid, why should this be different from forgetting what your own system is, and therefore misbidding? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 12:49:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:49:55 +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 MAA23535 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:49:49 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.66] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10FTS0-0002bU-00; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:49:24 +0000 Message-ID: <199902240149330700.05C2A89C@mail.btinternet.com> References: <01BE5F42.D4788120@har-pa1-05.ix.NETCOM.com> <199902232221240960.050410F8@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:49:33 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Misexplanation leads to bad luck Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 23/02/99, at 15:34, Craig Senior wrote: >If we are taking a headcount, I think an Occam's razor approach is called >for. Damage in an MI case means getting a poorer result than would have >been the case otherwise without committing any egregious error to bring >about the poor result yourself. There is no need to complicate the matter. >This appears to be an open and shut case. Adjust to 3N making whatever. >(And yes, if the 6C makes somehow, result stands.) Wtp? That's precisely "tp". If you're going to adjust to 3NT making whatever, then you can't allow 6C to stand only if it makes. There are two incompatible notions in conflict here, and so firmly entrenched are the supporters of each that I am not optimistic of making any kind of progress. However, I will set them out and hope for the best, while fearing for the worst: (1) If the opponents commit an infraction, and we later do something that we would not have done absent the infraction, then regardless of what happened subsequent to the infraction, we are entitled to the most favourable of: our actual result, or the result that we would have obtained absent the infraction; or the result that a ruling body determines that we would have got had the opponents not taken advantage of the infraction by playing unfairly. (2) If the opponents commit an infraction, and we later do something that we would not have done absent the infraction, then: if we would in all circumstances get an unfavourable result, we are entitled to the result that we would have got absent the infraction; if, however, circumstances are such that we would normally be in a position to benefit from the infraction but fail to do so for a reason wholly unconnected with the infraction itself, then the result we obtain at the table should stand. The main arguments against (1) are: that it permits the "double shot"; and that it absolves the non-offending side from any responsibility to continue to "play bridge" (all they have to do is avoid "egregious error" - they are absolved from the consequences of any form of "bad luck"). The main arguments against (2) are: that in some cases offenders go "unpunished"; and that it is offensive to the notion of "natural justice" in that the argument "If they hadn't done something they weren't allowed to do, we'd have got a better result than we did get" is hugely persuasive. For those readers on the list who speak German and are familiar with the poems of Christian Morgenstern, I quote the words of the great Professor Palmstrom: "Weil", entschliess er, messerscharf, "Nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf!" As I've said, I'm not optimistic. But I think that this is perhaps the single greatest problem facing the Lawmakers, and I would be greatly relieved if they could find some way of deciding the question. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 13:00:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:00:12 +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 NAA23560 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:00:05 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA29722 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:59:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902240159.RAA29722@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Procedure for Law 81B2 violation? Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:00:42 -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 Jesper Dybdal wrote: - "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > >It seems to me that accepting the call would have been the sporting > >thing to do, since 3H has practically the same meaning as 2H. > > Let me repeat what I've just written in another thread: bridge is > a game of mistakes. When you make a mistake, whether by > miscounting a suit or bidding insufficiently, it is perfectly > sporting of opponents to do what they can to profit from your > mistake. > > >When a TD > >cannot legally do the obviously fair thing, why not do it for her > >if you can? > > The concept of "fairness" of a game cannot really mean anything > other than following the letter and intention of its rules. > Under the rules of bridge, it is "obviously fair" to benefit from > opponents' mistakes, including irregularities. > > Under other rules, such as what you might call "relaxed rules of > bridge for use by beginners", your solution (and the TD's > solution) is fine. But when the game is "real bridge", follow > the book. > -- I don't understand. The book (L27A) says I can accept an insufficient bid by calling after it. I like to play "real bridge" without feeling guilty about taking advantage of an obviously unfair loophole in the laws. L27 used to say that if an opponent made the bid barely sufficient in the same denomination, no penalty. Then the lawmakers realized that if either bid was a convention, this wouldn't be quite right, as the bids would no doubt have different meanings. So they changed the law in simplistic fashion, saying that if either the insufficient bid or a sufficient bid is conventional, partner is barred. Perhaps they didn't consider that if both bids had the same meaning (transfer to spades, in this case), barring would be no more logical than if neither of the bids was conventional. Until they fix that, I'm going to accept insufficient bids that ought to be accepted. I wonder, though, if I can bargain with my LHO: "Will you agree to bid 3S if I accept the 2H bid?" Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 13:36:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:36:14 +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 NAA23650 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:36:08 +1100 Received: from michael (user-37ka93i.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.36.114]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA06763 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:35:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990223213555.0073ddb0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:35:55 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Is it all in the believing? In-Reply-To: <01be5f94$5193ecc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:23 AM 2/24/99 -0000, Anne wrote: >Result 6S tick. No questions were asked during the auction, but at the >end of the auction West called the TD and brought attention to the >hesitation before the 5S bid. The hesitation was agreed. The bids on >request of E/W were described as: 1 Cue bid. 2 Cue bid. 3. RKCB. 4. >2/5 We've agreed hearts so it is forcing.(not a misprint). I don't >know. At the end of play the TD is called back. E/W are not happy. >How do you rule? This one went to appeal and the TD's ruling was amended. 1. Competent? And South claimed he was in a forcing HEART auction? Sorry, but this does not add up. But we'll play the hand we've been dealt. 2. I rule 5S making 6. And although I have never yet said so in previous cases, keep the deposit. This is hesitation Blackwood, pure and simple. I personally consider South's explanation about being in a forcing heart auction to be one of the lamest excuses for a UI violation that I have ever heard, not to say a bald-faced lie. But maybe not. MAYBE he was as completely out to lunch as his comment would suggest. I will give him the benefit of the doubt on that score, and eschew the PP, but I hope my tone will make clear that I'm hard-pressed to decide if he's a liar or an idiot. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 14:01:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:01:25 +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 OAA23709 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:01:19 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.66] by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10FUZZ-00035T-00; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 03:01:17 +0000 Message-ID: <199902240301040150.060422B3@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <01be5f94$5193ecc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> References: <01be5f94$5193ecc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 03:01:04 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is it all in the believing? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 24/02/99, at 01:23, Anne Jones wrote: >E/W Game Dealer S. Match Pointed Pairs. > National Final. (all players competent.) > > North > KQJT > J > AKJ98 > Q83 > >West East >763 A4 >T942 KQ7 >T2 764 >KJ76 T9542 > > South > 9843 > A8653 > Q53 > A > >Bidding (E/W Pass throughout) > > N S > - 1H > 1S 2S > 4D ( A)1 4H(A)2 > 4NT (A)3 5H(A)4 >....5S (A)5 5NT(6) > 6S > >Result 6S tick. > >No questions were asked during the auction, but at the end of the auction >West called the TD and brought attention to the hesitation before the 5S bid. >The hesitation was agreed. >The bids on request of E/W were described as: >1 Cue bid. >2 Cue bid. >3. RKCB. >4. 2/5 >5 We've agreed hearts so it is forcing.(not a misprint). >6 I don't know. > >At the end of play the TD is called back. E/W are not happy. > >How do you rule? >This one went to appeal and the TD's ruling was amended. Well, if South could produce some evidence that hearts were indeed the agreed trump suit, I'd consider it (though this seems unlikely). After all, when it starts 1H-1S-2S-4D, what would anyone think was trumps? If South could not produce such evidence, I would not allow South to play in any kind of tournament within my jurisdiction ever again - this would be the worst case of "hesitation Blackwood" that I've seen in a long day's march, and 5NT is just cynical (in the original sense, for classical scholars). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 17:15:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA24098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:15:08 +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 RAA24093 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:15:02 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA23151 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:14:56 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902240614.WAA23151@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:15:32 -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 > Grattan Endicott writes that he is considering an amendment to read: > > << > " a player whose call has been explained by partner, or who has > himself given such an explanation of his own call when law or > regulation requires it, and whose hand corresponds to the > explanation given, shall defer any correction of the explanation > until the end of the play of the hand if the explanation is not in > accord with his agreements. An opponent who has acted upon > correct information about the hand shall not be entitled to > redress for an inferior score thereby obtained." ~Grattan~ ++++ > >> > The corollary is that if partner neglects to Alert a bid, thereby inferentially describing your hand accurately, you say nothing until the hand is over, right? I don't like this. Wife Alice and I play that we can occasionally bypass a very weak major when responding 1NT/2NT/3NT to a 1C/1D opening with a balanced hand. The 1NT bid is, let's say for the sake of argument, Alertable: "He (She) could have a four-card major, probably weak." There are drawbacks to this method (e.g., we could miss a major suit contract) and advantages (e.g., no 2M contract with 9xxx opposite Qxx, and we can freely raise with three-card support). One advantage is that we will occasionally get the lead of the hidden major against our notrump contract, whereas others will be getting a different lead after the major is bid. That's why we have to Alert. And sometimes, because of the Alert and explanation, a major will not get led when it would be advantageous for the defenders to lead it. In any event, the defenders have a little more difficulty figuring out declarer's hand during the play. If partner fails to Alert 1NT and I become declarer, L75D2 says I'm supposed to call the TD *at the earliest legal opportunity*, explain the problem to the opponents, and presumably it will get fixed one way or another (doesn't say how). Partner's failure to Alert has misdescribed my hand if I have a major, but has accurately described it if I don't have a major. According to Grattan's suggestion, I would not call the TD until play is over if I lack a major, since my hand has not been misdescribed, but otherwise would call the TD immediately when I become declarer. I must, in other words, make sure the opponents know what my hand is like, thereby losing an important advantage of our methods. No ambiguity either, because a smart opponent would know I have a major if I call the TD immediately. I don't like this at all. Is it really necessary? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 17:24:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA24115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:24:18 +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 RAA24110 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:24:12 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-156.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.156]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA67313830 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:27:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D39A43.88E62FD0@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:20:51 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Is it all in the believing? References: <01be5f94$5193ecc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have a difficult time believing that 4D= a cue bid. I have a difficult time believing that 4N was not explained as keycard hearts if it was in fact keycard hearts since there was an attempt to say that the agreed suit was hearts and not spades. I find it impossible to believe that there are the values in the south hand to bid 5N on this auction given the weak spades and weak hearts and potential diamond problem and that North signed off. I find it easy to believe to believe that South interpreted the huddle to mean that N was interested in a NT contract if clubs were stopped. This is the only explanation I can arrive at that supports someone's belief that the agreed suit was hearts. All the evidence points to the agreed suit being spades. This auction says for south to stop at 5S and the huddle communicates to bid. South bid and thus caused damage so the contract and score are adjusted to 5S making 12 tricks. If this ruling is appealed, I think I would find it without merit. Roger Pewick > Anne Jones wrote: > > E/W Game Dealer S. Match Pointed Pairs. > National Final. (all players > competent.) > > North > KQJT > J > AKJ98 > Q83 > > West East > 763 A4 > T942 KQ7 > T2 764 > KJ76 T9542 > > South > 9843 > A8653 > Q53 > A > > Bidding (E/W Pass throughout) > > N S > - 1H > 1S 2S > 4D ( A)1 4H(A)2 > 4NT (A)3 5H(A)4 > ....5S (A)5 5NT(6) > 6S > > Result 6S tick. > > No questions were asked during the auction, but at the end of the > auction > West called the TD and brought attention to the hesitation before the > 5S bid. > The hesitation was agreed. > The bids on request of E/W were described as: > 1 Cue bid. > 2 Cue bid. > 3. RKCB. > 4. 2/5 > 5 We've agreed hearts so it is forcing.(not a misprint). > 6 I don't know. > > At the end of play the TD is called back. E/W are not happy. > > How do you rule? > This one went to appeal and the TD's ruling was amended. > > Anne. > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 18:41:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA24231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:41:12 +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 SAA24226 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:41:07 +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 <19990224074102.CQMX23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:41:02 -0800 Message-ID: <36D3ADFA.A2F5294E@home.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:44:58 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Is it all in the believing? References: <01be5f94$5193ecc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let's not forget S apparently explained 4D as "cuebid", b4 he went on to insult everyone by asserting that *hearts* are trumps. Puhleeeeze! If he at least had not alerted 4D....... As it is I'd say "go directly to jail without passing "go"". However, since this is brought up here I'm sure I'm missing something! :-) > Anne Jones wrote: > > E/W Game Dealer S. Match Pointed Pairs. > National Final. (all players > competent.) > > North > KQJT > J > AKJ98 > Q83 > > West East > 763 A4 > T942 KQ7 > T2 764 > KJ76 T9542 > > South > 9843 > A8653 > Q53 > A > > Bidding (E/W Pass throughout) > > N S > - 1H > 1S 2S > 4D ( A)1 4H(A)2 > 4NT (A)3 5H(A)4 > ....5S (A)5 5NT(6) > 6S > > Result 6S tick. > > No questions were asked during the auction, but at the end of the > auction > West called the TD and brought attention to the hesitation before the > 5S bid. > The hesitation was agreed. > The bids on request of E/W were described as: > 1 Cue bid. > 2 Cue bid. > 3. RKCB. > 4. 2/5 > 5 We've agreed hearts so it is forcing.(not a misprint). > 6 I don't know. > > At the end of play the TD is called back. E/W are not happy. > > How do you rule? > This one went to appeal and the TD's ruling was amended. > > Anne. > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 19:22:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:22:44 +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 TAA24300 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:22:38 +1100 Received: from modem27.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.27] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10FZaR-0002HU-00; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:22:32 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Craig Senior" , Subject: Re: Misexplanation leads to bad luck Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:16:32 -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 "No player should ever ask for a review of the auction, or for an explanation, in order to ensure that partner has understood correctly; this is a deliberate use of an unauthorized channel of communication (see Law 73B1) and is grossly improper." (statement authorized by the European Bridge League 1992). 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 > From: Craig Senior > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: Misexplanation leads to bad luck > Date: 23 February 1999 20:34 > > If we are taking a headcount, I think an Occam's razor approach is called > for. Damage in an MI case means getting a poorer result than would have > been the case otherwise without committing any egregious error +++++ In accordance with WBFLC ruling (if the generality of your statement is correct, on which 'no comment') delete "committing any egregious error" and substitute "taking action that is irrational, wild or gambling". ~Grattan~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 21:46:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:46:37 +1100 Received: from arsenic.uunet.lu (arsenic.uunet.lu [194.7.192.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA25867 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:46:28 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-174.uunet.be [194.7.13.174]) by arsenic.uunet.lu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28974 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:46:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D29EEC.CFDC82AE@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:28:28 +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: Is this a claim? References: <36D1C7C2.35A7A33B@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: > >Although it seems harsh, from the presentation it doesn't seem declarer > >made any claim of a certain no. of tricks, so I can't see that L68 > >applies. > >I fear I'd have to rule as per L55 which deals with declarer's LOOT from > >hand or dummy. Either opponent has the right to accept the LOOT, so they > >can win the King if they are so inclined. I wish someone can find a way > >to rule this as an "irrational claim" situation! > > Why? If someone wants to act like a total prat, why should we find a > way to save him? > This is a good example of how difficult it is to write a good account of what is going on. David, and several others, believe this declarer has acted like a total prat and don't want to rescue him. I, and some others, believe it is defender who has acted like a prat and should not gain from his slowness. Both sides are defendable and it only depends on the table presence for the TD to decide. I am not saying that I am the only one who can correctly read an account, but it was my impression that the original poster did grasp the law completely, and was looking for a way out of having to rule in a manner he felt unwarranted at the table. The solution that was presented seemed a good one : look defender in the eye and say : "if you want these tricks, I must give them to you, but with that attitude, you will not be welcome in this tournament in future". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 23:47:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:47:06 +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 XAA26341 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:46:58 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-189.uunet.be [194.7.13.189]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29344 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:46:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D3EB66.AF139331@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:07:02 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The new regime References: <36d317e6.4430340@post12.tele.dk> <36D0438B.4D4C424C@village.uunet.be> <36d6c5a9.5680488@post12.tele.dk> <36D27C2F.BC27807F@village.uunet.be> <36ec04ff.9233166@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:00:15 +0100, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >> Agreed. The difference from the earlier thread is that here N > >> learns about his own system from the response; in the other > >> thread he only learned about the opponents' system. IMO that > >> makes the difference between UI and AI. > > > >That may be a significant difference. You would suggest > >that in both cases, when becoming defender, the player has > >the AI about opponents' system, which he can use in the > >play. That may be a further point of discussion. > > > >But the original case was different. Not only did the > >player learn through the response that he was mistaken about > >his opponent's system, but also that he had misbid. > >In this second case too, the player has learnt that he has > >misbid. > > Yes, but the misbids are very different. In the first case, he > misbids because he does not know the opponents' system. When he > does find out the opponents' system, he is IMO free to bid as he > wants to repair the damage. This is consistent, as long as you > accept (as I do but Herman does not) that knowledge of opponents' > system is always AI, because it is knowledge that all players are > allowed to have without having to remember it. > > In the second case, he has misbid because he has forgotten his > own system. This is really his mistake, and the answer to > partner's question should not be allowed to save him. His own > system is knowledge that he himself is responsible for > remembering. > Indeed a significant difference. > >If we allow him only the "complete knowledge of opponent's > >system", not the specific knowledge of that part of the > >system that interests his partner", in neither case will he > >be awakened to his own mistake. > > In the first case, he would never have made the mistake at all if > he had that complete knowledge. In the second case, he would > have made the mistake. A very important difference. I suddenly have a lot more sympathy for the opposing view. What do you say David, shall we join Jesper ? After all, I still believe that we would just be only three in this camp. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 23:47:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:47:04 +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 XAA26337 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:46:55 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-189.uunet.be [194.7.13.189]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29340 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:46:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D3E7BC.1594A4BB@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:51:24 +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: CountDown Clock References: <004901be5f63$aeb12ac0$4d69ffd0@pavilion> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk mike dodson wrote: > > > > Its a good use for an old computer, one that's no longer of use for anything > else makes the price right. Does anyone have a good program that runs under DOS, with an easy screen? I have one, but it's not very good. If there are no other offerers, I would send it to any asker - but as I said, it's not very good. It does offer the user the handy option though, of adding or subtracting a minute from the running time. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 23:47:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:47:12 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA26357 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:47:05 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-189.uunet.be [194.7.13.189]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29365 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:46:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D3EEC5.95ED6953@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:21:25 +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: The new regime References: <36d317e6.4430340@post12.tele.dk> <36D0438B.4D4C424C@village.uunet.be> <36d6c5a9.5680488@post12.tele.dk> <36D27C2F.BC27807F@village.uunet.be> <36ec04ff.9233166@post12.tele.dk> <199902240148550470.05C2133C@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > I read this message from Jesper after I had posted my penultimate > message in this thread. The views that Jesper expresses in this message > are a complete answer to the questions that I asked in mine, and seem > to crystallize the issues involved. I would like to see if some > progress might be made from the standpoint of Jesper's message below. > I think it can. [snip] > I suppose that my point of view here may be coloured by my role as > coach to our national teams. My job is to scrutinise the methods played > by our opponents, and to ensure that "my" men (or women) are sent into > battle knowing everything there is to know about those methods. If one > of "my" players came out of the room saying: "We got an awful result > because I assumed they were playing Flannery when they were actually > playing Roman", then I would look very hard at the notes I had given to > that player before he went into the room. If I had told him they were > playing Flannery when they were in fact playing Roman, I would at once > resign my job, and hang myself from the nearest tree. So far, however, > I am still alive (jeers, and cries of "Shame!"...) > While it is of course best to know your opponents' system, it is sometimes (no, very often) lacking. You should not judge the player we are talking about with the same severity you would judge your national players. > I contend (as Jesper might not) that it is the duty of a player to > know, as part of his own "system", what counter-methods he will adopt > to conventional openings by his opponents. Thus, I think that a player > who mistakenly bids 2H (takeout of hearts) over a Roman 2D opening is > just as culpable as a player who mistakenly bids 2S (hearts and > diamonds) over a 1S opening when he has hearts and clubs. I do not see > the distinction, and I am somewhat puzzled that Jesper now seems to see > one where none should exist (if the application of Law is to be > consistent, which is the overriding priority - whether it's "right" or > "wrong" does not matter a hill of beans). > None "should" exist, but it does ! > [HDW] > >>If we allow him only the "complete knowledge of opponent's > >>system", not the specific knowledge of that part of the > >>system that interests his partner", in neither case will he > >>be awakened to his own mistake. > > [JD] > >In the first case, he would never have made the mistake at all if > >he had that complete knowledge. In the second case, he would > >have made the mistake. > > This is superficially compelling, but only in respect of the particular > case, not as a general principle. I think, as I have said above, that > "complete knowledge of opponents' system" should in effect be part of > your own system (as long as the opponents' system is properly disclosed "should be" but is not ! > in accordance with L40), and that there ought not to be a distinction > between the types of mistake. If you "forget" what the opponents' > system is, and you therefore misbid, why should this be different from > forgetting what your own system is, and therefore misbidding? Because the one mistake is excusable, the other one isn't ? If you want to punish a player for not finding out completely about opponent's system, then you should keep him on the sideline for the next couple of matches (something you as captain would certainly do), and this whether or not his mistake has cost. But you would not need to punish him as TD. Am I leaning a bit much here ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 23:47:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:47:14 +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 XAA26359 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:47:06 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-189.uunet.be [194.7.13.189]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29356 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:46:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D3ED4A.EAE19981@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:15:06 +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: The new regime References: <36ed0522.9268357@post12.tele.dk> <199902232154090060.04EB19EF@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > On 23/02/99, at 20:48, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > >On Tue, 23 Feb 99 09:00 GMT0, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim > >West-meads) wrote: > > > >>In-Reply-To: <36d6c5a9.5680488@post12.tele.dk> > >>Jesper wrote: > >>> > >>> Agreed. The difference from the earlier thread is that here N > >>> learns about his own system from the response; in the other > >>> thread he only learned about the opponents' system. IMO that > >>> makes the difference between UI and AI. > > This is not quite clear to me (and, from Tim's post and Herman's, I > suspect that it is not quite clear to them either). In the original > case, the South player bid 2H over a 2D opening that he thought was > Flannery, so his "system" was that 2H was takeout of hearts. As a > result of an answer by an opponent to a question from partner, it > became clear that the 2D opening was in fact Roman, over which his > "system" was that 2H was natural. In the later case, the South player > made a bid that he thought showed hearts and a minor, though his system > was that it showed hearts and diamonds. As a result of an answer by an > opponent to a question from partner, it became clear that he had in > fact shown hearts and diamonds when he actually held hearts and clubs. > You make the two sound completely the same, but they are not. The "system" that the first player was playing was "takeout over Flannery - natural over Roman". There is no indication to suggest that this player had forgotten this system. He made a wrong call, not a wrong "system rememberance" The second player was playing system "Ghestem", but thought he was playing "Michaels". This player made a wrong "system rememberance". So the cases are not the same at all, and Jesper's ruling of AI in case one and UI in case two is consistent. > It seems to me that in both cases, it is possible to argue that the > player had "learned about his own system" from the explanation given by > an opponent to his partner. One might argue that in the former case, > the subsequent developments would cause him to obtain the necessary > information by authorised means, while in the latter case they would > not. However, I regard the matter of "subsequent developments" as > secondary; the primary question is whether or not a player may > legitimately be alerted to his own misbid as a result of a (legal) > question from his partner and an opponent's (legal) reply to that > question. > Irrelevant. We have decided to let subsequent developments drop from the discussion. > >Any information about your _opponents'_ system that you get from > >an opponents' answer to a question is AI and can be used freely. > > > >Any information about your _own_ system that you get (or can > >deduce) from an opponents' answer to a question is UI. > > That seems OK as a principle, but the cases we are discussing have > revealed a (potential) flaw. I should stress, perhaps, that both cases > are from actual play - this is not a case of unlikely positions being > invented in order to invalidate a principle that will work in the > majority of cases. My point of view would be that in both cases, the > player has received information about his own system: in the latter > case, this is obvious; in the former, the information that he has > received ("or can deduce") is that "over the 2D opening played by this > pair, we use 2H as natural" (contrary to his belief when he bid 2H). > But it cannot be argued that he did not know his "system" at the time of his call. [snip] > > >That is often the case, but if the mistake was misremembering > >your own system and the "action" that made it obvious to you was > >an opponents' reply to your partner's (or your own) question, > >then IMO it is UI. > > Quite so. Perhaps, as Herman suggested, the three of us are in > agreement after all! > I'd say we are in agreement over case 2, and i'm leaning in case 1. If David leans with me, we are now 3 against the world. I have never met Jesper, but I can say that David and myself thow quite a lot of weight into an argument. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 23:46:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:46:58 +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 XAA26331 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:46:51 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-189.uunet.be [194.7.13.189]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29325 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:46:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D3E2FE.B2C6665A@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:31:10 +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: [Fwd: The new regime] References: <36D2783A.BB044815@village.uunet.be> <36f005a2.9396080@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > >> Once that too > >> happens, it falls exactly within bcd or e. > >> If there is no > >> subsequent problem, I agree with you that the remark may be > >> considered AI (of a very fortunate sort). > > If I have information as AI, it remains AI no matter how I > receive that same information again. A "subsequent problem" > cannot turn AI into UI. If I know my system perfectly (AI), then > my system does not suddenly become UI because I later get it > confirmed by opponents' (or partner's) explanation. No it doesn't. As we have often agreed, if the same piece of information is available as AI _and_ as UI, then we are not bound by L16 restrictions, even if the suggested alternative would be a LA. It is only when I do not know my system (as I have shown by misbidding), and then I receive UI about my own system - this remains UI. I do not mean that AI turns into UI when later something happens. I was just saying that if an opponent simply tells me, "ah, you are playing Ghestem", when I have just bid Michaels, this is AI. But if that same piece of information is encapsuled in a question and answer session with my partner, then I do not differentiate between the opponent pronouncing the word "Ghestem" and my partner doing the same. We want people to feel at ease at the bridge table and if that means putting questions in a different form, that must be allowed. That is what I meant with > >> If there is no > >> subsequent problem, I agree with you that the remark may be > >> considered AI (of a very fortunate sort). Perhaps the choice of word "subsequent" is unfortunate - "additional" may be better. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 23:47:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:47:05 +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 XAA26332 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:46:53 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-189.uunet.be [194.7.13.189]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29331 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:46:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D3E703.16A3FF97@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:48:19 +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: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <36D35482.D2BAC471@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John R. Mayne" wrote: > > > > > > Each issue in a committee is decided by the majority. And once decided, that > > issue now becomes the basis of any further votes by the committee. If I don't > > feel there was a "break in tempo" and the committee has voted that such a > > break took place, I don't have the right to refuse to adjust a score because I > > still don't feel that there was a break in tempo. That issue has been > > settled. > > Wow. Why? This is interesting -- 5 committee members, 2 feel no break in > tempo, 3 say yes -- break in tempo. The two who felt no break rule LA > exists, 1 of the 3 who felt no break rule LA exists, 3-5, adjustment. > Why force the "no break" people into a situation where they are forced > to lie or vote against their legal opinions? > > While below I agree strongly with Alan, I can't see any reason to do it > this way. On three-stage rulings, this could be a disaster -- I can > construct something where the collective vote goes against every > individuals vote. How could that be right? > This can be right because you are not deciding alone. When in a minority, you should realise that you must be wrong on that point. Then logic tells you that you must now base your ideas on your corrected decision. > One other note: I've never seen an appeal broken down this way, with > different votes on different subjects. I'm not sure what this means. > Well, I don't think there will ever come a case where the AC cannot decide on all three issues without voting. I think in most AC decisions there are minority views, which are expressed. Without voting, the minority will defer to the majority view. Or the discussion can also drag on ... But even without voting, a good AC Chairman shuold deal with all the issues separately, and in the right order. No use discussing LA's when the UI issue has not been settled. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 23:51:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:51:51 +1100 Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz41.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA26424 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:51:28 +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 10Fdm3-0005LI-00; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:50:47 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA287770647; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:50:47 +0100 Subject: Re: Is this a claim? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:50:46 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <36D29EEC.CFDC82AE@village.uunet.be> from "Herman De Wael" at Feb 23, 1999 01:28:28 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to Herman De Wael: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Jan Kamras wrote: >> >Although it seems harsh, from the presentation it doesn't seem declarer >> >made any claim of a certain no. of tricks, so I can't see that L68 >> >applies. >> >I fear I'd have to rule as per L55 which deals with declarer's LOOT from >> >hand or dummy. Either opponent has the right to accept the LOOT, so they >> >can win the King if they are so inclined. I wish someone can find a way >> >to rule this as an "irrational claim" situation! >> >> Why? If someone wants to act like a total prat, why should we find a >> way to save him? >> > >This is a good example of how difficult it is to write a >good account of what is going on. > >David, and several others, believe this declarer has acted >like a total prat and don't want to rescue him. > >I, and some others, believe it is defender who has acted >like a prat and should not gain from his slowness. I completely agree with Herman on this issue. The defense is acting unsportsmanslike on this hand, and although they technically can win the king now, I think they need a major reading on bridge ethics. I can't think of anybody who would not let declarer take the DT back here. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 24 23:58:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:58:13 +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 XAA26482 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:58:06 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Fdsx-0003tn-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:57:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:52:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Procedure for Law 81B2 violation? References: <199902230905.BAA01642@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> <36ef0573.9349704@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <36ef0573.9349704@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 01:05:29 -0800, "Marvin L. French" > wrote: > >>It seems to me that accepting the call would have been the sporting >>thing to do, since 3H has practically the same meaning as 2H. > >Let me repeat what I've just written in another thread: bridge is >a game of mistakes. When you make a mistake, whether by >miscounting a suit or bidding insufficiently, it is perfectly >sporting of opponents to do what they can to profit from your >mistake. > >>When a TD >>cannot legally do the obviously fair thing, why not do it for her >>if you can? > >The concept of "fairness" of a game cannot really mean anything >other than following the letter and intention of its rules. >Under the rules of bridge, it is "obviously fair" to benefit from >opponents' mistakes, including irregularities. There is another point: what is obvious to one player is certainly not obvious to another. I heard Bobby Wolff and Rich Colker agree this Law should be changed to cover this situation [apparently this is the first time they have agreed for some time]. However, *their* argument seemed wrong to me, and I did not agree with it. I really think we should leave this sort of Law to the Lawmakers rather than the players. -- 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 Feb 24 23:58:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:58:23 +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 XAA26488 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:58:12 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Fdsx-0003uU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:57:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:50:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902231912.OAA01276@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> <9902231151.aa28124@flash.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <9902231151.aa28124@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >> Grattan Endicott writes: >> > " a player whose call has been explained by partner, or who has >> > himself given such an explanation of his own call when law or >> > regulation requires it, and whose hand corresponds to the >> > explanation given, shall defer any correction of the explanation >> > until the end of the play of the hand if the explanation is not in >> > accord with his agreements. An opponent who has acted upon >> > correct information about the hand shall not be entitled to >> > redress for an inferior score thereby obtained." ~Grattan~ ++++ >As for different defensive bidding, by the time the current Laws >require the explanation to be corrected, it's ALREADY too late, so >from that standpoint it wouldn't matter if the correction were >deferred to the end of the hand. Not true: read the proposal. The proposal includes the possibility of being damaged by MI but having no redress. -- 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 Feb 24 23:58:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:58:28 +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 XAA26495 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:58:17 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Fdt2-0003to-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:58:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:53:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Incorrect board played (idle curiosity) References: <3.0.1.32.19990224100540.0094ad00@emmy.otago.ac.nz> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990224100540.0094ad00@emmy.otago.ac.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Albert wrote: >Why is it that the Laws are so reticent about prescribing how the >"artificial adjusted scores" arising from an incorrectly played board are >to be distributed? > >I'm coming to the opinion that it's because "circumstances alter cases" but >perhaps others have different views? > >To make things clear, in one typical situation (in a pairs game) there are >four pairs involved: > >Abel and Baker play board 17 or bid it sufficiently to make it subsequently >unplayable (by Abel), when Baker have played it previously and Abel were >due to play it later against Charlie. The board was passed to the table by >Delta (alternatively, taken from a relay stand, delivered by the director ...) > >As far as I can see the laws are unambiguous only about the treatment of >Charlie (average plus) and Baker (original result). > >Is there a consensus about how to treat the others? L12C1 which deals with ArtASs refer to the degree of fault. This is a judgement matter for the TD [and is appealable]. >In particular is anyone out there prepared generally to issue some sort of >a penalty to Abel and Baker? Not necessarily. Are they expected to know what board they are to play? This is critical. Baker's original result stands. Abel cannot play it, so gets an ArtAS. If Abel would be expected to know which boards are to be played, for example with a table card which he is required to check, then Abel gets A-. In similar situations Baker might get a tiny fine [PP]. In the normal situation, if Abel might vaguely be expected to have some idea [the boards normally come in order, for example] there is no fine against Baker, and Abel gets Ave. If there is no way of knowing the board is wrong, then Abel gets A+. Charlie gets A+: not their fault. If the wrong board was passed by Delta, and it was unable to be played as a result, then it would be normal to fine Delta. -- 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 Feb 24 23:58:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:58:30 +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 XAA26481 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:58:06 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Fdsu-0003tm-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:57:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:51:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <36D1C7C2.35A7A33B@home.com> <36D30B15.18DD243@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36D30B15.18DD243@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: >[JK] >> I wish someone can find a way >> >to rule this as an "irrational claim" situation! >[DS] >> Why? If someone wants to act like a total prat, why should we find >> a way to save him? >Because I assumed (maybe incorrectly) from the original posting that the >"offender" was quite innocent and without bad intent. I assumed this too. > If this was more >of a "bullying" attempt, maybe by a more experienced player, then I too >have no compassion. This has nothing to do with my arguments. I actually think this is quite important, so I shall abandon the short comments, and explain fully. ATx Kx x Dummy is North xx I lead an x, and call for the ten before LHO plays. I have played the ten, because that is the way one plays from dummy. Some people have suggested that we should let declarer have a second go at this trick. It is not a claim: there is no reason in Law why we should give him a second chance. Declarer has made a stupid mistake. Let us look at some similar positions. xx x Kx Dummy is North ATx I lead the x from dummy, and play the ten from my hand before RHO plays. This is an identical position, of equal stupidity. Are you suggesting you want to let me take the ten back? Why? AQ x Kx -- Dummy is North x xxx xx A These are the last three cards of the hand. I am in the North hand, and the finesse of the AQ is proved because East has shown out. I accidentally say "Play the queen": do you want to allow me to take this back? Every day declarers throughout the world make millions of mistakes, and millions of stupid plays: why do we want to let declarer get away with this one? I know the answer, because some people feel that calling for a card from dummy is not the same as playing one. Well, I am sorry, it is the same, L45B says "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, ..." Now if you personally wish to let declarer retract his mistake [in *any* of the three cases, for all I care] then I am happy. BLs may argue about "protecting the field" [PTF?] but it really does no harm. But the suggestion that you should push that ethical responsibility onto others, and tell them they are required to or they will be kicked out of the club, is disgraceful. As I said before, if declarer wishes to act like a prat, then why not let him? As TDs, there is no question, in each case the card is played, whether in turn or not, and there is no reason it should be retracted. -- 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 Feb 24 23:58:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:58:31 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA26480 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:58:06 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Fdsx-0003MW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:57:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:52:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Misexplanation leads to bad luck References: <9902230959.aa21605@flash.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <9902230959.aa21605@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Adam Beneschan wrote: >> > >> >Here's a question that I think is related to my point in the >> >"Misexplanation that describes accurately" thread. It has to do with >> >distinguishing when damage is caused by MI or bad luck. I'd like >> >opinions on how this hypothetical situation should be ruled. >> > >> >You and your partner have hands that would normally get to a cold 3NT. >> >However, an opponent makes some sort of transfer overcall that they >> >fail to alert. Since you think the bid is natural, and your hand >> >doesn't hold a stopper in the suit you think they have, you steer the >> >hand out of 3NT and end up in 6C. 6C, as it turns out, is a 95% >> >contract that is very difficult to reach using standard methods. It's >> >a contract that you would definitely want to be in if you could peek >> >at both hands, even if you had correct information about the >> >overcaller's hand. However, it goes down on a 5-0 trump break. >> > >> >Does Law 40C apply? Were you damaged by the MI, or by Lady Luck? >> >> Yes, it applies. I was damaged by the MI. >> >> How can i tell? Without the MI I would have got a better score: >> that's damage. > >Hmmm, I would have thought the definition of "damage" would be >narrower than that. But so far, the vote is 2-0 against me. > >If this were a court of law, I wonder whether the concepts would apply >in the same way. A man goes to work on Monday and is told by his >boss, "I'm sorry, but the company hasn't been doing well, so we're >going to lay you off." The next day, at about 2 PM, the man drives to >the grocery store to pick up some milk, but is hit and killed by >another driver in a freak accident. The widow sues the man's former >company, reasoning, "If they hadn't laid him off, he would have been >working at 2 PM instead of driving to the store. Therefore, they >caused his death, and they should pay me damages." > >Now, in my country, she could probably win damages from a jury, based >on the legal theory that "If we feel sorry for someone and the >defendant has a lot of money, that's enough reason to award damages to >the plaintiff." But assuming that the question is to determine >whether the company is responsible for the death, I think the answer >is clearly "no", and the woman should not succeed in her lawsuit. > >The point of all this is: The statement "If X hadn't occurred then Y >wouldn't have occurred" does *not* necessarily imply the statement "X >caused Y" or "X is responsible for Y". In my hypothetical example, >therefore, the statement "If the MI hadn't occurred then we would not >have a minus score" does not necessarily imply that "The MI caused us >to have a minus score." I think one can make a good case that the >definition of "damage" needs to have a more direct connection to the >reason why the bad result occurs---or something like that; I'm not >sure just how to express this. Your example is not very relevant IMO. There are several causes for things, and remoteness is relevant. You could argue a case [I can hear a BL doing it] that MI on one hand damaged him three hands later: he may theoretically be right, but we do not want a Law that gives him redress. However, when there is a proximate cause the fact that there may be several other proximate causes does not mean that there is no causal link. >"If X hadn't occurred then Y >wouldn't have occurred" does *not* necessarily imply the statement "X >caused Y" or "X is responsible for Y" It *does* mean that X is part of the cause of Y, and is responsible in some part for Y. >Of course, there's no inherent reason why the definitions of terms in >the bridge Laws must parallel those in civil law. Also, I could be >mistaken in thinking the term "damage" in L40C is connected with >concepts of "causation" and "responsibility"---although my dictionary >defines the verb "damage" as "to *cause* damage to" (emphasis mine). > >I'm not on a moral crusade to free the offenders from penalties in a >case like this; they did break the Law, after all, and it wouldn't >bother me if the score were adjusted just on that basis. What bothers >me most is that the term "damage" in L40C isn't defined, and it's not >at all clear how it should be interpreted. (And no, L12C2 doesn't >provide the answer.) IMHO, the Powers That Be should come up with a >clear definition for this word and add it to the Laws---or remove the >word from 40C altogether. As it is, I believe the meaning of the term >depends on which side of the Atlantic you're on; if 6C had gone down >not because of a bad trump break but because of a gross error by >declarer, there would be an Atlantic-sized difference of opinion about >whether the MI did any damage. I have seen it written that the damage was subsequent not consequent. That is a principle written into the interpretation of the Laws, much farther in the ACBL than elsewhere. That is the way it is interpreted, OK. But it does not alter the fact that when a person is in a position that he would not be in without the infraction then the result on the hand is at least in part because of the infraction. If the result is worse than it would be without the infraction then there was damage. -- 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 Feb 25 01:48:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:48:03 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (wya-lfd31.hotmail.com [207.82.252.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA02490 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:47:55 +1100 Received: (qmail 23102 invoked by uid 0); 24 Feb 1999 14:40:39 -0000 Message-ID: <19990224144039.23101.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:40:33 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:40:33 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >I'm not in any way qualified to comment on the wider issues, but even >in a bridge context, there arise many conflicts between one's personal >view and the "official" position. Last night. I led a card that RHO (an >indifferent player) ruffed in dummy and underruffed (instead of >following) in his hand. It made no difference, and I did not even >notice, for the result of the deal was a foregone conclusion and I had >mentally returned my cards to the wallet with four tricks to play. But >partner noticed, and partner was the man whose duty it was to fill in >the travelling score slip. > >There was an extremely uncomfortable silence. LHO was a professional >player, a very good and scrupulously ethical one, and a regular >drinking companion of both myself and partner. This meant that the >difference between 2D making and 2D one down (about an 80% swing in >terms of match points) meant far more to his client (and therefore to >him) than it did to us. At the end of the pause, partner (who thinks >that the revoke law is bonkers anyway) scored the board as if the >revoke had not occurred. I made no protest. Should I have done? > > I can't help thinking that there are two prongs on the fork that is this problem. From your description it sounds as if the revoke did not benefit declarer, and as such, there does seem to be no reason why your side should benefit. What your partner did seems, therefore, to be a reasonable action. That seems to me to be the spirit in which the game should be played. However (prong two), is a player allowed to waive a penalty like this? What your partner has done is to penalize all the players in the opposite direction in the same contract who weren't careless. He forgot the fact that at pairs you're playing against the people holding the same cards as you, not the people that you're sitting against at the table. Should you have said something? On balance, probably no, but remind partner that it's not up to him to decide the fate of a pairs competition just because he happens to be the one filling in the traveller. Next time you're having a drink that is, not at the table! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 03:40:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 03:40:53 +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 DAA07852 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 03:40:44 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id HJQWa20088 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:17:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <2a909554.36d4260b@aol.com> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:17:15 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 2/23/99 5:25:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, jrmayne@mindspring.com writes: Alan LeBendig writes:>> > > Each issue in a committee is decided by the majority. And once decided, > that > > issue now becomes the basis of any further votes by the committee. If I > don't > > feel there was a "break in tempo" and the committee has voted that such a > > break took place, I don't have the right to refuse to adjust a score > because I > > still don't feel that there was a break in tempo. That issue has been > > settled. > > Wow. Why? This is interesting -- 5 committee members, 2 feel no break in > tempo, 3 say yes -- break in tempo. The two who felt no break rule LA > exists, 1 of the 3 who felt no break rule LA exists, 3-5, adjustment. > Why force the "no break" people into a situation where they are forced > to lie or vote against their legal opinions? There's another side to this, John. Why force the majority to go in one direction because of a minority opinion? A good committee member must be able to examine both sides of an issue and hopefully you can see the other side of this one. And no committee member is ever forced to "lie" or vote in a direction which they feel is wrong. However, once an issue has been decided, they must start at that point and accept the present condition. It's like a Master Solver's problem - even though you may not have made an earlier bid, you must still deal with the problem you now face. > While below I agree strongly with Alan, I can't see any reason to do it > this way. On three-stage rulings, this could be a disaster -- I can > construct something where the collective vote goes against every > individuals vote. How could that be right? Of course it is possible - but I don't see why you would find that bothersome. EWach vote should be a separate issue. > One other note: I've never seen an appeal broken down this way, with > different votes on different subjects. I'm not sure what this means. That is the ONLY way a committee should be run. It is too often the case that a committee will start discussing LAs without ever settling the other issues. We teach that LAs should be the last issue discussed. First comes the issue of whether UI existed and, if so, whether it demonstrably suggested one action over another. This issue is frequently ignored by Directors and Committees. LAs should not be dealt with until both of the earlier issues are settled, IMO. We find a lot of time is saved by doing things in this manner. Herman deals with this quite succinctly in his last posting on this thread. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 03:43:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 03:43:57 +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 DAA07889 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 03:43:45 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA12622 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:43:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-24.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.88) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012543; Wed Feb 24 10:42:38 1999 Received: by har-pa2-24.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE5FEA.AB640F40@har-pa2-24.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:41:51 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE5FEA.AB640F40@har-pa2-24.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:39:08 -0500 Encoding: 37 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] Last night. I led a card that RHO (an indifferent player) ruffed in dummy and underruffed (instead of following) in his hand. It made no difference, and I did not even notice, for the result of the deal was a foregone conclusion and I had mentally returned my cards to the wallet with four tricks to play. But partner noticed, and partner was the man whose duty it was to fill in the travelling score slip. There was an extremely uncomfortable silence. LHO was a professional player, a very good and scrupulously ethical one, and a regular drinking companion of both myself and partner. This meant that the difference between 2D making and 2D one down (about an 80% swing in terms of match points) meant far more to his client (and therefore to him) than it did to us. At the end of the pause, partner (who thinks that the revoke law is bonkers anyway) scored the board as if the revoke had not occurred. I made no protest. Should I have done? ### At party bridge around the kitchen table I'd have settled for him getting up to refill the glasses. But in a tournament, he was not entitled to the match points. He was paying a pro. If it were to learn bridge better, you do him no favour by silence. If it were to gain a rank you allow him a hollow victory if it must be won in contravention of the Laws. You should speak up. Personal misgivings about the revoke law should not influence your action. And, at the risk of flames from this list which I know disagrees, it is unfair to some other pair sitting his way that he get match points to which he is not entitled...thereby depriving them of some. Besides, do you really want your scrupulously ethical pro drinking buddy to think less of you for making a gift to his errant client? By the way, had he forfeited the rights of dummy or was he just being inattentive to allow this to occur? Craig From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 04:48:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 04:48:07 +1100 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA09789 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 04:47:59 +1100 Received: from [130.15.118.69] (U69.N118.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.69]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA04701 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:47:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <36D29EEC.CFDC82AE@village.uunet.be> from "Herman De Wael" at Feb 23, 1999 01:28:28 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:38:00 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas said: >According to Herman De Wael: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>> Jan Kamras wrote: >>> >Although it seems harsh, from the presentation it doesn't seem declarer >>> >made any claim of a certain no. of tricks, so I can't see that L68 >>> >applies. >>> >I fear I'd have to rule as per L55 which deals with declarer's LOOT from >>> >hand or dummy. Either opponent has the right to accept the LOOT, so they >>> >can win the King if they are so inclined. I wish someone can find a way >>> >to rule this as an "irrational claim" situation! >>> >>> Why? If someone wants to act like a total prat, why should we find a >>> way to save him? >>> >> >>This is a good example of how difficult it is to write a >>good account of what is going on. >> >>David, and several others, believe this declarer has acted >>like a total prat and don't want to rescue him. >> >>I, and some others, believe it is defender who has acted >>like a prat and should not gain from his slowness. > >I completely agree with Herman on this issue. >The defense is acting unsportsmanslike on this >hand, and although they technically can win the king now, >I think they need a major reading on bridge ethics. > >I can't think of anybody who would not let declarer >take the DT back here. > > >Thomas This points up a fairly fundamental difference in attitudes that I doubt will ever be reconciled, because both attitudes are perfectly reasonable. Personally, I would be quite uncomfortable partnering a declarer who requested to amend his play in this situation. It reminds me of the old anecdote of the player who says "I would always allow a gentleman, upon request, to correct a revoke without penalty", and when asked how he would know whether his opponent was a gentleman, replied "No gentleman would ever ask to correct a revoke". My first duplicate partner used to try to count out every hand, and when he could deduce that a particular finesse was working, he would triumphantly lead the suit and almost simultaneously call "Queen!", always before the opponent had a chance to follow suit. It never occurred to us to request a change in play (and it certainly never occurred to our opponents to suggest it). We regarded this exactly as David Stevenson does - my partner, due to his desire to show-off his new skill, was prone to a certain type of error, and had to train himself to avoid it. Our view would not have changed, no matter how dilatory the intervening opponent was in following suit. _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 533 - 6000 - 77878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 04:56:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 04:56:27 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA09950 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 04:56:20 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA14411; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:54:55 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.57) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014368; Wed Feb 24 11:54:27 1999 Received: by har-pa1-25.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE5FF4.B4CF5C60@har-pa1-25.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:53:42 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE5FF4.B4CF5C60@har-pa1-25.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de'" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Is this a claim? Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:26:45 -0500 Encoding: 57 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I cannot think of anyone who WOULD let him take it back in an event of any importance. There is nothing unethical about it. Let him learn the hard way not to play out of turn by enforcing the rules. How sportsmanlike would you think letting him take it back were if this pair were your close friends, and in a tight battle for the match? Playing by the rules is sportsmanlike. (In a friendly game, of course you let him take it back...but in a tournament?) ----- Craig ---------- From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de[SMTP:af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de] Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 8:50 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a claim? According to Herman De Wael: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Jan Kamras wrote: >> >Although it seems harsh, from the presentation it doesn't seem declarer >> >made any claim of a certain no. of tricks, so I can't see that L68 >> >applies. >> >I fear I'd have to rule as per L55 which deals with declarer's LOOT from >> >hand or dummy. Either opponent has the right to accept the LOOT, so they >> >can win the King if they are so inclined. I wish someone can find a way >> >to rule this as an "irrational claim" situation! >> >> Why? If someone wants to act like a total prat, why should we find a >> way to save him? >> > >This is a good example of how difficult it is to write a >good account of what is going on. > >David, and several others, believe this declarer has acted >like a total prat and don't want to rescue him. > >I, and some others, believe it is defender who has acted >like a prat and should not gain from his slowness. I completely agree with Herman on this issue. The defense is acting unsportsmanslike on this hand, and although they technically can win the king now, I think they need a major reading on bridge ethics. I can't think of anybody who would not let declarer take the DT back here. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 05:10:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:03:44 +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 BAA00298 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:02:55 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Fet6-0006cc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:02:11 +0000 Message-ID: <1e2E2bA5JA12Ewuk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:45:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <36D35482.D2BAC471@mindspring.com> <36D3E703.16A3FF97@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36D3E703.16A3FF97@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >When >in a minority, you should realise that you must be wrong on >that point. Herman - I just cannot believe you wrote this. Tell me it ain't 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 Thu Feb 25 05:12:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 05:12:22 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA10292 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 05:12:12 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-48.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.48]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA67040854 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:15:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D43F20.4C86CF37@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:04:16 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <36D00126.D0F0769C@internet-zahav.net> <36D078FE.C0563190@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have decided to dredge up from all of the atrocities I have executed at the bridge table the only one that covets the title of Most Horrid. In a large ACBL regional open event at unfavorable vulnerability partnered with a novice that is over ranked, I pick up something like this collection: J-Q9xxx-xxxx-xxx The auction proceeds LHO CHO RHO me FltB novi fltB - 1N* P** 2H*** P**** P P**** director * 15-17 balanced ** huddle, about 60 sec *** transfer to spades [intentional psych] not alerted **** slow pass >From my hand and the huddle, I figured that RHO had [1] spades and [2] a pretty fair collection of honors [it was so]. In tempo I made the horrid psych of 2H because I would play 3H three tricks better than partner would play 2H and I wanted RHO to pay for his huddle. I called the TD and explained that there was a failure to alert 2H. The opponents asked what it was and partner had forgotten so I explained that it was a transfer to spades. Both of our convention cards were open on the table and properly marked. The TD ruled MI and reopened the auction back to -LHO- [not cho]. Taking a while with a modest hand and 4 hearts LHO doubled then RHO took a long time before passing. The TD said to call him back if there was a further problem. Well, horrible defense will set 2HX two tricks and their's was worse so I was +670. I asked them if they were damaged and they did not think so. I hit them over the head with the baseball bat that I carry for protection and they still were ok with the result. I then grabbed their children by the throat and held their heads under water, and then they did call the director. This was the time that the Rule of Coincidence was big so the TD pulled it out and ruled Av-/ Av+. The matter of my psychological bid never came up. Comments? And what I am interested in is what CHO should bid to comply with the laws once the auction was reopened knowing now the agreement to 2H by UI sources. CHO held something like Kxx-Jx-AKxx-AQTx Roger Pewick Jan Kamras wrote: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > West alerted 2NT is transfer....On their CC (or as Jay wrote ,the AC > > is sure that in E-W system the transfer is on) it appears as transfer > > with pre acceptance ...What are you all talking about Logical > > Alternatives ??? West must bid 3Cl or 3D accordingly. > > We are talking about *East's* LAs, not Wests. > > > IMO , from now on it is none's business if E decided to transfer > > to his void !!!!! and not why > > East didn't decide anything. look at his hand. East intended 2NT as > natural, invitational, and misbid unintentionally. > > > If the TD or AC know East is an almost cheater (or any soft word > > for this ..) then they should kick him out.. but if everything is > > according to the CC ....??? I feel I don't understand what is > > the scope of an auction and the laws governing it !!!!! > > East was "awakened" to his misbid by pard's alert/explanation. That is > UI to East according to L16. Full stop. Even those here who feel that > pass is not an LA to East (I strongly disagree with them) seem to accept > that UI is present to East, and I frankly don't see why this is so > puzzling to you. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 05:20:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:03:32 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA00284 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:02:47 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Fet6-0006cd-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:02:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:48:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <36D29EEC.CFDC82AE@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas wrote: >I can't think of anybody who would not let declarer >take the DT back here. Declarer plays out of turn from hand. Do you let him take the card back? If not, what is the difference? Declarer leads the wrong card from dummy. Do you let him take the card back? If not, what is the difference? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 05:39:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 05:39:51 +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 FAA10918 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 05:39:36 +1100 Received: from pf7s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.248] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10FjDC-0006Wd-00; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:39:10 +0000 Message-ID: <001a01be6024$649925c0$f88a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:33:48 -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: 23 February 1999 17:01 Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought >In a message dated 2/21/99 9:27:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, >mfrench1@san.rr.com writein tempo. That issue has been >settled. > >For those that feel we shouldn't be making this decision by a majority vote, >perhaps they also feel that we shouldn't be making decisions about logical >alternatives by a majority vote. After all, the arguement can be made that if >2 members of a committee think that a given bid does not meet our stringent >criteria for a logical alternative and 3 members believe that it does, than it >does not "fit" the definition of how we determine what is and is not a LA. >I'm not sure what the practice is in the rest of the world, but we have never >had a problem with the belief that this particular jury must make a >determination as to whether a bid meets the criteria of a LA. The presence of >a "minority opinion" does not force the committee to go in a particular >direction. >Alan LeBendig ++++ From Grattan: open comment to Alan. Hi Alan! Do you not think there is mileage in an understanding that 'conscientious objectors', whose personal opposition to the system, although entirely proper in itself, is prejudicial to an objective decision, should recuse themselves from participation in the voting on the 'lack of merit' issue? Then require unanimity of those voting. It does appear from this distance that one should not influence the decision if one is not able to judge the issue without prejudice ( a word I use literally and without any pejorative implication), and if unable to act in the way suggested one should stand down from the bench.++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 06:03:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 06:03:05 +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 GAA11804 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 06:02:40 +1100 Received: from p61s03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.98] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10FjZl-0007sX-00; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:02:30 +0000 Message-ID: <007801be6027$a6eea000$f88a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , Subject: Re: Misexplanation leads to bad luck Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:56:47 -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 4.72.3110.1 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: 24 February 1999 02:08 Subject: RE: Misexplanation leads to bad luck >On 23/02/99, at 15:34, Craig Senior wrote: > >>If we are taking a headcount, I think an Occam's razor approach is >called >>for. Damage in an MI case means getting a poorer result than would >have >>been the case otherwise without committing any egregious error to >bring >>about the poor result yourself. There is no need to complicate the >matter. >>This appears to be an open and shut case. Adjust to 3N making >whatever. >>(And yes, if the 6C makes somehow, result stands.) Wtp? > >That's precisely "tp". If you're going to adjust to 3NT making >whatever, then you can't allow 6C to stand only if it makes. There are >two incompatible notions in conflict here, and so firmly entrenched are >the supporters of each that I am not optimistic of making any kind of >progress. However, I will set them out and hope for the best, while >fearing for the worst: > >(1) If the opponents commit an infraction, and we later do something >that we would not have done absent the infraction, then regardless of >what happened subsequent to the infraction, we are entitled to the most >favourable of: our actual result, or the result that we would have >obtained absent the infraction; or the result that a ruling body >determines that we would have got had the opponents not taken advantage >of the infraction by playing unfairly. > >(2) If the opponents commit an infraction, and we later do something >that we would not have done absent the infraction, then: if we would in >all circumstances get an unfavourable result, we are entitled to the >result that we would have got absent the infraction; if, however, >circumstances are such that we would normally be in a position to >benefit from the infraction but fail to do so for a reason wholly >unconnected with the infraction itself, then the result we obtain at >the table should stand. > >The main arguments against (1) are: that it permits the "double shot"; >and that it absolves the non-offending side from any responsibility to >continue to "play bridge" (all they have to do is avoid "egregious >error" - they are absolved from the consequences of any form of "bad >luck"). > >The main arguments against (2) are: that in some cases offenders go >"unpunished"; and that it is offensive to the notion of "natural >justice" in that the argument "If they hadn't done something they >weren't allowed to do, we'd have got a better result than we did get" >is hugely persuasive. For those readers on the list who speak German >and are familiar with the poems of Christian Morgenstern, I quote the >words of the great Professor Palmstrom: > >"Weil", entschliess er, messerscharf, >"Nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf!" > >As I've said, I'm not optimistic. But I think that this is perhaps the >single greatest problem facing the Lawmakers, and I would be greatly >relieved if they could find some way of deciding the question. +++ Both postings (three) fully copied for my memory board But, but, but are you asking for something before meetings in Bermuda? ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 06:03:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 06:03:01 +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 GAA11809 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 06:02:45 +1100 Received: from p61s03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.98] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10FjZi-0007sX-00; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:02:26 +0000 Message-ID: <007701be6027$a5110660$f88a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Is it all in the believing? Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:39:07 -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: BLML Date: 24 February 1999 02:04 Subject: Is it all in the believing? E/W Game Dealer S. Match Pointed Pairs. National Final. (all players competent.) ++++ Hi Anne. Unusual that. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 06:20:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:14:50 +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 CAA03418 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:14:10 +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 JAA15554 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:29:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990224093154.00724dd4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:31:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: The new regime In-Reply-To: <36ed0522.9268357@post12.tele.dk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:48 PM 2/23/99 +0100, Jesper wrote: >That is often the case, but if the mistake was misremembering >your own system and the "action" that made it obvious to you was >an opponents' reply to your partner's (or your own) question, >then IMO it is UI. > >If it were AI, then we would have the problematic situation that >if you cannot remember your system, then you should try >interviewing the opponents about their calls in the hope that the >answer might tell you or imply something about your own system. >I would not like that. I don't much care for it myself, but I see absolutely no justification for believing that it is improper or illegal. It certainly isn't covered by L16A ("After a player makes available to his partner..."), or by L16B ("When a player accidentally receives..."), or by L16C ("...information arising from a withdrawn action..."), so on what possible basis can we call it UI? 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 Feb 25 06:34:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 04:03:49 +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 EAA08674 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 04:03:37 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA19439 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:00:15 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199902241700.LAA19439@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:00:15 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Burn wrote: > > >There was an extremely uncomfortable silence. LHO was a professional > >player, a very good and scrupulously ethical one, and a regular > >drinking companion of both myself and partner. This meant that the > >difference between 2D making and 2D one down (about an 80% swing in > >terms of match points) meant far more to his client (and therefore to > >him) than it did to us. At the end of the pause, partner (who thinks > >that the revoke law is bonkers anyway) scored the board as if the > >revoke had not occurred. I made no protest. Should I have done? > > > > > > I can't help thinking that there are two prongs on the fork that is this > problem. From your description it sounds as if the revoke did not > benefit declarer, and as such, there does seem to be no reason why your > side should benefit. What your partner did seems, therefore, to be a > reasonable action. That seems to me to be the spirit in which the game > should be played. > However (prong two), is a player allowed to waive a penalty like this? > What your partner has done is to penalize all the players in the > opposite direction in the same contract who weren't careless. He forgot > the fact that at pairs you're playing against the people holding the > same cards as you, not the people that you're sitting against at the > table. Ah, but what partner did was also to _benefit_ all the pairs holding the same cards! While several pairs the other direction lost one matchpoint relative to the opponents, several pairs this direction gained a matchpoint relative to DB and partner. If one is really 'playing against the people holding the same cards as you', then can one really be faulted for giving several of those pairs a free point? :) > Should you have said something? On balance, probably no, but remind > partner that it's not up to him to decide the fate of a pairs > competition just because he happens to be the one filling in the > traveller. Next time you're having a drink that is, not at the table! > I don't want to play bridge with any player who would complain "I lost a matchpoint because some pair the other direction didn't demand their trick from a harmless revoke". But that's just me. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 07:01:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:01:18 +1100 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14133 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:01:12 +1100 Received: from ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.120]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990224200057.SZYN8569.fep4@ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:00:57 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:00:56 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36d53360.3995915@post12.tele.dk> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C138@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <199902231947260650.04771487@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902231947260650.04771487@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 Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:47:26 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >To make the matter as blatant as possible: suppose my LHO opens 1D and >my partner says: "That could be a two-card suit, partner" before >overcalling 2D (our agreement being that this is natural, while 2D over >a potential three-card suit would be Michaels. He does this because he >knows that I have forgotten this agreement the last two times the >situation has come up. > >As I understand the majority position, while my partner's action is (of >course) illegal, the information that he has conveyed to me is AI. The information about the 1D opening in itself, yes. But if it is his own agreement your partner tends to forget, the message "please remember your system this time" which the action also provides is UI. And I will admit that in this case it might not be easy for the TD (or anybody) to judge whether a score adjustment on that account is in order - but a PP should at least be able to deter you from such actions in the future. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 07:16:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:16:13 +1100 Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz41.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14765 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:16:04 +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 10FkiN-0004yL-00; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:15:27 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA056617327; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:15:27 +0100 Subject: Re: Is this a claim? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:15:27 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Feb 24, 1999 01:48:17 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to David Stevenson: > >Thomas wrote: > >>I can't think of anybody who would not let declarer >>take the DT back here. > > Declarer plays out of turn from hand. > > Do you let him take the card back? Yes, I tell him to pick it up, but it is different nevertheless. Here, I don't feel obliged to do so. > If not, what is the difference? The difference is that the D finesse is proven and everybody at the table clearly knows that it is declarer's intention to finesse D successfully again. A long time ago, there was a similar situation in a world junior championship in Salsamaggiore. Declarer had to make a nasty KJ guess. The italian defender sitting behind him just showed his AQ in order to shorten the play. 'Director, penalty cards'. Contract made, but declarer's reputation reached an all time low. [I know declarer's name, but I won't tell, because he now clearly agrees that this is not the way to win at bridge.] Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 07:20:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:02:21 +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 HAA14188 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:01:54 +1100 Received: from ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.120]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990224200139.TABD8569.fep4@ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:01:39 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:01:38 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36e75a3d.13944110@post12.tele.dk> References: <36ed0522.9268357@post12.tele.dk> <199902232154090060.04EB19EF@mail.btinternet.com> <36D3ED4A.EAE19981@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36D3ED4A.EAE19981@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 Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:15:06 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >I'd say we are in agreement over case 2, So would I. > and i'm leaning in case 1. Good! > If David leans with me, we are now 3 against the >world. Are we? Are we not rather 3 with the world? I don't remember anybody but David and you arguing much against my opinion in case 1. >I have never met Jesper, but I can say that David and myself >thow quite a lot of weight into an argument. I weigh more than I should, but I still doubt if it is enough to fit the other David (Stevenson)'s requirement for "a real TD". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 07:24:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 03:23:53 +1100 Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA06748 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 03:23:00 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10FgVh-0004J9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:46:05 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990224164529.00a8c120@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:45:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-Reply-To: References: <36D30B15.18DD243@home.com> <36D1C7C2.35A7A33B@home.com> <36D30B15.18DD243@home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:51 24-02-99 +0000, you wrote: >Jan Kamras wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: > >>[JK] >>> I wish someone can find a way >>> >to rule this as an "irrational claim" situation! > >>[DS] >>> Why? If someone wants to act like a total prat, why should we find >>> a way to save him? > >>Because I assumed (maybe incorrectly) from the original posting that the >>"offender" was quite innocent and without bad intent. > > I assumed this too. > >> If this was more >>of a "bullying" attempt, maybe by a more experienced player, then I too >>have no compassion. > > This has nothing to do with my arguments. > > I actually think this is quite important, so I shall abandon the short >comments, and explain fully. > > ATx > Kx x Dummy is North > xx > > I lead an x, and call for the ten before LHO plays. I have played the >ten, because that is the way one plays from dummy. Some people have >suggested that we should let declarer have a second go at this trick. >It is not a claim: there is no reason in Law why we should give him a >second chance. The problem is of course that we, as readers, cant decide if it was a (partial) claim, i think the TD should chack this out. He is the one at the table and the one and only one that has all the facts that are needed to make a decision with respect to the law. Declarer has made a stupid mistake. Let us look at some >similar positions. > > xx > x Kx Dummy is North > ATx > > I lead the x from dummy, and play the ten from my hand before RHO >plays. This is an identical position, of equal stupidity. Are you >suggesting you want to let me take the ten back? Why? > > AQ > x > Kx -- Dummy is North > x xxx > xx > A > > These are the last three cards of the hand. I am in the North hand, >and the finesse of the AQ is proved because East has shown out. I >accidentally say "Play the queen": do you want to allow me to take this >back? > > Every day declarers throughout the world make millions of mistakes, >and millions of stupid plays: why do we want to let declarer get away >with this one? I know the answer, because some people feel that calling >for a card from dummy is not the same as playing one. Well, I am sorry, >it is the same, L45B says "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming >the card, ..." > > Now if you personally wish to let declarer retract his mistake [in >*any* of the three cases, for all I care] then I am happy. BLs may >argue about "protecting the field" [PTF?] but it really does no harm. I dont think that should ever be an argument. >But the suggestion that you should push that ethical responsibility onto >others, and tell them they are required to or they will be kicked out of >the club, is disgraceful. I agree in that too. If someone wants to execute the law, thats his right. I also think that if you make a mistake, you are entitled to pay for it, but that is my personal view. Thats the game and these are the rules. But these things happen. I know lots of people that wont call the TD even when laws are broken in very awful ways. They just want to keep peace at the table or at the club. I protested once against a decision of our TD and got very nasty looks from the officials (they more or less denied me the right to appeal and regarded it as unsportsmanlike, being anti-social) and that is one of the major clubs here in amsterdam, so i think this behaviour is far more widespread than we can imagine. It all has a lot to do with the fact that bridgeplayers normally dont want to have anything to do regarding the laws under which they play the game, a very dangerous way of life i think. As I said before, if declarer wishes to act >like a prat, then why not let him? > > As TDs, there is no question, in each case the card is played, whether >in turn or not, and there is no reason it should be retracted. > True, but reading the article i have a strange feeling that what happened at the table is something else than what was told here in the group, i am personally inclined to believe that indeed he wanted (verbally or not) make a partial claim regarding the diamond position. Perhaps you can compare it with the situatio in which dummy has AQx of a suit and declarer goes into trance for five minutes, then his RHO shows him his KJ (he has 3 cards in the suit). Are these penaltycards?????. I think this is a good example of a partial claim. But i wasnt there. 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 Thu Feb 25 07:30:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:30:52 +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 HAA15272 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:30:40 +1100 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-157-162.lsan.grid.net [207.205.157.162]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA30965 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:30:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D4618A.2C7D4EFA@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:31:06 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" Organization: I Can't Believe It's a Law Firm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <199902241700.LAA19439@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > David Burn wrote: > > > > >There was an extremely uncomfortable silence. LHO was a professional > > >player, a very good and scrupulously ethical one, and a regular > > >drinking companion of both myself and partner. This meant that the > > >difference between 2D making and 2D one down (about an 80% swing in > > >terms of match points) meant far more to his client (and therefore to > > >him) than it did to us. At the end of the pause, partner (who thinks > > >that the revoke law is bonkers anyway) scored the board as if the > > >revoke had not occurred. I made no protest. Should I have done? > > > > > > > > As Edgar noted, giving up something because you believe it to be in the interest of fair play, etc., might not be wrong, but giving up something because the others are your friends always is. If LHO is a drinking buddy, I've got to enforce the rule, at least to avoid the appearance of impropriety. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 08:23:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:01:56 +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 HAA14169 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:01:41 +1100 Received: from ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.120]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990224200126.TAAG8569.fep4@ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:01:26 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Procedure for Law 81B2 violation? Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:01:25 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36d94540.8571685@post12.tele.dk> References: <199902240159.RAA29722@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199902240159.RAA29722@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, 23 Feb 1999 18:00:42 -0800, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >I don't understand. The book (L27A) says I can accept an >insufficient bid by calling after it. I like to play "real bridge" >without feeling guilty about taking advantage of an obviously >unfair loophole in the laws. Indeed you can, and if doing so makes bridge a better game for you, that is fine, and I would not dream of criticizing you. I might do it myself in some circumstances. What I protested against was only your statement that it was "the sporting thing to do", which seemed to imply that you do not find it sporting to take advantage of the insufficient bid. It is perfectly proper and sporting to do either, and a TD should leave that decision to the player. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 08:51:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:51:36 +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 IAA17824 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:51:28 +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 QAA09814 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:50:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990224165243.00691f7c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:52:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-Reply-To: <36ee0555.9319660@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990222165402.007160e0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990222165402.007160e0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:48 PM 2/23/99 +0100, Jesper wrote: >On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:54:02 -0500, Eric Landau > wrote: > >>The correct ruling by the book is that the 10 must be played. L45C4(a). > >Yes. > >>The correct ruling at the table is something along the lines of (looking E >>in the eye), "Look here, we all know what he meant. If you insist on >>forcing him to play the 10 under your K, you will win the trick, but you >>will no longer be welcome at the club." > >I disagree with that. Calling for the 10 too early is a way of >playing badly, just like miscounting trumps. Just like other >bridge mistakes, it gives the opponents a chance for a good >result. Bridge is a game of mistakes, and the TD should not in >any way suggest that it is improper to take advantage of an >opponents' mistake. But when we reach the point where a player's intent is patently obvious to everyone in the room, we shouldn't care if the exact literal meaning of the player's words parses to something which isn't exactly what he intended. Bridge is a game of *bridge* mistakes, not a game of mistakes in the precise use of language. Suppose that instead of saying "ten" declarer had said "finesse". My American Heritage Dictionary says, "finesse... 3. Bridge. The playing of a card in a suit in which one holds a nonsequential higher card...", so if we take the word at its literal meaning, playing the ace on LHO's king is *not* a finesse! Would anyone consider not allowing declarer to win the trick? 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 Feb 25 09:00:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:02:35 +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 HAA14217 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:02:20 +1100 Received: from ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.120]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990224200155.TABY8569.fep4@ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:01:55 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:01:53 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36dd514c.11655499@post12.tele.dk> References: <9902231522.aa11631@flash.irvine.com> <199902240057500520.05934D04@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902240057500520.05934D04@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, 24 Feb 1999 00:57:50 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >At the end of the pause, partner (who thinks >that the revoke law is bonkers anyway) scored the board as if the >revoke had not occurred. I made no protest. Should I have done? Well, legally it is simple enough: If anybody has called attention to the irregularity, all four players have a duty to call the TD, and the penalty is imposed. But if nobody has called attention to it (and it sounds as if that is the case), there is no problem. The law does not require you to call attention to an irregularity that you have discovered. That might be considered a flaw in the laws - I suspect it is there because it requires quite a lot of mind-reading for a TD who has _not_ been called to determine that a player has noticed an irregularity! --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 09:12:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:12:59 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA18643 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:12:46 +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 RAA10900 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:11:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990224171409.0071f210@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:14:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: The new regime In-Reply-To: <199902232051.PAA13369@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:51 PM 2/23/99 -0500, Steve wrote: >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> Any information about your _opponents'_ system that you get from >> an opponents' answer to a question is AI and can be used freely. >> >> Any information about your _own_ system that you get (or can >> deduce) from an opponents' answer to a question is UI. > >Thank you, Jesper, for producing a distinction that seems workable. >That doesn't, alas, mean it is also desirable. > >> No, it is still AI if you've known all along. > >And this is the mind reading that some of us find so troubling. > >Is the alternative, although perhaps unfamiliar, really so bad? If I understand what Jesper has said earlier, he is prepared to allow a presumption that "you've known all along" except when your previous actions (as in the original case put forth by Mr. Youngerman on r.g.b) demonstrate that you did not. If we accept this, no mind reading is involved. IMO, that is the way to go. 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 Feb 25 09:22:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:02:26 +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 HAA14192 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:01:56 +1100 Received: from ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.120]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990224200146.TABM8569.fep4@ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:01:46 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:01:44 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36dc5008.11331724@post12.tele.dk> References: <199902232051.PAA13369@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199902232051.PAA13369@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:51:58 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> Any information about your _opponents'_ system that you get from >> an opponents' answer to a question is AI and can be used freely. >>=20 >> Any information about your _own_ system that you get (or can >> deduce) from an opponents' answer to a question is UI. > >Thank you, Jesper, for producing a distinction that seems workable. >That doesn't, alas, mean it is also desirable. > >> No, it is still AI if you've known all along. > >And this is the mind reading that some of us find so troubling. Yes, but it is not worse than the corresponding (and much more usual) situation where partner explains your system: if his explanation is news to you, it is UI, but it is AI if you knew it all along. >Is the alternative, although perhaps unfamiliar, really so bad? I think so. I think it calls for at least as much mind-reading. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 09:40:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:01:55 +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 HAA14143 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:01:21 +1100 Received: from ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.120]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990224200107.SZYZ8569.fep4@ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:01:07 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:01:04 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36e05900.13627084@post12.tele.dk> References: <001801be5f50$00f485c0$458a93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001801be5f50$00f485c0$458a93c3@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 Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:09:32 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >++++ My thinking is not a million miles from this. I am leaning >to the view that law amendment should provide that > >" a player whose call has been explained by partner, or who has >himself given such an explanation of his own call when law or >regulation requires it, and whose hand corresponds to the >explanation given, shall defer any correction of the explanation >until the end of the play of the hand if the explanation is not in >accord with his agreements.=20 I think it gives too many problems to have players judge for themselves whether their opponents should have the right explanation. If the player has given the incorrect explanation himself (with screens), there is the problem that opponents do not have the correct information about the basis for the player's partner's further bidding. >An opponent who has acted upon >correct information about the hand shall not be entitled to >redress for an inferior score thereby obtained." ~Grattan~ ++++ I am against this. It some situations, like the one currently under discussion in another thread, it means that the NOS gets a bad score that they would have been without if the correct explanation had been given. I don't like that. Unless the intention is to give a split score in these situations, it will also mean that the pair giving incorrect information gains by doing so. I don't like that either. And sometimes a player will even have an interest in his opponents knowing some features of his hand more precisely than the real system agreement. If I have bid hearts (showing 4) on the suit 65432 and partner explains my call as showing 5 hearts and then bids 3NT, what now? It is impossible to know whether or not opponents are better served by knowing that you've shown only 4. With the rule above, correct procedure would be to say nothing - I would not like that when opponents lead a club and a heart would have defeated the contract. The problem here is that though 65432 technically speaking is definitely a suit of 5, for the purpose of determining what suit to lead it is actually better described as a suit of 4. It is not always easy to determine whether an explanation fits the hand. I think that the current "always give the correct explanation" rule is the best solution. It is consistent and clear and not unreasonable. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 10:20:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:02:22 +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 HAA14191 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:01:56 +1100 Received: from ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.120]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990224200132.TAAQ8569.fep4@ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:01:32 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:01:31 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36da4892.9421186@post12.tele.dk> References: <36d317e6.4430340@post12.tele.dk> <36D0438B.4D4C424C@village.uunet.be> <36d6c5a9.5680488@post12.tele.dk> <36D27C2F.BC27807F@village.uunet.be> <36ec04ff.9233166@post12.tele.dk> <199902240148550470.05C2133C@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902240148550470.05C2133C@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, 24 Feb 1999 01:48:55 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >I suppose that my point of view here may be coloured by my role as >coach to our national teams. I think that setting might make it natural to consider opponents' system and your own defense to it as two not very distinguishable sides of the preparation to play. Ordinary players like myself sit down at a table, check opponents' CC, and play. I can understand that top players think of their system in terms of "they're playing Roman, so we play natural", where I think of my system in terms of "against Roman, natural; against Flannery, 2H for takeout; ...". I had not considered that difference before, and it does make it easier for me to understand your point of view. I do think that for a general discussion my understanding of the "system" concept is most relevant: it is what most players are used to, and your national team probably prepares itself well enough to not play the wrong defense very often. >I contend (as Jesper might not) that it is the duty of a player to >know, as part of his own "system", what counter-methods he will adopt >to conventional openings by his opponents.=20 And this is obviously where we differ. To me, what he has to know as part of his system is a list like "against Roman, natural; against Flannery, 2H for takeout; ...". >If you "forget" what the opponents' >system is, and you therefore misbid, why should this be different from >forgetting what your own system is, and therefore misbidding? It is my opinion that there are certain types of information that should always be AI, no matter how you got them. These types of information are those that you can legally ask about during a hand. They include (IMO) such things as: * What does opponents' 2D opening mean? * Are we playing for IMPs or matchpoints? * How much time do we have for the remaining 3 boards? * How many boards remain in this round? * What is the time? * Are we sitting in the right direction? * Am I allowed to smoke? I believe that we get a consistent, workable, and reasonable result from treating these equally. And I believe that "opponents' system" should belong there with the rest of them, for the reasons that I have enumerated in another recent long thread. But of course that means that I have to distinguish between opponents' system and my own system in the way that David finds unnatural. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 10:44:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:44:57 +1100 Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA20930 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:43:30 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.199]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA21351; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:42:46 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36D48E99.C6C0C1DB@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:43:21 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question References: <000201be5f58$52bc8580$188d93c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well , I must break my vow again I believe that the problem of UI "birth" is not simple at all - but I adopted a practical way to deal with , which I believe should be "canonized" and I try to share it with all of you. As I am convinced , and wrote it many times , UI can occur ONLY when there was an irregularity or an infringement of the laws . In our item , by law 20F and my law 0 , players are entitled to know the full information of their opponents' system (bidding and carding). The way to get it is to ask questions - as long as it is done according to Law 20 , there can't be any UI !!!! If the "inquiry" infringes some mannerism and proprieties (see Laws 16 and laws 73-75 ) then I consider UI , a priori ; but if it was conducted in the proper way/manner - never UI. One more criterion - for the proper way to "inquire" : 1. Ask question before the auction's end ONLY if there is any reason to bid during the auction (including lead-direction doubles, cue-bids and whatever , which can be proved after the board is over). 1a. If you think/feel you have not enough disclosure , or suspect the opponents didn't want to describe their full agreements , don't "over inquire" , just wait until the board is finished and then summon the TD if your suspicions are revealed. 2.If you had no reason to ask before the auction finished , you are entitled to inquire whatever you want before play starts , as defined by Law 20 and with mannerism legal by laws 73-75. I suggest to accept and canonize this "Ghinghis' Principle" , as part of the Commentaries to the laws . Respectfully Dany P.S. I am astonished I didn't write anything sarcastic or humorist in this message ....maybe time to get it very serious ! Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > "The law is good, if a man use it lawfully" > - 1. Timothy > ******************************************************************* > -----Original Message----- > From: Kooijman, A. > To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' > Date: 23 February 1999 16:32 > Subject: RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > > >By absence I was not able to follow these discussions for 10 days. Which > >means that trying to get through I delete most of your messages. In those I > >read I missed the following: > >A player is entitled to know the agreements of his opponents and at his turn > >to call may either ask or read. How then is it possible to make this > >information UI, regardless the way it comes to him? I am not talking about > >the question whether partner may ask with the purpose to inform you, which > >is the next step in the discussion. What I don't understand is that the > >WBFLC apparently does not allow this and its former chairman did agree with > >these questions. Can Grattan explain this: Edgar ill or playing? I know that > >Edgar hadn't problems with these questions. I asked him myself once and he > >said that the laws don't make this distinction. A more practical approach is > >that no player ever will tell you that he wanted to warn his partner, > >knowing he is not allowed to. So,let it be, academic-philosophical > >discussion. What worries me is that all those top-players David asked have > >another idea. May be a reason to ask Grattan to add this subject to our > >agenda. > > > >ton > > +++ Hi ton - welcome back > I had already printed off some of these exchanges for my > subject matters for the committee. > As far as I know it was always the case that the answer to a player's > question is AI to his partner too; the question itself may convey UI. But it > is also the case that, as reaffirmed in Lille, it is an impropriety to ask a > question for the purpose of conveying information to one's partner by > way of the opponent's reply. This was the case long before Kaplan > entered the laws arena and with Geoffrey Butler in the chair of the WBF > International Laws Commission it remained so. > When in respect of the1987 laws the WBFLC referred to the > impropriety Kaplan did not argue the contrary and was assumed to have > acquiesced. > Kaplan's 1981 editorial was advocacy in defense of his own > behaviour, but it was not an official international interpretation of the law. > He had no authority at that time to interpret on behalf of the WBF > committee. ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 10:55:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:55:26 +1100 Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA21278 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:55:17 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.199]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA22042; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:55:02 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36D4917A.49353FAD@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:55:38 +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: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <36D35482.D2BAC471@mindspring.com> <36D3E703.16A3FF97@village.uunet.be> <1e2E2bA5JA12Ewuk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For sure , David refers to the mythical personality of Sir Winston Churchill , whose many thoughts and proposals were "in minority" but proved to be the right ones - not only right but the best and even "world saving" . I also don't believe that Herman meant what I understood from his message. Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >When > >in a minority, you should realise that you must be wrong on > >that point. > > Herman - I just cannot believe you wrote this. Tell me it ain't 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 Thu Feb 25 11:20:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:01:54 +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 HAA14165 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:01:39 +1100 Received: from ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.120]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990224200116.SZZK8569.fep4@ip120.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:01:16 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misexplanation leads to bad luck Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:01:14 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36e15934.13679610@post12.tele.dk> References: <01BE5F42.D4788120@har-pa1-05.ix.NETCOM.com> <199902232221240960.050410F8@mail.btinternet.com> <199902240149330700.05C2A89C@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902240149330700.05C2A89C@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, 24 Feb 1999 01:49:33 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >(2) If the opponents commit an infraction, and we later do something >that we would not have done absent the infraction, then: if we would in >all circumstances get an unfavourable result, we are entitled to the >result that we would have got absent the infraction; if, however, >circumstances are such that we would normally be in a position to >benefit from the infraction but fail to do so for a reason wholly >unconnected with the infraction itself, then the result we obtain at >the table should stand. When you say "would normally be in a position to benefit" you seem to mean that you are in a position which, looking at 26 cards, seem advantageous. I.e., "normally" really means "when you cannot see the opponents' cards". I find it completely uninteresting what value the slam contract would "normally" have - it was bid on these specific 52 cards with this specific (and not normal) layout of the opponents cards. The goal of a bridge hand is not to be happy when dummy is put down, but to be happy when the hand is over and the score is entered. So damage should be measured in lost points on the hand as a whole, not in lost quality of bidding. On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:06:11 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >I do not believe that such a definition of "damage" is inconsistent >with the Laws. However, I am aware that it is not easy to persuade >others of a contrary view to adopt it. DWS's argument: "if they hadn't >offended, we'd have been plus 630; they did and now we're minus 100; so >we were damaged by their infraction" has a great deal of superficial >attraction for the average player (and even for the above-average >tournament director). Yes, I consider myself an above-average tournament director, and I agree completely with DWS. I am quite convinced that it is the only consistent and workable way, and also the only reasonable way, to define "damage". > Moreover, the concept of "loss of equity" would >not be easy to define within the Laws, and would certainly not be easy >to implement in a country where someone who drives a car with a cup of >coffee on his lap, and has an accident when the coffee spills and >scalds him, can sue the company who supplied him with the cup of coffee >- and win! You measure "lost equity" at the time the auction is over - I believe the layout and play of the cards should be considered too, so I measure it at the end of the hand. At that time it can even be measured in points, which is easier. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 11:27:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:27:09 +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 LAA22338 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:27:00 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.26] by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10FoT4-0007Zr-00; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:15:54 +0000 Message-ID: <199902250015340280.0A93272F@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE5FEA.AB640F40@har-pa2-24.ix.netcom.com> References: <01BE5FEA.AB640F40@har-pa2-24.ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:15:34 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: rts48u@ix.netcom.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Appeal; Opinions sought Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig On 24/02/99, at 11:39, Craig Senior wrote: >From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] > > Last night. I led a card that RHO (an >indifferent player) ruffed in dummy and underruffed (instead of >following) in his hand. It made no difference, and I did not even >notice, for the result of the deal was a foregone conclusion and I had >mentally returned my cards to the wallet with four tricks to play. But >partner noticed, and partner was the man whose duty it was to fill in >the travelling score slip. > >There was an extremely uncomfortable silence. LHO was a professional >player, a very good and scrupulously ethical one, and a regular >drinking companion of both myself and partner. This meant that the >difference between 2D making and 2D one down (about an 80% swing in >terms of match points) meant far more to his client (and therefore to >him) than it did to us. At the end of the pause, partner (who thinks >that the revoke law is bonkers anyway) scored the board as if the >revoke had not occurred. I made no protest. Should I have done? > > > >### At party bridge around the kitchen table I'd have settled for him >getting up to refill the glasses. But in a tournament, he was not entitled >to the match points. He was paying a pro. If it were to learn bridge >better, you do him no favour by silence. If it were to gain a rank you >allow him a hollow victory if it must be won in contravention of the Laws. >You should speak up. Personal misgivings about the revoke law should not >influence your action. And, at the risk of flames from this list which I >know disagrees, it is unfair to some other pair sitting his way that he get >match points to which he is not entitled...thereby depriving them of some. >Besides, do you really want your scrupulously ethical pro drinking buddy to >think less of you for making a gift to his errant client? By the way, had >he forfeited the rights of dummy or was he just being inattentive to allow >this to occur? You're quite right, and I wasn't proud of what I had done, It was just that... it was not a "tournament" but a club duplicate; both pairs were not in contention for anything (we each scored around 57%); and I simply couldn't be bothered. No excuse, just the way it was. Dummy was as asleep as I was, but I think (in fairness to him) that if he'd been North, he'd have filled the traveller in for one down with no questions asked either. The question of "protecting the field" did occur to me, but in my somnolent state it did not occur to me for long. However, a theoretical question did occur to me later. Suppose partner had called the TD and said: "This man's revoked, but it made no difference, so I'm happy to waive any penalty." Must the TD, should the TD, or could the TD agree with this under L81C8? If not, when does L81C8 actually apply? (I speak as one who has given a ruling in a National Final under this Law, and I wonder if anyone else has ever used it in practice.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 11:34:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:34:06 +1100 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA22568 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:33:55 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.26] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10FojM-0005uY-00; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:32:44 +0000 Message-ID: <199902250033360250.0AA3AA2D@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:33:36 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 24/02/99, at 13:50, af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: >According to Herman De Wael: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>> Jan Kamras wrote: >>> >Although it seems harsh, from the presentation it doesn't seem declarer >>> >made any claim of a certain no. of tricks, so I can't see that L68 >>> >applies. >>> >I fear I'd have to rule as per L55 which deals with declarer's LOOT from >>> >hand or dummy. Either opponent has the right to accept the LOOT, so they >>> >can win the King if they are so inclined. I wish someone can find a way >>> >to rule this as an "irrational claim" situation! >>> >>> Why? If someone wants to act like a total prat, why should we find a >>> way to save him? >>> >> >>This is a good example of how difficult it is to write a >>good account of what is going on. >> >>David, and several others, believe this declarer has acted >>like a total prat and don't want to rescue him. >> >>I, and some others, believe it is defender who has acted >>like a prat and should not gain from his slowness. > >I completely agree with Herman on this issue. >The defense is acting unsportsmanslike on this >hand, and although they technically can win the king now, >I think they need a major reading on bridge ethics. > >I can't think of anybody who would not let declarer >take the DT back here. Not sure about this. After all, a not uncommon ploy is the following: declarer leads towards AQJ in dummy and plays the jack, which holds. He crosses to his hand and leads the suit again, obviously intending to repeat the finesse. Is it unethical for second hand to play the king from king and some small cards, in the hope that declarer will call for the queen anyway? And, if declarer does call for the queen under the king, because he has not been paying attention and just intends to finesse again, is it legal that he should be permitted to "change his mind"? I don't think so, and I'm not sure that other people think so either. The actual position does not appear to me greatly different from this. If declarer leads a card towards A10 in dummy, and before LHO has played, requests the 10 (even though RHO has already shown out), it does not seem impossible to me that a defender should be allowed a trick with the onside king. From my experience of watching top-class rubber bridge games (the most scrupulously ethical on earth), this kind of thing is all considered "part of the game" - it would go small, king, "ten..er...(embarrassed laughter)" and the king would score a trick, which the defender would not be at all ashamed to take and the declarer would, though abashed, willingly concede. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 12:06:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:06:22 +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 MAA23460 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:06:07 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.26] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10FpFE-0004dS-00; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:05:40 +0000 Message-ID: <199902250105470220.0AC12247@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <36D3EB66.AF139331@village.uunet.be> References: <36d317e6.4430340@post12.tele.dk> <36D0438B.4D4C424C@village.uunet.be> <36d6c5a9.5680488@post12.tele.dk> <36D27C2F.BC27807F@village.uunet.be> <36ec04ff.9233166@post12.tele.dk> <36D3EB66.AF139331@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:05:47 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 24/02/99, at 13:07, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >> On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:00:15 +0100, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >> >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >> Agreed. The difference from the earlier thread is that here N >> >> learns about his own system from the response; in the other >> >> thread he only learned about the opponents' system. IMO that >> >> makes the difference between UI and AI. >> > >> >That may be a significant difference. You would suggest >> >that in both cases, when becoming defender, the player has >> >the AI about opponents' system, which he can use in the >> >play. That may be a further point of discussion. >> > >> >But the original case was different. Not only did the >> >player learn through the response that he was mistaken about >> >his opponent's system, but also that he had misbid. >> >In this second case too, the player has learnt that he has >> >misbid. >> >> Yes, but the misbids are very different. In the first case, he >> misbids because he does not know the opponents' system. When he >> does find out the opponents' system, he is IMO free to bid as he >> wants to repair the damage. This is consistent, as long as you >> accept (as I do but Herman does not) that knowledge of opponents' >> system is always AI, because it is knowledge that all players are >> allowed to have without having to remember it. >> >> In the second case, he has misbid because he has forgotten his >> own system. This is really his mistake, and the answer to >> partner's question should not be allowed to save him. His own >> system is knowledge that he himself is responsible for >> remembering. >> > >Indeed a significant difference. I don't think so. My view is that defences to artificial enemy openings are as much a part of "my" system as my range for an opening 1NT, the meaning of my 2S overcall of an enemy 1S, and so forth. The meaning of a 2H overcall of an (artificial) 2D opening is as much a part of "my" system as the meaning of a 2S overcall of a (natural) 1S opening. If the SO lets the opponents play 2D Flannery, and it lets them play 2D Roman, then presumably it has done so because it believes that the field "should" know how they defend against both these conventions. Thus, if I overcall 2D (Roman) with 2H (takeout of hearts), I have made an error exactly equivalent to overcalling 1S with 2S (hearts and diamonds) when in fact I hold hearts and clubs. Now, I do not mind if the Laws are interpreted in such a fashion as to allow me to retrieve the position in both cases, or not to retrieve the position in both cases. What I find very difficult is an interpretation which allows me to retrieve the position in one case but not the other. > >> >If we allow him only the "complete knowledge of opponent's >> >system", not the specific knowledge of that part of the >> >system that interests his partner", in neither case will he >> >be awakened to his own mistake. >> >> In the first case, he would never have made the mistake at all if >> he had that complete knowledge. In the second case, he would >> have made the mistake. > >A very important difference. Again, I don't think so. A player is "supposed to know" what a 2S overcall of a 1S opening shows. He is equally "supposed to know" what a 2H overcall of a 2D opening shows, whatever that 2D opening might have meant (assuming that its meaning was legal in the sense of being permitted by the SO, and properly disclosed in advance and via the CC). The fact that in the first case, his error has happened because he does not know the opponents' system, while in the second his error has happened because he does not know his own, does not seem to me relevant. >I suddenly have a lot more sympathy for the opposing view. Oh, well. It's me against the world, as usual. >What do you say David, shall we join Jesper ? > >After all, I still believe that we would just be only three >in this camp. That's only because everyone else has got bored and gone home, and I don't blame them. I will continue to struggle with the implementation of the majority view. Mind you, I don't think that this will be easy, because among the people who don't agree with it can now be numbered the Chairman of our own Laws and Ethics Committee. However... From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 12:09:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:09:30 +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 MAA23527 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:09:22 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA10494 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:09:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902250109.RAA10494@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Procedure for Law 81B2 violation? Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:20:06 -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 Stevenson wrote- > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >>It seems to me that accepting the call would have been the sporting > >>thing to do, since 3H has practically the same meaning as 2H. > > > >Let me repeat what I've just written in another thread: bridge is > >a game of mistakes. When you make a mistake, whether by > >miscounting a suit or bidding insufficiently, it is perfectly > >sporting of opponents to do what they can to profit from your > >mistake. > > > >>When a TD > >>cannot legally do the obviously fair thing, why not do it for her > >>if you can? > > > >The concept of "fairness" of a game cannot really mean anything > >other than following the letter and intention of its rules. > >Under the rules of bridge, it is "obviously fair" to benefit from > >opponents' mistakes, including irregularities. > > There is another point: what is obvious to one player is certainly not > obvious to another. I heard Bobby Wolff and Rich Colker agree this Law > should be changed to cover this situation [apparently this is the first > time they have agreed for some time]. However, *their* argument seemed > wrong to me, and I did not agree with it. I really think we should > leave this sort of Law to the Lawmakers rather than the players. > Exactly right. Which is why I like L27A, which permits me to accept an insufficient bid if I decide that circumstances warrant doing so. Good Law! I hasten to say, lest my friends call me a hypocrite, that I can't remember ever accepting an insufficient bid. Only in the narrow circumstances of the subject case (sufficient bid has the same meaning as the insufficient conventional bid) would I consider doing that. Sometimes I end up wishing I had accepted an insufficient bid. At the Reno NABC a player bid an insufficient 2NT in a competitive auction, probably meant as "good-bad" but unAlerted (and unaccepted), then made his weak raise of partner's spades, barring his partner (who would have bid 4S if she could). Although he "could have known," etc., and there may have been MI, the TD refused to adjust the score. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 12:09:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:09:35 +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 MAA23531 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:09:25 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA10502 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:09:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902250109.RAA10502@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:56:28 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: (snip of good arguments) > > I think that the current "always give the correct explanation" > rule is the best solution. It is consistent and clear and not > unreasonable. > -- Right on, but isn't there some way to avoid having to personally correct an explanation that happens to match one's hand? It just doesn't feel right to do so, even though it is right. Most opponents won't feel it's right either. How about this: First of all, at the first legal opportunity to do so, say "There's been a failure to Alert," or "I don't think partner explained our agreement correctly," followed by a call to the TD, all the while giving partner a fixed stare. Explain the problem to the TD without interrupting the stare. By this time partner may have remembered what she should have done, so she can correct the MI. As a last resort, correct it yourself. I think that approach would sit better with opponents than blurting out an immediate explanation oneself. If you have to explain, it is good to have documentation available when the agreement isn't a common one. In the well-known case of Karen McCallum and Garozzo, if I remember right the AC case writeup said she was able to produce system notes that backed up her correction of partner's MI. That might have been the deciding factor in the favorable decision she received. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 12:32:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:32:49 +1100 Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA23964 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:32:40 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.26] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10Fpeu-0004If-00; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:32:12 +0000 Message-ID: <199902250132190290.0AD96E2E@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <36D3ED4A.EAE19981@village.uunet.be> References: <36ed0522.9268357@post12.tele.dk> <199902232154090060.04EB19EF@mail.btinternet.com> <36D3ED4A.EAE19981@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:32:19 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: hermandw@village.uunet.be Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman >You make the two sound completely the same, but they are >not. >The "system" that the first player was playing was "takeout >over Flannery - natural over Roman". There is no indication >to suggest that this player had forgotten this system. He >made a wrong call, not a wrong "system rememberance" The reason I make the two sound completely the same is that, for practical purposes, they are the same. When the player did not take the necessary steps to find out what 2D actually was, then (in effect) he had "forgotten" what his 2H overcall showed. If my RHO opens 1S and I overcall 2S when that shows hearts and diamonds, but I have hearts and clubs, then I have forgotten what I am supposed to be doing. If my RHO opens 2D, which does not necessarily promise hearts, and I overcall 2H showing hearts when in fact I have a three-suited hand with short hearts, then I have forgotten what I am supposed to be doing. I don't see at all that because one opening was natural and the other artificial, my responsibility to know what I am doing is in any way diminished. Nor do I see that in the one case, an explanation given by an opponent to partner allows me to "wake up", while in the other case it does not. However, it may be that I just don't see because I am willfully blind. Now that you've deserted me, I will try to come to terms with "the new regime". From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 13:12:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:12:00 +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 NAA24671 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:11:50 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.26] by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 10FqH9-0003lz-00; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:11:44 +0000 Message-ID: <199902250211260420.0AFD4015@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <36e15934.13679610@post12.tele.dk> References: <01BE5F42.D4788120@har-pa1-05.ix.NETCOM.com> <199902232221240960.050410F8@mail.btinternet.com> <199902240149330700.05C2A89C@mail.btinternet.com> <36e15934.13679610@post12.tele.dk> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:11:26 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misexplanation leads to bad luck Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 24/02/99, at 21:01, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:49:33 +0000, "David Burn" > wrote: >>(2) If the opponents commit an infraction, and we later do something >>that we would not have done absent the infraction, then: if we would in >>all circumstances get an unfavourable result, we are entitled to the >>result that we would have got absent the infraction; if, however, >>circumstances are such that we would normally be in a position to >>benefit from the infraction but fail to do so for a reason wholly >>unconnected with the infraction itself, then the result we obtain at >>the table should stand. > >When you say "would normally be in a position to benefit" you >seem to mean that you are in a position which, looking at 26 >cards, seem advantageous. I.e., "normally" really means "when >you cannot see the opponents' cards". Quite so - that is exactly what I mean. But you're not (normally) allowed to see the opponents' cards anyway; why should you be allowed to see them just because they've committed an infraction? >I find it completely uninteresting what value the slam contract >would "normally" have - it was bid on these specific 52 cards >with this specific (and not normal) layout of the opponents >cards. I can only repeat what I said earlier: to shift someone from camp (1) to camp (2) is going to be an impossible task. Your arguments, from camp (1), are unassailable; the arguments from camp (2) are equally unassailable, which is why I think that the Lawmakers need to come up with an arbitrary decision on the matter as soon as possible, I don't mind, personally, which way that decision goes; I just don't want the question left hanging any longer than necessary. >The goal of a bridge hand is not to be happy when dummy is put >down, but to be happy when the hand is over and the score is >entered. So damage should be measured in lost points on the hand >as a whole, not in lost quality of bidding. Not so. I think that the vast majority of top players would be happy not to have made an error "in theory"; if they bid a 75% game that goes down, they will be happier than if they had missed game and scored plus 140 "by accident" - most of the players I know would be somewhat ashamed of that. The goal of a bridge hand is to play the game to the best of your ability, while realising that sometimes you play "too well" (as, for example, in reaching a 90% slam that goes down for a zero to your side because the inferior field has stayed in game). The philosophy that you quote above is that of the result merchant, not that of the "true" bridge player. >>I do not believe that such a definition of "damage" is inconsistent >>with the Laws. However, I am aware that it is not easy to persuade >>others of a contrary view to adopt it. DWS's argument: "if they hadn't >>offended, we'd have been plus 630; they did and now we're minus 100; so >>we were damaged by their infraction" has a great deal of superficial >>attraction for the average player (and even for the above-average >>tournament director). > >Yes, I consider myself an above-average tournament director, and >I agree completely with DWS. I am quite convinced that it is the >only consistent and workable way, and also the only reasonable >way, to define "damage". You and DWS are miles above average as tournament directors. Moreover, your definition of "damage" is, as you say, both consistent and workable. As I have said, I would have no problem if it were implemented forthwith. However, the camp (2) followers (of whom I am one, but that is by the way) might have something to say before that happens, for their arguments are also both consistent and workable. If the enemy reach 5H doubled, and you let it make by revoking for a bottom when you could have beaten it two for a top, can you now call the TD and claim that they only got to 5H by means of UI...? This is old hat, but it's an old hat that someone ought to pick up and wear.. >> Moreover, the concept of "loss of equity" would >>not be easy to define within the Laws, and would certainly not be easy >>to implement in a country where someone who drives a car with a cup of >>coffee on his lap, and has an accident when the coffee spills and >>scalds him, can sue the company who supplied him with the cup of coffee >>- and win! > >You measure "lost equity" at the time the auction is over - I >believe the layout and play of the cards should be considered >too, so I measure it at the end of the hand. You're not measuring equity any more, Jesper, for the wave function has collapsed. You're measuring by results, which is perfectly valid - but so is measuring earlier in the game in terms of (true) equity. I repeat: I am not optimistic. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 16:48:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:48:49 +1100 Received: from pm2-85.dial.qual.net (root@pm2-85.dial.qual.net [205.212.1.85]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA27303 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:48:38 +1100 Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by pm1-34.dial.qual.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA28796 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:46:49 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pm1-34.dial.qual.net: moorebj owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:46:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings In-Reply-To: <001801be5f50$00f485c0$458a93c3@pacific> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan, Please don't do this. Let's say I'm playing against a regular partner with a new partner. New partner misexplains slightly. When I don't correct, regular partner now knows more about my hand than my partner or my agreements allow. This cannot be right. The principle I'm defending is that the opponents are entitled to know our agreements, no less, but certainly no more. It certainly seems adequate to correct partner's (slight) misexplanation and *always* indicate that your hand may, or may not correspond to the original explanation. That fulfills one's ethical obligation for disclosure without requiring declarer to face his hand. Bruce On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > ++++ My thinking is not a million miles from this. I am leaning > to the view that law amendment should provide that > > " a player whose call has been explained by partner, or who has > himself given such an explanation of his own call when law or > regulation requires it, and whose hand corresponds to the > explanation given, shall defer any correction of the explanation > until the end of the play of the hand if the explanation is not in > accord with his agreements. An opponent who has acted upon > correct information about the hand shall not be entitled to > redress for an inferior score thereby obtained." ~Grattan~ ++++ > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 23:37:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:37:09 +1100 Received: from arsenic.uunet.lu (arsenic.uunet.lu [194.7.192.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA01020 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:37:02 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-187.uunet.be [194.7.14.187]) by arsenic.uunet.lu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27879 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:36:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D53C1C.201C9880@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:03:40 +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: Labrador Flag References: <36D4A26C.23063A63@hvgb.northatlantic.nf.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have received the following : Trudy Careen wrote: > > Hi, just came across your webpage and seen the question on > the Labrador Flag. I live in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, > Labrador and I'll see if I can help you out with the > description : > [flag attached to separate message as ca-nf-la.gif] > > This flag is meant to be a permanent declaration of the > unique identity of the people of > Labrador and their common heritage. > > The top white bar represents the snow, the one > element which, more than any other, > coloured our culture and dictated our lifestyles. > > The bottom blue bar represents the waters of our > rivers, lakes and oceans. The waters > have been our highways, like the snows, and nurtured > our fish and wildlife. The centre > green bar represents the land. The green and > bountiful land is the connecting element > that unites our three diverse cultures. > > The symbolic spruce twig was chosen because the > spruce tree is the one thing that is > common to all geographic areas of Labrador. It has > provided our shelter, transport, fuel, > and in an indirect way, our food and clothing since > the spruce forests became the > environment for the wildlife which gave us meat for > our tables, skins for our clothing > and trade. It was from the spruce that we sawed our > planks and timber for our canoes, > komatiks and houses. > > The three branches of the spruce twig represents the > three races: the Inuit, the Innu, > Metis, and the European settlers. The twig is in two > sections, or year's growths. The > outer growth is longer than the inner growth. This > occurs because in the good growing > years the twig grows longer than in the poor years. > Thus, the inner and shorter twig > reminds us of times past, while the longer twig > represents our hope for the future. > > > This description is taken from: > www.cancom.net/~economic/ > > I work with the Central Labrador Economic Develoment Board > Inc. You can check out our website at: > www.central-labrador.nf.ca > > Hope this is of help to you. If you have any more > questions, feel free to contact me via e-mail. > > Sincerely, > > Jeannine Chaulk > Central Labardor Economic Development Board Inc. > P.O. Box 2143, Stn. B > Happy Valley-Goose Bay, LB > A0P 1E0 > (709) 896-8506 > (709) 896-8209 fax > economic@cancom.net > > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 23:38:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:38:42 +1100 Received: from arsenic.uunet.lu (arsenic.uunet.lu [194.7.192.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA01030 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:38:36 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-187.uunet.be [194.7.14.187]) by arsenic.uunet.lu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27956; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:38:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D53E28.5A70D08C@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:12:24 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <36D35482.D2BAC471@mindspring.com> <36D3E703.16A3FF97@village.uunet.be> <1e2E2bA5JA12Ewuk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >When > >in a minority, you should realise that you must be wrong on > >that point. > > Herman - I just cannot believe you wrote this. Tell me it ain't so! > OK, correct to "you might be wrong". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 23:50:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:50:42 +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 XAA01081 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:50:35 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10G0FE-00040b-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:50:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:55:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <01BE5FEA.AB640F40@har-pa2-24.ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE5FEA.AB640F40@har-pa2-24.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > >From: David Burn[SMTP:dburn@btinternet.com] > > Last night. I led a card that RHO (an >indifferent player) ruffed in dummy and underruffed (instead of >following) in his hand. It made no difference, and I did not even >notice, for the result of the deal was a foregone conclusion and I had >mentally returned my cards to the wallet with four tricks to play. But >partner noticed, and partner was the man whose duty it was to fill in >the travelling score slip. > >There was an extremely uncomfortable silence. LHO was a professional >player, a very good and scrupulously ethical one, and a regular >drinking companion of both myself and partner. This meant that the >difference between 2D making and 2D one down (about an 80% swing in >terms of match points) meant far more to his client (and therefore to >him) than it did to us. At the end of the pause, partner (who thinks >that the revoke law is bonkers anyway) scored the board as if the >revoke had not occurred. I made no protest. Should I have done? > > > >### At party bridge around the kitchen table I'd have settled for him >getting up to refill the glasses. But in a tournament, he was not entitled >to the match points. He was paying a pro. If it were to learn bridge >better, you do him no favour by silence. If it were to gain a rank you >allow him a hollow victory if it must be won in contravention of the Laws. >You should speak up. Personal misgivings about the revoke law should not >influence your action. And, at the risk of flames from this list which I >know disagrees, it is unfair to some other pair sitting his way that he get >match points to which he is not entitled...thereby depriving them of some. >Besides, do you really want your scrupulously ethical pro drinking buddy to >think less of you for making a gift to his errant client? By the way, had >he forfeited the rights of dummy or was he just being inattentive to allow >this to occur? The differences that accrue to the rest of the field are totally trivial, and considerably less than the general luck factor. It is generally considered more important to act like a reasonable human being than worry about trivia - more to the point, if people think this way, then they will not think less of each other for this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 25 23:50:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:50:46 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA01083 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:50:36 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10G0FK-000Ck2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:50:31 +0000 Message-ID: <+yIGdUADBM12Ewsd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 03:15:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <001801be5f50$00f485c0$458a93c3@pacific> <36e05900.13627084@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <36e05900.13627084@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:09:32 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > >>++++ My thinking is not a million miles from this. I am leaning >>to the view that law amendment should provide that >> >>" a player whose call has been explained by partner, or who has >>himself given such an explanation of his own call when law or >>regulation requires it, and whose hand corresponds to the >>explanation given, shall defer any correction of the explanation >>until the end of the play of the hand if the explanation is not in >>accord with his agreements. > >I think it gives too many problems to have players judge for >themselves whether their opponents should have the right >explanation. > >If the player has given the incorrect explanation himself (with >screens), there is the problem that opponents do not have the >correct information about the basis for the player's partner's >further bidding. > >>An opponent who has acted upon >>correct information about the hand shall not be entitled to >>redress for an inferior score thereby obtained." ~Grattan~ ++++ > >I am against this. It some situations, like the one currently >under discussion in another thread, it means that the NOS gets a >bad score that they would have been without if the correct >explanation had been given. I don't like that. Unless the >intention is to give a split score in these situations, it will >also mean that the pair giving incorrect information gains by >doing so. I don't like that either. > >And sometimes a player will even have an interest in his >opponents knowing some features of his hand more precisely than >the real system agreement. If I have bid hearts (showing 4) on >the suit 65432 and partner explains my call as showing 5 hearts >and then bids 3NT, what now? It is impossible to know whether or >not opponents are better served by knowing that you've shown only >4. With the rule above, correct procedure would be to say >nothing - I would not like that when opponents lead a club and a >heart would have defeated the contract. > >The problem here is that though 65432 technically speaking is >definitely a suit of 5, for the purpose of determining what suit >to lead it is actually better described as a suit of 4. It is >not always easy to determine whether an explanation fits the >hand. > >I think that the current "always give the correct explanation" >rule is the best solution. It is consistent and clear and not >unreasonable. I suppose I better shake myself, and say "Me too". I really think that Grattan's offering is a troll: an offering he does not believe in to see the arguments go round. The Laws apply to bridge clubs in Cheltenham, and Methodist halls in Maine [have I got the quote correct?]. Tell me how you expect to explain the players that they do not give the right answer under certain circumstances, and how you decide those circumstances? For this Law to operate the players need to use their judgement - oh, yippee! In practical examples there will be so many borderline cases - what then? Whether it is a theoretically good or bad idea, it would be the most impractical and unworkable Law of the lot, and would keep the BLs happy for years! -- 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 Feb 25 23:50:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:50:47 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA01082 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:50:35 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10G0FG-000Ck2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:50:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:51:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <2a909554.36d4260b@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <2a909554.36d4260b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk alan wrote: >That is the ONLY way a committee should be run. It is too often the case that >a committee will start discussing LAs without ever settling the other issues. >We teach that LAs should be the last issue discussed. First comes the issue >of whether UI existed and, if so, whether it demonstrably suggested one action >over another. This issue is frequently ignored by Directors and Committees. >LAs should not be dealt with until both of the earlier issues are settled, >IMO. We find a lot of time is saved by doing things in this manner. This seems over-regimented. If there are no LAs to the chosen action, then a thirty minute discussion over whether there was UI is a complete waste of time. I believe a good AC will conduct a quick overview of the whole problem, considering any vital points in general, before detailed discussion. This is the way to cut down waste of 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 Thu Feb 25 23:50:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:50:53 +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 XAA01099 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:50:44 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10G0FK-00042O-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:50:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 03:05:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <3.0.1.32.19990222165402.007160e0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990222165402.007160e0@pop.cais.com> <36ee0555.9319660@post12.tele.dk> <3.0.1.32.19990224165243.00691f7c@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990224165243.00691f7c@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >Suppose that instead of saying "ten" declarer had said "finesse". My >American Heritage Dictionary says, "finesse... 3. Bridge. The playing of a >card in a suit in which one holds a nonsequential higher card...", so if we >take the word at its literal meaning, playing the ace on LHO's king is >*not* a finesse! Would anyone consider not allowing declarer to win the >trick? How on earth is he going to win the trick? He is playing before his LHO! -- 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 Feb 25 23:50:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:50:54 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA01092 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:50:42 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10G0FM-000Ck3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:50:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:56:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought References: <199902241700.LAA19439@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199902241700.LAA19439@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: > I don't want to play bridge with any player who would complain "I >lost a matchpoint because some pair the other direction didn't demand >their trick from a harmless revoke". > > But that's just me. ... and me. -- 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 Feb 25 23:50:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:50:58 +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 XAA01110 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:50:51 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10G0FN-00040g-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:50:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 03:04:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <01BE5FF4.B4CF5C60@har-pa1-25.ix.NETCOM.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE5FF4.B4CF5C60@har-pa1-25.ix.NETCOM.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >I cannot think of anyone who WOULD let him take it back in an event of any >importance. There is nothing unethical about it. Let him learn the hard way >not to play out of turn by enforcing the rules. How sportsmanlike would >you think letting him take it back were if this pair were your close >friends, and in a tight battle for the match? Playing by the rules is >sportsmanlike. (In a friendly game, of course you let him take it >back...but in a tournament?) My friends would not want to take the card back: they do not play that way. -- 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 Feb 25 23:52:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:52:29 +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 XAA01165 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:52:13 +1100 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA00316 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:51:55 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01J85VLD3AUQ00D1PS@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:51:54 +0100 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:55:15 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:51:45 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Is this a claim? To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C13F@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 Year by year I become more tolerant(I know your question:'what level did you start then?), which is why I started reading L46 once more. The reason is that this south did not make a bridge mistake in my opinion, he was just careless in announcing the card he wanted to play. What he wanted to expres is: 'play the card needed to capture the K ' or 'I am going to finesse once more'. So his intention was above any doubt completely clear. He never changed his mind, never in his mind played the wrong card. I am not sure what my decision as a TD would have been yesterday but near in the future I will allow him to play the A trying to convince the AC that the laws allow this decision, reading them the last line of the heading in 46B. They will agree. But I am hesitating to send this around the world, not because I do want to protect myself, but because TD's all over the world can handle the strict interpretation of L46 but many of them can't interpret.So in a short while every card can be drawn back, when this opinion goes around. Throw it away please. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Eric Landau [mailto:elandau@cais.com] Verzonden: woensdag 24 februari 1999 22:53 Aan: Bridge Laws Discussion List Onderwerp: Re: Is this a claim? At 08:48 PM 2/23/99 +0100, Jesper wrote: >On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:54:02 -0500, Eric Landau > wrote: > >>The correct ruling by the book is that the 10 must be played. L45C4(a). > >Yes. > >>The correct ruling at the table is something along the lines of (looking E >>in the eye), "Look here, we all know what he meant. If you insist on >>forcing him to play the 10 under your K, you will win the trick, but you >>will no longer be welcome at the club." > >I disagree with that. Calling for the 10 too early is a way of >playing badly, just like miscounting trumps. Just like other >bridge mistakes, it gives the opponents a chance for a good >result. Bridge is a game of mistakes, and the TD should not in >any way suggest that it is improper to take advantage of an >opponents' mistake. But when we reach the point where a player's intent is patently obvious to everyone in the room, we shouldn't care if the exact literal meaning of the player's words parses to something which isn't exactly what he intended. Bridge is a game of *bridge* mistakes, not a game of mistakes in the precise use of language. Suppose that instead of saying "ten" declarer had said "finesse". My American Heritage Dictionary says, "finesse... 3. Bridge. The playing of a card in a suit in which one holds a nonsequential higher card...", so if we take the word at its literal meaning, playing the ace on LHO's king is *not* a finesse! Would anyone consider not allowing declarer to win the trick? 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 Feb 26 00:41:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:41:08 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA04205 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:41:00 +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 IAA27144 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:39:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990225084227.0072a9c8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:42:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-Reply-To: References: <36D30B15.18DD243@home.com> <36D1C7C2.35A7A33B@home.com> <36D30B15.18DD243@home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:51 AM 2/24/99 +0000, David wrote: > I actually think this is quite important, so I shall abandon the short >comments, and explain fully. > > ATx > Kx x Dummy is North > xx > > I lead an x, and call for the ten before LHO plays. I have played the >ten, because that is the way one plays from dummy. Some people have >suggested that we should let declarer have a second go at this trick. >It is not a claim: there is no reason in Law why we should give him a >second chance. Declarer has made a stupid mistake. Let us look at some >similar positions. Lest we forget, in the original position under discussion, East had already shown out of the suit so the finesse was proven. In the opinions of some, this 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 Fri Feb 26 01:37:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 01:37:38 +1100 Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA05596 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 01:37:27 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.116]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id QAA17519; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:37:07 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36D56037.3048ED41@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:37:44 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Moore CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Procedure for Law 81B2 violation? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think that David's suggestion (read between the rows ..) is right . >From the formal point of view , there can't be different ruling for different persons - but only if it is written explicitly in the laws. I have no doubt there must be higher indulgence for LOLs and beginners and "social duplicate" , but it should be legalized, i.e. updating the above rule accordingly. Your excellency Sir Grattan : please put it on WBFLC's agenda. Dany DWS wrote : There is another point: what is obvious to one player is certainly not obvious to another. I heard Bobby Wolff and Rich Colker agree this Law should be changed to cover this situation [apparently this is the first time they have agreed for some time]. However, *their* argument seemed wrong to me, and I did not agree with it. I really think we should leave this sort of Law to the Lawmakers rather than the players. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Bruce J. Moore wrote: > > Greetings, > > My partner and I had an unsettling experience at the club > recently. This occurred at an ACBL-sanctioned game. > < snooppy !!!> > The director then ruled that > there was no harm, so that the auction would be continued. > > When I pressed further, she indicated that she was aware > of the proper ruling, but did not feel it to be appropriate in > a club game given that both conventional meanings were identical! > > The auction continued to 6S by West, and declarer, perhaps > flustered by all the commotion, not only misplayed the cold slam, but > made an invalid claim to go off 2 tricks for a very cold bottom. > > Clearly we were not damaged (perhaps the opponents were -- > East stated afterward he would have simply bid 6S). The director is a > fine lady with a heart of gold. She is one of the nicest people in the > unit! However, this unusual situation was most upsetting to all > concerned. What recourse is available when a TD violates Law 81B2? > > "The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary > regulations announced by the sponsoring organization." > > It would be nice if there were a gentle way of handling this, > without making a federal case. But I'll take other suggestions; > perhaps the next time the director won't be so well-intentioned. > > Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 02:20:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:20:28 +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 CAA06748 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:20:20 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.40.125]) by mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990225151941.DMPL14281@default> for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:19:41 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:17:55 -0600 Message-ID: <01be60d2$04fc6100$d8394b0c@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: Kooijman, A. Subject: RE: Is this a claim? >Year by year I become more tolerant(I know your question:'what level did you >start then?), which is why I started reading L46 once more. The reason is >that this south did not make a bridge mistake in my opinion, he was just >careless in announcing the card he wanted to play. What he wanted to expres >is: 'play the card needed to capture the K ' or 'I am going to finesse once >more'. So his intention was above any doubt completely clear. He never >changed his mind, never in his mind played the wrong card. >I am not sure what my decision as a TD would have been yesterday but near in >the future I will allow him to play the A trying to convince the AC that the >laws allow this decision, reading them the last line of the heading in 46B. >They will agree. >But I am hesitating to send this around the world, not because I do want to >protect myself, but because TD's all over the world can handle the strict >interpretation of L46 but many of them can't interpret.So in a short while >every card can be drawn back, when this opinion goes around. Throw it away >please. > >ton Ton, I think you are mistaken here. The declarer did not claim, as he could have, saying that the finesse was proven. He played carelessly. Law 45B, Law 45C4a. Neither Law 45C4b nor Law 46B would apply in the case presented to the list. I, too, wish to be tolerant in these cases. BUT, I don't think that laws allow us to help this particular declarer. Certainly he should have claimed as soon as RHO showed out. Why didn't he? Maybe he can't count. Maybe he wasn't really paying attention. Who knows. A TD can speculate, but must still abide by the laws. I can more readily accept David Stevenson's position: If declarer announced 'I am going to finesse for the king' he is clearly playing to win whichever card his LHO. Here I do believe that he *meant* to do that, but he did not. Why not? I don't know. He did play prematurely, inattentively, and carelessly. One last point on the AC, should it occur. I think it is appropriate for a TD to furnish his decision-making line to an AC, but I don't know that a TD should argue for or against a particular ruling in front of the AC, nor do I think 46B applies to this particular case. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 03:07:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 03:07:02 +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 DAA07353 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 03:06:55 +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 LAA23818 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:06:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA06833; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:06:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:06:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902251606.LAA06833@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal; Opinions sought Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I'm not in any way qualified to comment on the wider issues, but even >in a bridge context, there arise many conflicts between one's personal >view and the "official" position. Last night. I led a card that RHO (an >indifferent player) ruffed in dummy and underruffed (instead of >following) in his hand. It made no difference, and I did not even >notice, for the result of the deal was a foregone conclusion and I had >mentally returned my cards to the wallet with four tricks to play. But >partner noticed, and partner was the man whose duty it was to fill in >the travelling score slip. > >There was an extremely uncomfortable silence. LHO was a professional >player, a very good and scrupulously ethical one, and a regular >drinking companion of both myself and partner. This meant that the >difference between 2D making and 2D one down (about an 80% swing in >terms of match points) meant far more to his client (and therefore to >him) than it did to us. At the end of the pause, partner (who thinks >that the revoke law is bonkers anyway) scored the board as if the >revoke had not occurred. I made no protest. Should I have done? > I think so. If your LHO were a Mortal Enemy (slept with your wife, or, worse, had nipped you for the Wizzenboom Cup the year before), would you let him off the hook? I think who you choose to drink with is your own business, but that personal favours should be checked at the front with your coat as you enter the bridge room. Thereafter, all players should be treated civily, equally, and dispatched with neither favour or rancour. Tony (aka ac342) ps what exactly did the indifferent player learn by not pointing out the revoke? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 03:58:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 03:58:02 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA08257 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 03:57:55 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-4.uunet.be [194.7.13.4]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA02733 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:57:50 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D57F80.F636E13@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:51:12 +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: Labrador Flag References: <36D4A26C.23063A63@hvgb.northatlantic.nf.ca> <36D53C1C.201C9880@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 suppose you realise - with me, that I sent this to the wrong list. Sorry ! I was not trying to get you to discuss the legality of the Labrador intra-finesse. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 03:58:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 03:58:00 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA08253 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 03:57:52 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-4.uunet.be [194.7.13.4]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA02715 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:57:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D57E7C.FE21D67F@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:46:52 +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: Is this a claim? References: <01be60d2$04fc6100$d8394b0c@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: > > > Ton, I think you are mistaken here. The declarer did not claim, as he could > have, saying that the finesse was proven. He played carelessly. Law 45B, > Law 45C4a. Neither Law 45C4b nor Law 46B would apply in the case presented > to the list. > There is a strong case for L46B : (I was under the impression it did not help us, but after following Ton's lead - I RTFLB again) L46B : In case of an ... erroneous call by declarer ..., ... (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): ... This is an erroneous call [he said "the ten" rather than "the one over LHO" or "I finesse"] so it must be played - except when the intention is incontrovertible. If I find this incontrovertible, I allow the change. > I, too, wish to be tolerant in these cases. BUT, I don't think that laws > allow us to help this particular declarer. Certainly he should have claimed > as soon as RHO showed out. Why didn't he? Maybe he can't count. Maybe he > wasn't really paying attention. Who knows. A TD can speculate, but must > still abide by the laws. > > I can more readily accept David Stevenson's position: If declarer announced > 'I am going to finesse for the king' he is clearly playing to win whichever > card his LHO. Here I do believe that he *meant* to do that, but he did not. > Why not? I don't know. He did play prematurely, inattentively, and > carelessly. > > One last point on the AC, should it occur. I think it is appropriate for a > TD to furnish his decision-making line to an AC, but I don't know that a TD > should argue for or against a particular ruling in front of the AC, nor do I > think 46B applies to this particular case. > > Rick -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 04:25:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 04:25:07 +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 EAA08412 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 04:24:57 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-55.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.55]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA37626266 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:28:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D56A1B.C146521F@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:19:55 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> <36CAE805.B11A533C@freewwweb.com> <36CBAA93.407DA73C@freewwweb.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 MAA37626266 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I feel that your post has gone far to educate me in the official position of the ramifications of the enforced pass provisions of a BOOT. Now that was a mouth full. Hopefully, I can apply them accurately. However, when I look at what is the effect of this position, there is much that I do not like. The official position is built upon the precedent of thousands of rulings. And the conclusion I draw is that the law says that it is proper [there is no adjustment for could have known] that a player who BOOT is entitled to gain an advantage from the 'new meanings' of his bids [which I feel is unfair] due to his infraction. When I evaluate the reason for putting the enforced pass in the law I conclude that its purpose was to be a preemptory adjudication for UI of a withdrawn call. The law went further to recognize that an enforced pass could be a benefit to the offending side. It was left wide open what this meant. At the time it was written, the committee knew that the effect of an enforced pass was to give the offending side different meaning to their bids, yet it was chosen to not specifically exclude 'could have known' from applying to those different meanings.=20 This additional set of different meanings could be an 'asset' that was not available at the beginning of the auction, but came to be out of that side's infraction. I believe that it is not proper to gain from this 'asset' and L23A seems to address that matter specifically as follows: The law is available to any player who cares to read it so a player could know the provisions of the laws. The law provides that when a side BOOT, that depending what the opponents do, there may be an enforced pass. Hence, they could have known an enforced pass was possible. Any thinking player could then reason that an enforced pass will give their side bidding opportunities that would not be available had they not committed a BOOT. In particular, those bidding opportunities include where the meaning of their calls are different after the infraction. This benefit to the OS is damage to the NOS which may or may not cause damage to the score of the NOS. All of this does not involve mind reading nor fortune telling, merely the application of reasoning. I don't think I am wrong, but I think any person could know these things before they take their place at the table. Perhaps where we differ is that you hold that it is all irrelevant because ruling precedent and official interpretation say so. I think it is relevant because the laws provide for it. Besides, no one forces a player to BOOT. You may hold that my point of view puts too much of a straight jacket on the OS- that the OS has no hope for an earned score. I vigorously hold otherwise. For instance- if the OS uses old Goren so that 1C-1H-X is penalty oriented. There would be no damage if after the BOOT the auction proceeded that way. Why? Because the offender DID NOT SELECT a 'new asset' at their call. The meaning of the double did not change from the time they sat at the table. Therefore, there would be no need to determine if the NOS lost score because of selecting a 'new asset'. Change the agreement to negative doubles. Now, the auction 1C-1H-X employs the 'new asset' of penalty double. This time he DID SELECT a new asset that he could have known would come into existence because of the infraction. Now, there is cause to determine if the NOS lost score, and if so an adjustment is in order. Another aspect of a new asset, is the availability of employing a deceptive call with controlled risk. I think that an infraction that results in an enforced pass requires that the offender give up the right to benefit by such deception. If deception does occur, and the OS lose a likely score, that an adjustment is in order. In other words, the offender maintains equity best by not making calls from the group of 'new assets'. And if he does so, and benefits, then an adjustment is in order. There is no distinction between those of nefarious intent and those without; it is merely a matter of the possibility of adjustment if the OS takes advantage of the fruits of their own infraction. I believe that this principle reflects a fair adjudication of a wide array of cases. Also that it is easy for players and TDs to apply with consistency and constancy. Roger Pewick David Stevenson wrote: >=20 > axeman wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> axeman wrote: > >> >Roger, write on the blackboard 50 times=85typo, typo, typo, typo, = typo, > >> >typo > >> > > >> >Of course I meant L31A2b. It is very specific. It says '=85does n= ot > >> >repeat the denomination=85' in this case hearts. It does not say s= pecify > >> >the denomination. 'Double' instead of heart does not repeat heart = even > >> >if it were conceded that double means hearts. Personally, I believ= e > >> >that a penalty double means that the intention is to set the opposi= ng > >> >contract and that it does not have to contain four cards in the ene= my > >> >trump suit even though it may. > >> > >> Ah, L31A2B. Yes, this applies, no doubt about it. It says, inte= r > >> alia, "... the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply, ..." and since th= e > >> ACBL regulation is only concerned with those lead penalties, it is t= he > >> wording of L26 with which I am concerned. > > > >The road map was 29B,31A2b, 26A, 23 > > > >Without the ACBL regulation it is L26A2. with the regulation, it is > >L26A1. > > > >Did I get it in the bullseye? >=20 > Not at all. Without the regulation there is a matter of judgement to > be decided. The regulation merely decides a matter of judgement for th= e > Director. >=20 > The regulation does not change the Law. >=20 > >> >And the bite out of the apple is the chance that L26 gives to avoid= a > >> >lead penalty. The second bite is the regulation that changes an > >> >offender's agreement in the middle of the auction that double speci= fies > >> >the enemy suit. > >> > > >> >The laws have gone to great length to provide many turns which make= the > >> >adjudication of infractions sometimes quite tedious. The practical > >> >response is to establish compromises to accommodate these difficult= ies. > >> >These compromises themselves add twists often with intricate > >> >complications. The ACBL compromise is such a twist. > >> > > >> >I hold that the offender has the right to double. However, I think= that > >> >part of the penalty for the infraction of bidding out of turn is th= at > >> >the OS should not be able to achieve a beneficial score from 1HX [L= 23] > >> >unless absent the infraction, 1D-1H-X the double by agreement was > >> >penalty. > >> > >> Unfortunately you cannot make up Laws, so you have to provide one. > >> L23 does not meet this case: it does not apply. How could you know = it > >> would disadvantage your opponents to force partner to pass at the ti= me > >> you called OOT? So, what Law are you going to use to prove that a > >> partner who is forced to pass must take your double as takeout? > > > > > >David, > > > >Your point is well taken. I agree. One of the things addressed by L2= 3 > >as you have said, is the adjustment for gaining *deliberately*. But > >the law does not stop there- it is not limited solely to that aspect. = It > >does not matter whether it was deliberate or not [deliberate matters i= n > >the application of L72B1]. It extends to where, if the offender had > >known at the time of the infraction he was committing an infraction, = he > >could have known=85..and in the situation addressed by the ACBL, if th= e > >offender knew he was committing a BOOT he could have known that an > >enforced pass could damage the opponents. >=20 > You must come into the real world. Consider this, as a bidding > problem: >=20 > AQ3 > KJ9864 > 3 > J65 >=20 > Partner opens 1D: what do you bid? Let us say, for sake of argument, > that you have no morals whatever, and will take advantage of anything > you can. Your call? >=20 > Put your hand on your heart, or your bible, or your wallet, or > whatever you hold most dear, and swear to me that your honest answer to > the problem was that you *would* bid 1H *out of turn* because then if > LHO does not accept it you *might* be lucky enough to find RHO bidding > 1H and then you can double it for penalties. >=20 > I think you should stop putting that little white powder in your > coffee! :))) But, but, but. I take aspirin only for medicinal purposes to save life. I once had half a drop of coffee though. It was half a drop too much. > At the time of the infraction it is not credible that the player woul= d > know that there is any real chance *whatever* that it will work to his > benefit. What is most likely to happen is that RHO will bid something > you cannot double and you have just screwed the auction up for you and > your partner by silencing partner. Wonderful! >=20 > >One does not need to know what will happen to know that when certain > >things which are possible do happen, that there are ramifications whic= h > >could result in damage. >=20 > But when the likelihood of such ramifications are close to zero, and > the likelihood of ramifications that cause you trouble are far greater, > why have you any suspicions? Take the cheat test; consider the actions > of an unscrupulous player: what would he do in this situation? Would h= e > bid 1H out of turn? No, because it is so unlikely to be in his > interests to do so. >=20 > >I think it is unfair to require that the NOS has to prove that the > >offender was unethical in order receive an adjustment if there was > >damage. >=20 > So do I - doesn't happen. NOs are not required to prove anything - > why should they? >=20 > >The approach you feel is best seems to provide equity only against > >provable sharp [unethical] practice. I think that L23 is better used > >to include not only that but the area where there might be the > >appearance of possible sharp practice. Let us face it. Most > >irregularities are not committed with the intent to gain by sharp > >practice. But the commission of certain irregularities frequently > >creates situations where there are possibilities for unusual results > >that may prove profitable at the expense of the opponents. Yes, these > >situations make great stories, but if the rules were being followed, > >they would not have happened. >=20 > The approach I feel is best is to apply the Laws as they exist. You > want to make a Law up to cover one absurdly unlikely situation, which > will only ever occur because of sharp practice if the perpetrator is a > total moron whose sharp practice is wildly unlikely to benefit his side > - I don't see the point. >=20 > >Since I have expressed so much interest in damage arising in this > >situation I can see two likely sources of damage that are relevant > >[depending on the case, I reckon there could be others]: > > > >[1] Offender got to make a double [of penalty nature] that [probably > >according to agreements] it was up to partner to make or not make. Th= e > >NOS did not get to experience the outcome of a proper auction. >=20 > Surely: but it is "rub-of-the-green": there is no reason to suppose > that the offender can know this. >=20 > >[2] The fact that the offender making a penalty double instead of a > >penalty pass of a potential reopening double gives opener information > >[L16C2] available only because of the BOOT, to expect offender to have > >cards they may not be inclined to anticipate offender to hold had > >offender passed a reopening double. >=20 > Such is life. >=20 > >I am of the opinion that offenders are not to jumped all over. I am > >also of the opinion that offenders ought to not be cut any slack, nor > >should they be permitted possession of the sorcerer's wand that makes > >penalties disappear. In my game, everyone gets respect and equally > >good treatment, inexperienced players get kid gloves too. And that > >means that offenders do not get preferential treatment even though tha= t > >is what the ACBL policy [that sparked this discussion] accords. >=20 > The ACBL policy does not accord them preferential treatment. It > merely interprets a particular Law in a particular position in a way > that any TD or AC might judge to be the correct interpretation anyway. >=20 > I do not think you have thought the effects of a real case. >=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 Fri Feb 26 04:42:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 04:42:39 +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 EAA08480 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 04:42:32 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA25029 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:41:39 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 25 Feb 99 17:41 GMT From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Misexplanation leads to bad luck 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: <199902250211260420.0AFD4015@mail.btinternet.com> David Burn wrote: > >The goal of a bridge hand is not to be happy when dummy is put > >down, but to be happy when the hand is over and the score is > >entered. So damage should be measured in lost points on the hand > >as a whole, not in lost quality of bidding. > Not so. I think that the vast majority of top players would be happy > not to have made an error "in theory"; if they bid a 75% game that goes > down, they will be happier than if they had missed game and scored plus > 140 "by accident" - most of the players I know would be somewhat > ashamed of that. The goal of a bridge hand is to play the game to the > best of your ability, while realising that sometimes you play "too > well" (as, for example, in reaching a 90% slam that goes down for a > zero to your side because the inferior field has stayed in game). The > philosophy that you quote above is that of the result merchant, not > that of the "true" bridge player. > Personally I wouldn't use the term "happy" in either situation (maybe being a rubber player rather than a top player makes me a bit more of a result merchant). However, with the odd proviso, I would not feel "damaged" if the opponent's infraction gets me into a 75% game regardless of whether it makes. The provisos: 1. If, absent the infraction, I would get an indication that the cards may well lie badly for me then I am damaged. 2. Calculation of percentages should take into account the (already known) opening lead. This latter seems particularly important when the NOS are defending. 3. The damage threshold is somewhere between 50% and 75% but I'm not sure exactly where. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 04:45:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 04:45:23 +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 EAA08502 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 04:45:16 +1100 Received: from default ([12.75.42.201]) by mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990225174442.FLPN14281@default> for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:44:42 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:42:56 -0600 Message-ID: <01be60e6$4721e1e0$d8394b0c@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: Herman De Wael >Richard F Beye wrote: >> >> >> Ton, I think you are mistaken here. The declarer did not claim, as he could >> have, saying that the finesse was proven. He played carelessly. Law 45B, >> Law 45C4a. Neither Law 45C4b nor Law 46B would apply in the case presented >> to the list. >> > >There is a strong case for L46B : > >(I was under the impression it did not help us, but after >following Ton's lead - I RTFLB again) > >L46B : In case of an ... erroneous call by declarer ..., ... >(except when declarer's different intention is >incontrovertible): ... > >This is an erroneous call [he said "the ten" rather than >"the one over LHO" or "I finesse"] so it must be played - >except when the intention is incontrovertible. > >If I find this incontrovertible, I allow the change. Herman, I find it incontrovertible ONLY if he has made a claim. He has the rest of the tricks, why is he still playing. It is possible (ergo, not incontrovertible) that he has not been paying attention. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 06:21:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:21:22 +1100 Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA11017 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:21:09 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.121]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA11164; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:20:53 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36D5A2BA.34C4D994@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:21:30 +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: The new regime References: <36d317e6.4430340@post12.tele.dk> <36D0438B.4D4C424C@village.uunet.be> <36d6c5a9.5680488@post12.tele.dk> <36D27C2F.BC27807F@village.uunet.be> <36ec04ff.9233166@post12.tele.dk> <36D3EB66.AF139331@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello "Les trois Musquetaires" Alex Dumas Herman De Wael wrote: > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:00:15 +0100, Herman De Wael > > wrote: > > > > >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > >> Agreed. The difference from the earlier thread is that here N > > >> learns about his own system from the response; in the other > > >> thread he only learned about the opponents' system. IMO that > > >> makes the difference between UI and AI. > > > > > >That may be a significant difference. You would suggest > > >that in both cases, when becoming defender, the player has > > >the AI about opponents' system, which he can use in the > > >play. That may be a further point of discussion. > > > > > >But the original case was different. Not only did the > > >player learn through the response that he was mistaken about > > >his opponent's system, but also that he had misbid. > > >In this second case too, the player has learnt that he has > > >misbid. > > > > Yes, but the misbids are very different. In the first case, he > > misbids because he does not know the opponents' system. When he > > does find out the opponents' system, he is IMO free to bid as he > > wants to repair the damage. This is consistent, as long as you > > accept (as I do but Herman does not) that knowledge of opponents' > > system is always AI, because it is knowledge that all players are > > allowed to have without having to remember it. > > > > In the second case, he has misbid because he has forgotten his > > own system. This is really his mistake, and the answer to > > partner's question should not be allowed to save him. His own > > system is knowledge that he himself is responsible for > > remembering. > > > > Indeed a significant difference. > > > >If we allow him only the "complete knowledge of opponent's > > >system", not the specific knowledge of that part of the > > >system that interests his partner", in neither case will he > > >be awakened to his own mistake. > > > > In the first case, he would never have made the mistake at all if > > he had that complete knowledge. In the second case, he would > > have made the mistake. > > A very important difference. > > I suddenly have a lot more sympathy for the opposing view. > > What do you say David, shall we join Jesper ? > > After all, I still believe that we would just be only three > in this camp. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 06:21:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:21:10 +1100 Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA11008 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:21:01 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.121]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA11157; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:20:43 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36D5A2AF.24DAB831@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:21:19 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Kooijman, A." CC: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C13F@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe you must send it around the world - the bridge players want to play bridge and less lawyering in order to lawyer !!!! I know most of the top players who don't like to win when all the good players around the table know what is going on. The "poor people" trying to profit from cases like that told by Thomas are not able to "visit" high level contests but almost in "travesty" only. It doesn't mean that we should rub off the laws , I think to apply them very strictly , but update them as quick as possible in order to make the game pleasant and for the players . And now Kato : I really believe that The scope of the Laws and what I call Law 0 should appear as the first Law and the most important one, overruling all the other laws when in doubt ! Thanks for paying attention Dany Kooijman, A. wrote: > > Year by year I become more tolerant(I know your question:'what level did you > start then?), which is why I started reading L46 once more. The reason is > that this south did not make a bridge mistake in my opinion, he was just > careless in announcing the card he wanted to play. What he wanted to expres > is: 'play the card needed to capture the K ' or 'I am going to finesse once > more'. So his intention was above any doubt completely clear. He never > changed his mind, never in his mind played the wrong card. > I am not sure what my decision as a TD would have been yesterday but near in > the future I will allow him to play the A trying to convince the AC that the > laws allow this decision, reading them the last line of the heading in 46B. > They will agree. > But I am hesitating to send this around the world, not because I do want to > protect myself, but because TD's all over the world can handle the strict > interpretation of L46 but many of them can't interpret.So in a short while > every card can be drawn back, when this opinion goes around. Throw it away > please. > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Eric Landau [mailto:elandau@cais.com] > Verzonden: woensdag 24 februari 1999 22:53 > Aan: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Onderwerp: Re: Is this a claim? > > At 08:48 PM 2/23/99 +0100, Jesper wrote: > > >On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:54:02 -0500, Eric Landau > > wrote: > > > >>The correct ruling by the book is that the 10 must be played. L45C4(a). > > > >Yes. > > > >>The correct ruling at the table is something along the lines of (looking E > >>in the eye), "Look here, we all know what he meant. If you insist on > >>forcing him to play the 10 under your K, you will win the trick, but you > >>will no longer be welcome at the club." > > > >I disagree with that. Calling for the 10 too early is a way of > >playing badly, just like miscounting trumps. Just like other > >bridge mistakes, it gives the opponents a chance for a good > >result. Bridge is a game of mistakes, and the TD should not in > >any way suggest that it is improper to take advantage of an > >opponents' mistake. > > But when we reach the point where a player's intent is patently obvious to > everyone in the room, we shouldn't care if the exact literal meaning of the > player's words parses to something which isn't exactly what he intended. > Bridge is a game of *bridge* mistakes, not a game of mistakes in the > precise use of language. > > Suppose that instead of saying "ten" declarer had said "finesse". My > American Heritage Dictionary says, "finesse... 3. Bridge. The playing of a > card in a suit in which one holds a nonsequential higher card...", so if we > take the word at its literal meaning, playing the ace on LHO's king is > *not* a finesse! Would anyone consider not allowing declarer to win the > trick? > > 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 Feb 26 06:21:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:21:59 +1100 Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA11065 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:21:51 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.121]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA11304 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:21:40 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36D5A2E9.85F6A7F0@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:22:17 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: D-BLML list - the clever friends - Feb. 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 6th 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 Fri Feb 26 06:38:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:38:44 +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 GAA11570 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:38:37 +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 OAA00058; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:38:01 -0500 (EST) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id OAA21452; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:37:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902251937.OAA21452@csb.bu.edu> Subject: RE: Appeal; Opinions sought To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:37:57 -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 David Burn wrote: >>However, a theoretical question did occur to me later. Suppose partner >>had called the TD and said: "This man's revoked, but it made no >>difference, so I'm happy to waive any penalty." Must the TD, should the >>TD, or could the TD agree with this under L81C8? If not, when does >>L81C8 actually apply? (I speak as one who has given a ruling in a >>National Final under this Law, and I wonder if anyone else has ever >>used it in practice.) L72.A.3. In duplicate tournaments a player may not, on his own initiative, waive a penalty for an opponent's infraction, even if he feels that he has not been damaged (but he may ask a Director to do so - see L81C8). Once partner has called attention to the irregularity (which he was not required to do - L9A), he may not waive the penalty. However he may request the director to do so, in which case L81C8 applies. --David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 06:59:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:59:12 +1100 Received: from falcon.glas.apc.org (falcon.glas.apc.org [193.124.5.54]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA12200 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:59:02 +1100 Received: from mail.glas.apc.org([193.124.5.37]) (2035 bytes) by falcon.glas.apc.org via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:inet_hosts/T:inet_zone_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:58:50 +0300 (WSU) (Smail-3.2.0.104 1998-Nov-20 #2 built 1998-Nov-27) Received: from default(src addr [195.218.251.4]) (1635 bytes) by mail.glas.apc.org via sendmail with P\:esmtp/R:smart_host/T:smtp (sender: ) id for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:58:28 +0300 (WSU) (Smail-3.2.0.96 1997-Jun-2 #11 built DST-Aug-25) Message-Id: From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: Subject: Re: Misexplanation leads to bad luck Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:55:29 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1154 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > If we apply this to the case above, your equity in the board absent the > MI was the score for 3NT, presumably an average result. As a result of > the MI, your equity has now actually increased to the score for 6C - > 95% of a top, 5% of a bottom. Hence, the MI has not caused damage - > indeed, it has caused whatever the opposite of damage might be. > > In other cases which have been discussed on this list, this definition > would go some way towards removing the difficulties we have > encountered. The enemy use UI to reach a poor contract which will fail > on normal (or even inferior) defence. Thus, your equity in the board > has increased as a result of the infraction, so there is no damage > arising therefrom. When you misdefend absurdly and allow the contract > to make, then, you do not have any redress. These two examples are different, though. In the first case, the bad break was always there, and there was nothing you could do about it. The '95% contract' was actually makeable 0% of the time, as the cards lay. In the second case, your partnership was at fault for the absurd or 'egregious' defence. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 07:12:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:12:46 +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 HAA12556 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:12:34 +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 PAA06356 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:12:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id PAA15062 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:12:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:12:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902252012.PAA15062@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de > I can't think of anybody who would not let declarer > take the DT back here. Are we ruling on the same facts? As I understand the original post -- perhaps incorrectly -- declarer led from hand and immediately called for the ten from dummy. Declarer has done nothing else to indicate he is claiming. _On those facts_, I would not let declarer take back the ten. Nor would David S., and I seem to recall several others who said the same thing. On different facts, I suppose many of us would advocate a different ruling. The ruling would definitely be different if declarer had made a clear claim, for example, and quite likely so if declarer's LHO has done something improper. But I don't recall any indication of those circumstances in the original message. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 08:45:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:45:27 +1100 Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz41.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA13726 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:45:19 +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 10G8aK-0000KQ-00; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:44:44 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA282399084; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:44:44 +0100 Subject: Re: Is this a claim? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:44:43 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <199902252012.PAA15062@cfa183.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at Feb 25, 1999 03:12:36 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to Steve Willner: > >> From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de >> I can't think of anybody who would not let declarer >> take the DT back here. > >Are we ruling on the same facts? I'm not ruling here (the ruling is clear, almost all of us agree that the laws say he can't take it back). I am talking about the bridge lawyering *defenders* who think they need to take advantage of such a situation when it is clear to everybody at the table that it was declarer's intention to finesse again. To me, this is like calling director when declarer has 25 tricks in 7H and claims by spreading his hand, because declarer did not explicitely state that he would draw trumps. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 09:07:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:07:08 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA14018 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:07:02 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA10427 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:06:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id RAA15419 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:07:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:07:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902252207.RAA15419@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de > Declarer had to make a nasty KJ guess. > The italian defender sitting behind him > just showed his AQ in order > to shorten the play. 'Director, penalty cards'. If defender showed the AQ _only to declarer_, they were NOT penalty cards. If instead his partner could have seen them, then they were. But this seems an entirely different situation than the original case. The defender has not made a bridge mistake, unlike the declarer in the original post. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 10:17:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:17:24 +1100 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA15811 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:17:15 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10GA1l-0001HO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:17:09 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990226001630.00a88360@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:16:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-Reply-To: <199902252207.RAA15419@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:07 25-02-99 -0500, you wrote: >> From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de >> Declarer had to make a nasty KJ guess. >> The italian defender sitting behind him >> just showed his AQ in order >> to shorten the play. 'Director, penalty cards'. > >If defender showed the AQ _only to declarer_, they were NOT penalty >cards. If instead his partner could have seen them, then they were. >But this seems an entirely different situation than the original case. >The defender has not made a bridge mistake, unlike the declarer in the >original post. > > I disagree in that. . Read 68A carefully and the footnote in the heading. We can regard showing the QA (or KJ in my example) as claiming only these tricks and have to act accordingly. Perhaps this can be a new thread?? At least in a TD training course some time ago, we all agreed that in this situation 68 has to be applied. regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 11:22:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:22:06 +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 LAA16407 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:22:00 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10GB2N-0005L1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:21:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:01:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Labrador Flag References: <36D4A26C.23063A63@hvgb.northatlantic.nf.ca> <36D53C1C.201C9880@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36D53C1C.201C9880@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >I have received the following : > >Trudy Careen wrote: >> >> Hi, just came across your webpage and seen the question on >> the Labrador Flag. I live in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, >> Labrador and I'll see if I can help you out with the >> description : Herman, are you on a Flags mailing list? And do you ever post to the wrong mailing list? We were intrigued on RGB when Herman posted the international cricket rankings once, which suggested that England should play Zimbabwe quickly while they could still beat them. -- 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 Feb 26 11:27:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:27:43 +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 LAA16439 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:27:37 +1100 Received: from modem126.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.254] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10GB7q-0006cr-00; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:27:30 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Labrador Flag Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:16:04 -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 If you're thinking you'd better know how to thwim #################################### > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Labrador Flag > Date: 25 February 1999 16:51 > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > I suppose you realise - with me, that I sent this to the > wrong list. > > Sorry ! > > I was not trying to get you to discuss the legality of the > Labrador intra-finesse. > ++ Don't worry Herman, a lot of people are flagging just about now ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 11:27:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:27:54 +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 LAA16447 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:27:41 +1100 Received: from modem126.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.254] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10GB7t-0006cr-00; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:27:34 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Richard Lighton" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:16:26 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "No player should ever ask for a review of the auction, or for an explanation, in order to ensure that partner has understood correctly; this is a deliberate use of an unauthorized channel of communication (see Law 73B1) and is grossly improper." (statement authorized by the European Bridge League 1992). 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 > From: Richard Lighton > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question > Date: 23 February 1999 20:26 > > > > On 23/02/99, at 16:52, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > >A player is entitled to know the agreements of his opponents and at > > his turn > > >to call may either ask or read. How then is it possible to make this > > >information UI, regardless the way it comes to him? > > > > To make the matter as blatant as possible: suppose my LHO opens 1D and > > my partner says: "That could be a two-card suit, partner" before > > overcalling 2D (our agreement being that this is natural, while 2D over > > a potential three-card suit would be Michaels. He does this because he > > knows that I have forgotten this agreement the last two times the > > situation has come up. > > > > As I understand the majority position, while my partner's action is (of > > course) illegal, the information that he has conveyed to me is AI. > > Difficult though I find this position to be in theory, I am now trying > > to understand how it will work in practice, rather than to furnish more > > theoretical arguments against it. > > > I would allow it as AI, but the partnership would get a hefty procedural > penalty or partner would be shot after the session. Depends on the > local gun laws. We haven't had a Bennett style case in the last 50 years. > ++ Somewhere along the way I seem to have missed something. Perhaps I should not have taken time out in Whitley Bay. In the above circumstances partner's action is use of an extraneous remark to communicate with partner. If partner uses the information and opponents are thereby damaged the TD will adjust the score. In any case partner is liable to suffer a PP for his breach of Law 73B1. Whilst discussing this law let me set out the basis of my early mentors' view (Butler, Franklin) of the question asked so that partner will hear the answer, which view continued to be sustained throughout my chairmanship of the EBL Laws Committee and blocked any statement from the WBFLC that would support Kaplan's 1981 argument. Neither were the crucial words altered in the 1987 laws. The view was this: 1. The player knew what his opponents' call meant but feared his partner might not. 2. He therefore asked a question in order to get the opponent to state what he himself knew so that partner would hear it. 3. He thus used the opponents' reply in order to communicate to partner the information that he had. 4. Contrary to Law 73B1 he had communicated his information *through* a question asked. His use of opponent's reply went through and beyond the question and passed the information to partner. My own judgement was that Edgar had simply misdirected himself; Harold during one early morning walk along the Brighton (Eastbourne?) promenade tossed another opinion into the wind - his early morning walks used to be brisk affairs and replete with opinions! ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 11:27:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:27:57 +1100 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16450 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:27:43 +1100 Received: from modem126.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.254] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10GB7w-0006cr-00; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:27:37 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:17:34 -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 If you're thinking you'd better know how to thwim #################################### > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? > Date: 25 February 1999 03:05 > > Eric Landau wrote: > > >Suppose that instead of saying "ten" declarer had said "finesse". My > >American Heritage Dictionary says, "finesse... 3. Bridge. The playing of a > >card in a suit in which one holds a nonsequential higher card...", so if we > >take the word at its literal meaning, playing the ace on LHO's king is > >*not* a finesse! Would anyone consider not allowing declarer to win the > >trick? +++ I think the word is "cover" - like accident insurance, you know! Grattan +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 11:27:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:27:59 +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 LAA16451 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:27:44 +1100 Received: from modem126.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.254] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10GB7x-0006cr-00; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:27:38 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:19:29 -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 If you're thinking you'd better know how to thwim #################################### ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings > Date: 25 February 1999 03:15 > .> > I suppose I better shake myself, and say "Me too". I really think > that Grattan's offering is a troll: an offering he does not believe in > to see the arguments go round. > +++ Sometimes if you hand someone a seed he will grow a tree. Or a weed. We were getting bored, weren't we? >G< +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 11:28:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:28:00 +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 LAA16457 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:27:46 +1100 Received: from modem126.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.254] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10GB80-0006cr-00; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:27:41 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "John R. Mayne" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Death penalty in U.S. Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:57:45 -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 If you're thinking you'd better know how to thwim ################################ ---------- > From: John R. Mayne > To: Adam Beneschan > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: OT: Death penalty in U.S. > Date: 24 February 1999 00:58 > >> > Not typically. The vast majority of judges handling criminal trials are > former Deputy District Attorneys (prosecutors). > > --JRM, attorney > ++ My G**! What a lot of BLs we have around! <:-)) ~G~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 12:05:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:05:49 +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 MAA16596 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:05:43 +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 AA010601134; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:05:35 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA100151133; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:05:33 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:05:21 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Is this a 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 You are right Willner. In my original post, I said declarer just played low from hand and said "ten" before LHO played. No claim according to Laws.= Declarer was an experienced player and LHO a beginner having heard many times (from me...) that a card named is played and having been told "call the director everytime something unusal happens"... I read and read again the 32 messages on this topic and have the same =20 basic problem. According to the wording of the Laws, I would not let =20 declarer take back the ten. Law 45 is clear: a card named by declarer is= played. The fact that is it OOT does not matter. An experienced declarer =20 should claim or play his cards correctly. Many of you (and not the worsts) agree with this. But at the club level, I have a bad feeling with this ruling. It was a proven finesse. Is it better for the TD to always act as a lawyer or to use his judgment and tolerate some deviations when play is so evident? This is the real question, but I know it is very dangerous to open this box. Is there something in Laws that can allow this road without loosing control? =20 ---------- De : willner Date d'envoi : 25 f=E9vrier, 1999 15:12 A : bridge-laws Cc : willner Objet : Re: Is this a claim? . =20 =20 Are we ruling on the same facts? As I understand the original post -- perhaps incorrectly -- declarer led from hand and immediately called for the ten from dummy. Declarer has done nothing else to indicate he is claiming. =20 _On those facts_, I would not let declarer take back the ten. Nor would David S., and I seem to recall several others who said the same thing. =20 On different facts, I suppose many of us would advocate a different ruling. The ruling would definitely be different if declarer had made a clear claim, for example, and quite likely so if declarer's LHO has= done something improper. But I don't recall any indication of those circumstances in the original message. =20 =20 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 12:12:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:12:29 +1100 Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16625 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:12:22 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10GBpA-00068Y-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:12:17 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990226021138.00a9a450@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:11:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: UI or AI from answer to partner's question In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:16 25-02-99 -0000, you wrote: >Grattan >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > >"No player should ever ask for a review of the auction, >or for an explanation, in order to ensure that partner has >understood correctly; this is a deliberate use of an >unauthorized channel of communication (see Law 73B1) >and is grossly improper." > (statement authorized by the European > Bridge League 1992). >88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 > >> From: Richard Lighton >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: RE: UI or AI from answer to partner's question >> Date: 23 February 1999 20:26 >> >> >> > On 23/02/99, at 16:52, Kooijman, A. wrote: >> > >> > >A player is entitled to know the agreements of his opponents and at >> > his turn >> > >to call may either ask or read. How then is it possible to make this >> > >information UI, regardless the way it comes to him? >> > >> > To make the matter as blatant as possible: suppose my LHO opens 1D and >> > my partner says: "That could be a two-card suit, partner" before >> > overcalling 2D (our agreement being that this is natural, while 2D over >> > a potential three-card suit would be Michaels. He does this because he >> > knows that I have forgotten this agreement the last two times the >> > situation has come up. >> > >> > As I understand the majority position, while my partner's action is (of >> > course) illegal, the information that he has conveyed to me is AI. >> > Difficult though I find this position to be in theory, I am now trying >> > to understand how it will work in practice, rather than to furnish more >> > theoretical arguments against it. >> > >> I would allow it as AI, but the partnership would get a hefty procedural >> penalty or partner would be shot after the session. Depends on the >> local gun laws. We haven't had a Bennett style case in the last 50 years. >> >++ Somewhere along the way I seem to have missed something. Perhaps >I should not have taken time out in Whitley Bay. In the above circumstances >partner's action is use of an extraneous remark to communicate with >partner. If partner uses the information and opponents are thereby damaged >the TD will adjust the score. In any case partner is liable to suffer a PP >for his breach of Law 73B1. > Whilst discussing this law let me set out the basis of my early >mentors' view (Butler, Franklin) of the question asked so that partner will >hear the answer, which view continued to be sustained throughout my >chairmanship of the EBL Laws Committee and blocked any statement >from the WBFLC that would support Kaplan's 1981 argument. Neither >were the crucial words altered in the 1987 laws. The view was this: >1. The player knew what his opponents' call meant but feared his partner >might not. 1a the defender knows (by a non-alert and looking at the CC) that partner of opp didnt understand the bid. can he ask now to clarify the situation??? for instance: a cue bid promises first round control on CC and you have A singleton (suit never bid in the auction, so the void is very inprobable, and indeed the bid was meant as 2ht round control) can he ask??? regards, anton >2. He therefore asked a question in order to get the opponent to state >what he himself knew so that partner would hear it. >3. He thus used the opponents' reply in order to communicate to >partner the information that he had. >4. Contrary to Law 73B1 he had communicated his information >*through* a question asked. His use of opponent's reply went through >and beyond the question and passed the information to partner. My >own judgement was that Edgar had simply misdirected himself; >Harold during one early morning walk along the Brighton >(Eastbourne?) promenade tossed another opinion into the wind - his >early morning walks used to be brisk affairs and replete with opinions! > > ~ Grattan ~ ++ > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 12:14:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:14:19 +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 MAA16640 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:14:12 +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 AA013421646; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:14:06 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA101521644; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:14:04 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:13:55 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Labrador Flag 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 We all.... most..... know that Labrador is part of NewFoundland and already has a flag... Is there some separatists in Labrador....like in Qubec... Interesting... But I agree....it is the wrong list... Hope it is the last message on this topic. Laval Du Breuil ---------- De : hermes Date d'envoi : 25 f=E9vrier, 1999 18:16 A : hermandw; bridge-laws Cc : hermes Objet : Re: Labrador Flag =20 Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee =20 If you're thinking you'd better know how to thwim #################################### =20 > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Labrador Flag > Date: 25 February 1999 16:51 > =20 > Herman De Wael wrote: > > =20 > =20 > I suppose you realise - with me, that I sent this to the > wrong list. > =20 > Sorry ! > =20 > I was not trying to get you to discuss the legality of the > Labrador intra-finesse. > =20 ++ Don't worry Herman, a lot of people are flagging =20 just about now ~ Grattan ~ ++ =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 13:02:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA17159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:02:59 +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 NAA17154 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:02:53 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10GCby-0004L0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:02:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:01:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Is this a 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 >You are right Willner. In my original post, I said declarer just played >low > from hand and said "ten" before LHO played. No claim according to Laws. > Declarer was an experienced player and LHO a beginner having heard > many times (from me...) that a card named is played and having been >told "call the director everytime something unusal happens"... > the beginner deserves the best possible ruling according to the Law. Otherwise there is *no hope* for anyone. snip >But at the club level, I have a bad feeling with this ruling. It was a >proven > finesse. Is it better for the TD to always act as a lawyer or to use >his > judgment and tolerate some deviations when play is so evident? This >is the real question, but I know it is very dangerous to open this box. >Is >there something in Laws that can allow this road without loosing >control? > I had a similar situation last night. directing a 30 table game, of indifferent standard. Declarer lead from hand and said ruff. His LHO then played a trump higher than any in dummy and I was called. The declarer is not a strong player. The situation was explained. I said "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming it". Declarer said "So I can't change it?". I said "Sorry but that's the Law". He said, "ok thanks". I said "Sure thing, sorry about it" and he said "No problem". The whole field prefers me to any other Director they have ever used because, as many of them say, "John you're tough, but we all know you are fair". In my opinion the commercial considerations of a club are *best* met by sympathetically handing down the Law as it is writ. The players then know that the rulings are even-handed, and this applies as much at the Finchley Bridge Club, as at the Bear Pit in the Young Chelsea. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 14:55:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:55:03 +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 OAA18182 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:54:54 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10GEMN-0004tK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 03:54:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 01:08:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <36D30B15.18DD243@home.com> <36D1C7C2.35A7A33B@home.com> <36D30B15.18DD243@home.com> <3.0.1.32.19990225084227.0072a9c8@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990225084227.0072a9c8@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:51 AM 2/24/99 +0000, David wrote: > >> I actually think this is quite important, so I shall abandon the short >>comments, and explain fully. >> >> ATx >> Kx x Dummy is North >> xx >> >> I lead an x, and call for the ten before LHO plays. I have played the >>ten, because that is the way one plays from dummy. Some people have >>suggested that we should let declarer have a second go at this trick. >>It is not a claim: there is no reason in Law why we should give him a >>second chance. Declarer has made a stupid mistake. Let us look at some >>similar positions. > >Lest we forget, in the original position under discussion, East had already >shown out of the suit so the finesse was proven. In the opinions of some, >this matters. Ok, I say again, what would you do if declarer and dummy were reversed, same position, namely the finesse is proved, and declarer plays OOT. Not would you allow him to retract it - that is up to you - but would you drum someone out of the club who did not allow a retraction? From the uncomfortable silence that greeted this last time, I'll bet you wouldn't. So, what is the difference? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 14:55:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:55:03 +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 OAA18186 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:54:56 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10GEMN-0004tM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 03:54:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 01:23:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> <36CAE805.B11A533C@freewwweb.com> <36CBAA93.407DA73C@freewwweb.com> <36D56A1B.C146521F@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: <36D56A1B.C146521F@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: >In other words, the offender maintains equity best by not making calls >from the group of 'new assets'. And if he does so, and benefits, then >an adjustment is in order. There is no distinction between those of >nefarious intent and those without; it is merely a matter of the >possibility of adjustment if the OS takes advantage of the fruits of >their own infraction. Let's get this straight. In response to 1C with a 1H overcall, I play all calls as forcing except pass and club raises and 1/3NT. You say that after my partner is barred I am not allowed to bid a new suit nor double nor bid 2NT nor 4NT, and you suggest this is fair? Why not just shoot me and have done with it! I think your interpretation would be incredibly harsh. >I believe that this principle reflects a fair adjudication of a wide >array of cases. Also that it is easy for players and TDs to apply with >consistency and constancy. Fair! Of course it is not fair! -- 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 Feb 26 14:55:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:55:01 +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 OAA18181 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:54:52 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10GEMN-0004tL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 03:54:44 +0000 Message-ID: <4xt3NZBWUf12Ew9A@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 01:12:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <01be60d2$04fc6100$d8394b0c@default> <36D57E7C.FE21D67F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36D57E7C.FE21D67F@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Richard F Beye wrote: >> >> >> Ton, I think you are mistaken here. The declarer did not claim, as he could >> have, saying that the finesse was proven. He played carelessly. Law 45B, >> Law 45C4a. Neither Law 45C4b nor Law 46B would apply in the case presented >> to the list. >> > >There is a strong case for L46B : > >(I was under the impression it did not help us, but after >following Ton's lead - I RTFLB again) > >L46B : In case of an ... erroneous call by declarer ..., ... >(except when declarer's different intention is >incontrovertible): ... > >This is an erroneous call [he said "the ten" rather than >"the one over LHO" or "I finesse"] so it must be played - >except when the intention is incontrovertible. > >If I find this incontrovertible, I allow the change. Oh rubbish! You can allow him to change it from the ten to the ace if you prefer, but he played OOT, and you cannot use the heading of L46B to let him play in turn. L46B explains what you do with a partial designation, but to use it to allow a player who **has played OOT** to change it to play in turn is nothing to do with this Law. Get serious: he has played OOT. Give him his choice of card if you like under L46B. But he still has to make it before LHO has to play a card. -- 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 Feb 26 16:11:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA18884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:11:48 +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 QAA18878 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:11:40 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-140.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.140]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA69139577 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:15:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D62C42.43DEC899@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:08:18 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> <36CAE805.B11A533C@freewwweb.com> <36CBAA93.407DA73C@freewwweb.com> <36D56A1B.C146521F@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We do need to determine what we are talking about before getting into splitting hairs of composing the words that define exactly what is meant. To that end I start here asking your opinions: Question 1. Is the intent of the laws to provide as level a playing field as 'reasonable'? Question 2. If a player breaks a rule, has the playing field remained at its original levelness? Roger Pewick David Stevenson wrote: > > axeman wrote: > > >In other words, the offender maintains equity best by not making calls > >from the group of 'new assets'. And if he does so, and benefits, then > >an adjustment is in order. There is no distinction between those of > >nefarious intent and those without; it is merely a matter of the > >possibility of adjustment if the OS takes advantage of the fruits of > >their own infraction. > > Let's get this straight. In response to 1C with a 1H overcall, I play > all calls as forcing except pass and club raises and 1/3NT. You say > that after my partner is barred I am not allowed to bid a new suit nor > double nor bid 2NT nor 4NT, and you suggest this is fair? Why not just > shoot me and have done with it! > > I think your interpretation would be incredibly harsh. > > >I believe that this principle reflects a fair adjudication of a wide > >array of cases. Also that it is easy for players and TDs to apply with > >consistency and constancy. > > Fair! Of course it is not fair! > > -- > 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 Feb 26 18:03:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA19894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:03:33 +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 SAA19885 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:03:26 +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 <19990226070320.CPUI23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:03:20 -0800 Message-ID: <36D64824.C632167C@home.com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:07:16 -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: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> <36CAE805.B11A533C@freewwweb.com> <36CBAA93.407DA73C@freewwweb.com> <36D56A1B.C146521F@freewwweb.com> <36D62C42.43DEC899@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Forgive me for stepping into this exchange, but: axeman wrote: > Question 1. Is the intent of the laws to provide as level a playing > field as 'reasonable'? No - I don't think so. Nowhere have I seen this expressed from authorized sources. What I have seen is that the primary objective is to provide redress for damage caused by infractions. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 18:22:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA20071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:22:33 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA20066 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:22:27 +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 CAA20300 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:22:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id CAA16403 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:22:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:22:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902260722.CAA16403@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > >> Any information about your _opponents'_ system that you get from > >> an opponents' answer to a question is AI and can be used freely. > >> > >> Any information about your _own_ system that you get (or can > >> deduce) from an opponents' answer to a question is UI. [SW]>And this is the mind reading that some of us find so troubling. > Yes, but it is not worse than the corresponding (and much more > usual) situation where partner explains your system: if his > explanation is news to you, it is UI, but it is AI if you knew it > all along. > [SW]>Is the alternative, although perhaps unfamiliar, really so bad? > I think so. I think it calls for at least as much mind-reading. Sorry, I was too terse. The alternative I had in mind is to say that all _correct_ information about one's own system and all information about the opponent's system, no matter how derived, is AI. I realize this is quite a leap from what Grattan and David B. have been advocating, but consider the advantages: 1. no mind reading 2. no invention of fantasy bidding systems 3. no UI restrictions from an opponent's gratuitous question 4. clarity and simplicity Disadvantages are: 1. the "pro question" is legal 2. sometimes an alert or explanation will wake a player up to his own misbid. Personally, I think the "pro question" _ought_ to be legal, so I regard D1 as an advantage. Is it really so terrible that players are informed of their opponent's methods? As for D2, yes, it's too bad. But often in these cases, a player would have woken up anyway, and often there's no recovery even after he wakes up. D2 seems a small price to pay for the resulting simplicity. We never have to decide whether a strange bid was a misbid or deliberate psyche (A1), and the other advantages speak for themselves. Please note partner's _wrong_ explanation remains UI with the full consequences. No question or any great problem there. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 18:28:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA20132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:28:31 +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 SAA20127 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:28:25 +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 CAA23432 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:28:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id CAA16418 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:28:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:28:32 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902260728.CAA16418@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: axeman > And the conclusion I draw is that the > law says that it is proper [there is no adjustment for could have known] > that a player who BOOT is entitled to gain an advantage from the 'new > meanings' of his bids [which I feel is unfair] due to his infraction. There most certainly is adjustment for "could have known." Check out L23 and L72B1. On the other hand, if the enforced pass happens to work well for a reason that could not have been foreseen, there's no adjustment. Suppose I bid out of turn, partner is barred, and I guess to bid 3NT. Nothing in my hand suggests I would have wanted to bar partner, and indeed 3NT is a poor contract. However, it makes because the opponent has a blind lead and guesses wrong. Do you really think the score should be adjusted? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 18:47:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA20299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:47:24 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA20294 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:47:17 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA22041 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:47:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id CAA16439 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:47:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:47:24 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902260747.CAA16439@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [SW]>If defender showed the AQ _only to declarer_, they were NOT penalty [SW]>cards. If instead his partner could have seen them, then they were. > From: Anton Witzen > I disagree in that. . Read 68A carefully and the footnote in the heading. > We can regard showing the QA (or KJ in my example) as claiming only these > tricks and have to act accordingly. Are you disagreeing with the first sentence or the second? Having reread L68 and the footnote (which is in the L68 text, not the heading), I retract my second sentence. The cards so revealed are NOT penalty cards, even if partner could have seen them! My apologies to all for the careless post. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 18:54:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA20377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:54:29 +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 SAA20372 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:54:23 +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 <19990226075417.CXVN23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:54:17 -0800 Message-ID: <36D65415.71B0900F@home.com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:58:13 -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 claim? References: <36D1C7C2.35A7A33B@home.com> <36D30B15.18DD243@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Every day declarers throughout the world make millions of mistakes, > and millions of stupid plays: why do we want to let declarer get away > with this one? I never said I wanted to. In fact I said I'd rule exactly as you, and I was not one of those who felt it improper to take advantage of the mistake. What I *did* say, or at least tried to say, was that this was clearly not a *bridge*-mistake, and that declarer intended to "finesse" but was just a bit quick on the trigger, and that I therefore felt more sympathy for *this* "offender" than I normally do. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 20:35:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA20795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 20:35:27 +1100 Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA20788 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 20:35:23 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME ([203.96.101.249]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990226093519.DCIW682101.mta1-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:35:19 +1300 Message-ID: <36D791D9.3B39@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:34:01 -0800 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Faced Card Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All One of learning directors struck this the other night. Called to table where defenders were querying a revoke in dummy. Law 64B3 says no penalty assessed "if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table including a card from dummy's hand" The revoke card was the ace of hearts which was in the diamonds. The "A" was visible but not the suit. Obviously all assumed it was a diamond (yes including the person who held the ace). Hearts had been played early in the hand so the revoke was established. Ruled under 64b3. Question 1: was it a faced card? Question 2: Under 64C what equity should be restored? (ie equivalent of two trick penalty, return to usual score made on board, 60/40 ??) Cheers Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 20:39:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA20820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 20:39:52 +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 UAA20815 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 20:39:44 +1100 Received: from hlyxzurz (dialup-024.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.216]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA08849 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:39:36 GMT Message-ID: <000701be616c$9ff74fe0$d8307dc2@hlyxzurz> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: 4 Board VP Scale Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:44:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Am I right in assuming that the WBF VP scale (15-15 up to 25-0) is only meant for matches of 8 or more boards? If so is it unfair to use this same scale for 4 board matches? Regards, Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 21:34:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 21:34:01 +1100 Received: from ns1.tudelft.nl (ns1.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA20983 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 21:33:46 +1100 Received: from listserv.tudelft.nl (mailhost.tudelft.nl) by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #D3521) with ESMTP id <0F7R00C6WC01WY@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:33:37 +0100 (MET) Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl [130.161.188.140]) by listserv.tudelft.nl (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA10625 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:33:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from angad.tn.tudelft.nl by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl with SMTP (16.6/15.6) id AA06046; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:32:54 +0100 Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:47:20 +0100 From: Evert Angad-Gaur Subject: Re: Faced Card To: bridge laws Message-id: <36D67BB8.6B8A5FE4@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: <36D791D9.3B39@xtra.co.nz> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi everybody, > > Called to table where defenders were querying a revoke in dummy. Law > 64B3 says no penalty assessed "if the revoke was made in failing to play > any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table > including a card from dummy's hand" The revoke card was the ace of > hearts which was in the diamonds. The "A" was visible but not the suit. > Obviously all assumed it was a diamond (yes including the person who > held the ace). Hearts had been played early in the hand so the revoke > was established. Ruled under 64b3. > > Question 1: was it a faced card? In my opinion it was faced. > > > Question 2: Under 64C what equity should be restored? (ie equivalent of > two trick penalty, return to usual score made on board, 60/40 ??) > IMO something like the following. I think both sides must take care that you can everything of the open cards of dummy. So both sides are responsible. Dummy and the declarer the most. So I think that de defenders are also guilty. I would give a split score. For the "non-offenders" the table score. And for the side of the declarer I must would try to see what would happened if the revoke was not made. If I need it then I would even use rule 72b1. Evert From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 21:58:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 21:58:27 +1100 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA21345 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 21:58:19 +1100 Received: from [195.99.51.115] (helo=david-burn) by carbon with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10GKwT-0003sN-00; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:56:25 +0000 Message-ID: <199902261057430520.1205B58B@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <000701be616c$9ff74fe0$d8307dc2@hlyxzurz> References: <000701be616c$9ff74fe0$d8307dc2@hlyxzurz> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:57:43 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: tsvecfob@iol.ie Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 4 Board VP Scale Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 26/02/99, at 09:44, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >Am I right in assuming that the WBF VP scale (15-15 up to 25-0) is only >meant for matches of 8 or more boards? >If so is it unfair to use this same scale for 4 board matches? > >Regards, >Fearghal The WBF scale is generally used only in Championship events such as the Bermuda Bowl or Venice Cup round robins and the Olympiad qualifiers, where matches are of 16 or 20 boards. It has been adopted by the EBL in the European Championships (16 or 20 board matches again). It would be wholly absurd to use it for 4-board matches (although it might keep the punters happy, since it would be almost impossible to lose by more than about 18-12!) Max Bavin at the EBU (www.ebu.co.uk) will happily provide you with VP scales for any number of boards. Regards Dave From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 26 22:08:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:08:06 +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 WAA21527 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:07:59 +1100 Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA27435; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:07:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA12907; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:07:23 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:07:23 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Reply-To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 4 Board VP Scale In-Reply-To: <000701be616c$9ff74fe0$d8307dc2@hlyxzurz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > Am I right in assuming that the WBF VP scale (15-15 up to 25-0) is only > meant for matches of 8 or more boards? No, the 8 board scale is only valid for matches of 7 to 9 boards, for longer matches, there is a different scale. The table was generated by the late Wim Wagner. The idea is that for a X-Y win, you have to win a certain (fixed) number of imp's per board. This number is then multiplied by the number of boards and rounded. > If so is it unfair to use this same scale for 4 board matches? I think the lowest column is for 6 board matches but I'm not 100% sure of that. Since the same IMP-VP scale applies to all contestants, it's not unfair to use the table. It just becomes harder to score a 25-5 win in a 4-board match using the 8-board table, since the number of imp's that you can win in a shorter match is smaller. 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 Fri Feb 26 23:37:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 23:37:35 +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 XAA22991 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 23:36:45 +1100 Received: from un.frw.uva.nl (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA07498; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:35:55 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199902261235.NAA07498@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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:38:29 +0100 Subject: Re: Faced Card Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals CC: Evert Angad-Gaur X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <36D67BB8.6B8A5FE4@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce Small wrote: > > Called to table where defenders were querying a revoke in dummy. Law > > 64B3 says no penalty assessed "if the revoke was made in failing to play > > any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table > > including a card from dummy's hand" The revoke card was the ace of > > hearts which was in the diamonds. The "A" was visible but not the suit. > > Obviously all assumed it was a diamond (yes including the person who > > held the ace). Hearts had been played early in the hand so the revoke > > was established. Ruled under 64b3. > > > > Question 1: was it a faced card? > > In my opinion it was faced. > > > > > Question 2: Under 64C what equity should be restored? (ie equivalent of > > two trick penalty, return to usual score made on board, 60/40 ??) > > Evert Angad-Gaur wrote: > IMO something like the following. > > I think both sides must take care that you can everything of the open cards > of dummy. So both sides are responsible. Dummy and the declarer the most. > So I think that de defenders are also guilty. I would give a split score. > For the "non-offenders" the table score. > And for the side of the declarer I must would try to see what would happened > if the revoke was not made. If I need it then I would even use rule 72b1. I tend to agree with Evert. However...... When, in april 1998 (see thread 'Equity', also started by Bruce) I suggested something similar (giving +100 to the NOS, +1440 to the declaring side for making an impossible 6NT on a revoke by dummy), my way of restoring equity was not the way others saw it: Robin Barker gave this comment: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Beacuse JP wants to read L64C > "... the Director deems that the non-offending side is > insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, > he shall assign an adjusted score." > as > "... the Director deems that the non-offending side is > insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, > he shall assign an adjusted score to the non-offending side." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You (=DWS) > and I (=Robin Barker) > do not want to read L64C this way. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I wonder whether we are dealing here with regional differences in interpretation.... JP From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 00:12:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA24211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:12:35 +1100 Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA24079 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:12:13 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-157.uunet.be [194.7.13.157]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA04750 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:11:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D68AFD.9CA68283@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:52:29 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The new regime References: <199902260722.CAA16403@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Jesper Dybdal > > >> Any information about your _opponents'_ system that you get from > > >> an opponents' answer to a question is AI and can be used freely. > > >> > > >> Any information about your _own_ system that you get (or can > > >> deduce) from an opponents' answer to a question is UI. > > [SW]>And this is the mind reading that some of us find so troubling. As I have often said, many a ruling requires mind reading, and we TD's have become quite good at it. > > > Yes, but it is not worse than the corresponding (and much more > > usual) situation where partner explains your system: if his > > explanation is news to you, it is UI, but it is AI if you knew it > > all along. > > > [SW]>Is the alternative, although perhaps unfamiliar, really so bad? > > > I think so. I think it calls for at least as much mind-reading. > > Sorry, I was too terse. The alternative I had in mind is to say that > all _correct_ information about one's own system and all information > about the opponent's system, no matter how derived, is AI. I realize > this is quite a leap from what Grattan and David B. have been > advocating, but consider the advantages: > 1. no mind reading > 2. no invention of fantasy bidding systems > 3. no UI restrictions from an opponent's gratuitous question > 4. clarity and simplicity > > Disadvantages are: > 1. the "pro question" is legal > 2. sometimes an alert or explanation will wake a player up to his own > misbid. > > Personally, I think the "pro question" _ought_ to be legal, so I regard > D1 as an advantage. Is it really so terrible that players are informed > of their opponent's methods? > The pro question is not really a problem. We tell pros they should not do this, sometimes they do it anyway, and we can't prove that it was for partner's benefit; what's the problem ? > As for D2, yes, it's too bad. But often in these cases, a player would > have woken up anyway, and often there's no recovery even after he wakes > up. D2 seems a small price to pay for the resulting simplicity. We > never have to decide whether a strange bid was a misbid or deliberate > psyche (A1), and the other advantages speak for themselves. > > Please note partner's _wrong_ explanation remains UI with the full > consequences. No question or any great problem there. But now Steve introduces a new problem : According to him, information coming from partner, telling a player how partner has interpreted his last call, is UI if partner is wrong, but AI if partner is right. So now we will have to decide what is the "correct" system. And worse, the player at the table should decide what is the "correct" system in order for him to know whether or not he can take use of the information he has just received. I believe Steve is opening more cans of worms than he is closing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 00:12:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA24204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:12:34 +1100 Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA24071 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:12:12 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-157.uunet.be [194.7.13.157]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA04744 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:11:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D687CE.A9E9454D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:38:54 +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: Faced Card References: <36D791D9.3B39@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B A Small wrote: > > Hi All > > One of learning directors struck this the other night. > > Called to table where defenders were querying a revoke in dummy. Law > 64B3 says no penalty assessed "if the revoke was made in failing to play > any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table > including a card from dummy's hand" The revoke card was the ace of > hearts which was in the diamonds. The "A" was visible but not the suit. > Obviously all assumed it was a diamond (yes including the person who > held the ace). Hearts had been played early in the hand so the revoke > was established. Ruled under 64b3. > > Question 1: was it a faced card? > No, but it was a card belonging to a faced hand, so the same principle applies : no penalty, just restoration through L64C. > Question 2: Under 64C what equity should be restored? (ie equivalent of > two trick penalty, return to usual score made on board, 60/40 ??) > Return to usual score made on board, usual that is, for the play so far (ie if all other tables are in 6 going down, you don't write -50 if this table is in 4Sp, rather +450) > Cheers > > Bruce -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 00:39:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:39:40 +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 AAA25500 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:39:32 +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 NAA24429 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:38:48 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 NAA13661 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:37:32 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990226143849.007c4550@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:38:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:46 25/02/99 -0500, Bruce J. Moore wrote: >Grattan, > > Please don't do this. > > Let's say I'm playing against a regular partner with a new >partner. New partner misexplains slightly. When I don't correct, >regular partner now knows more about my hand than my partner or >my agreements allow. This cannot be right. > > The principle I'm defending is that the opponents are entitled >to know our agreements, no less, but certainly no more. It certainly >seems adequate to correct partner's (slight) misexplanation and *always* >indicate that your hand may, or may not correspond to the original >explanation. That fulfills one's ethical obligation for disclosure >without requiring declarer to face his hand. > >Bruce > >On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> >> ++++ My thinking is not a million miles from this. I am leaning >> to the view that law amendment should provide that >> >> " a player whose call has been explained by partner, or who has >> himself given such an explanation of his own call when law or >> regulation requires it, and whose hand corresponds to the >> explanation given, shall defer any correction of the explanation >> until the end of the play of the hand if the explanation is not in >> accord with his agreements. An opponent who has acted upon >> correct information about the hand shall not be entitled to >> redress for an inferior score thereby obtained." ~Grattan~ ++++ >> > I concur in expressing my preference for the rule as it is: disclose your agreements, nothing more nothing less, without any reference to your feelings, to your hand, to what you hope to be helpful or anything less. Since last week, many others, on this list, have imagined the flaws that could be induced by the new proposed formulation. With disclosing of partnersip agreements we have a law which is simple, short (it can be formulated in very few words) and (IMO) good. Its only flaw is that it is difficult to make players understand it. Better than to change the law with the hope that the new and less simple one will be better understood, why not still try to educate players. I know it's a very difficult task, but it would "only" need to persuade everybody that alerts and explanations are connected to nothing else than what was already known before each player looks at his cards. In a perfect world, nobody would infer indue conclusions from alerts, explanations or corrections of explanation, except that it refers to what both partners have agreed before sitting one in front of the other. Nobody would think someone has 4 spades because he has said his bid didn't deny 4 spades, or corrected a previous explanation to say so. In the same vein, and in opposition to the "ask when you need" theory, once again advocated in a recent mail, I call for the "no inference" inquiry. I think highly desirable players randomly ask for the meaning of their opponents' bids. Otherwise, questions transmit information relating to the inquiring player's hand, AI for opponents and UI for partner, which will refrain players from inquiring and result, in a perverse way, to go against the praiseworthy goal of full disclosure. 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 Feb 27 00:46:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:46:39 +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 AAA25547 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:46:33 +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 IAA69047338 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:50:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D6A4EF.E9A96848@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:43:11 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> <36CAE805.B11A533C@freewwweb.com> <36CBAA93.407DA73C@freewwweb.com> <36D56A1B.C146521F@freewwweb.com> <36D62C42.43DEC899@freewwweb.com> <36D64824.C632167C@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If the intent of the law is not to have a level playing field, then does not that provide the premise for justifying the past time of 'bridge lawyering'? Roger Pewick Jan Kamras wrote: > > Forgive me for stepping into this exchange, but: > > axeman wrote: > > > Question 1. Is the intent of the laws to provide as level a playing > > field as 'reasonable'? > > No - I don't think so. Nowhere have I seen this expressed from > authorized sources. What I have seen is that the primary objective is to > provide redress for damage caused by infractions. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 01:16:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 01:16:04 +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 BAA25618 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 01:15:56 +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 JAA12117 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:14:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990226091633.00730df0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:16:33 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990225084227.0072a9c8@pop.cais.com> <36D30B15.18DD243@home.com> <36D1C7C2.35A7A33B@home.com> <36D30B15.18DD243@home.com> <3.0.1.32.19990225084227.0072a9c8@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:08 AM 2/26/99 +0000, David wrote: > Ok, I say again, what would you do if declarer and dummy were >reversed, same position, namely the finesse is proved, and declarer >plays OOT. Not would you allow him to retract it - that is up to you - >but would you drum someone out of the club who did not allow a >retraction? > > From the uncomfortable silence that greeted this last time, I'll bet >you wouldn't. So, what is the difference? I would not. And, as David correctly holds, there is no difference under the laws, which is why I stated up front that I would have no choice but to rule, in the original case, that the 10 was played, if the defender insisted that I do so. But my moral sensibilities insist that there is a difference, even if the laws don't make the distinction. A card played is a card played, even if the error is purely mechanical and the player's different intent is incontrovertable. But a verbal statement is a different kettle of fish; when everyone in the room knows what the player's intention is, it feels right to react to that intention, not to what his statement would mean if we parsed it literally. In general (although, admittedly, not in this case), the laws do seem to give us some "wiggle room" to allow for a player's making a sloppy verbal statement that they do not give us for inadvertantly putting an unintended card on the table. 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 Feb 27 01:35:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 01:35:48 +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 BAA25666 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 01:35:41 +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 JAA68825146 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:39:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D6B074.EE901540@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:32:20 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902260728.CAA16418@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, Please do not get out of context. I said that the conclusion to be drawn is that L23 would 'not' apply based on that position. [The case has been argued [not by me] in the strongest terms that L23 applies only if [a] he did know at the time that damage was likely or [b] cheating.] It has been noted that the instances are rare that [a] was the case. I contend that the envelope of L23 extends differently than contended by that position. I contend that it is general bridge knowledge that if there is an OOT action [BOOT in this case], that it is known that a penalty might be applied [as opposed to knowing that a penalty will be applied] that may present the offender with options not available before his infraction. That to select such an option may damage the opponents but not necessarily their score. If it does cause damage to their score, then L23 provides for adjustment. If there was no UI then the result for 3N certainly ought to stand. If UI was present, then it is not so clear. I have been addressing the situation where the penalty for BOOT creates different meanings for bids. Above for instance, 3N does not carry a substantially different meaning before the BOOT than after the BOOT [except for the enforced pass requirements], does it? Hence, no adjustment under L23. Roger Pewick Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: axeman > > And the conclusion I draw is that the > > law says that it is proper [there is no adjustment for could have known] > > that a player who BOOT is entitled to gain an advantage from the 'new > > meanings' of his bids [which I feel is unfair] due to his infraction. > > There most certainly is adjustment for "could have known." Check out > L23 and L72B1. > > On the other hand, if the enforced pass happens to work well for a > reason that could not have been foreseen, there's no adjustment. I contend that in the penalty double case, that it could be foreseen from general bridge knowledge; others have vehemently stated that it was impossible [so that no adjustment is due]. > Suppose I bid out of turn, partner is barred, and I guess to bid 3NT. > Nothing in my hand suggests I would have wanted to bar partner, and > indeed 3NT is a poor contract. However, it makes because the opponent > has a blind lead and guesses wrong. Do you really think the score > should be adjusted? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 01:36:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 01:36:05 +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 BAA25682 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 01:35:59 +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 JAA13318 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:34:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990226093730.00730aec@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:37:30 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Faced Card In-Reply-To: <36D791D9.3B39@xtra.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:34 PM 2/26/99 -0800, Bruce.Small wrote: >Called to table where defenders were querying a revoke in dummy. Law >64B3 says no penalty assessed "if the revoke was made in failing to play >any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table >including a card from dummy's hand" The revoke card was the ace of >hearts which was in the diamonds. The "A" was visible but not the suit. >Obviously all assumed it was a diamond (yes including the person who >held the ace). Hearts had been played early in the hand so the revoke >was established. Ruled under 64b3. > >Question 1: was it a faced card? It was a "card... belonging to a hand faced on the table", so L64B3 applies. >Question 2: Under 64C what equity should be restored? (ie equivalent of >two trick penalty, return to usual score made on board, 60/40 ??) I would restore the result that would have been obtained had the HA been visible all along if both (a) the revoke worked to declarer's advantage (L64C provides for restoration of equity only when it is the non-offending side that was damaged), and (b) declarer held the DA (the defenders were damaged by the misplacement of dummy's cards, not by their own failure to realize that the deck doesn't contain two DAs). 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 Feb 27 01:56:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 01:56:30 +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 BAA25747 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 01:56:24 +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 OAA27869 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:55:49 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.7.1) id OAA21671 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:54:33 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990226155549.0079b830@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:55:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Faced Card In-Reply-To: <36D791D9.3B39@xtra.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 22:34 26/02/99 -0800, B A Small wrote: >Hi All > >One of learning directors struck this the other night. > >Called to table where defenders were querying a revoke in dummy. Law >64B3 says no penalty assessed "if the revoke was made in failing to play >any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table >including a card from dummy's hand" The revoke card was the ace of >hearts which was in the diamonds. The "A" was visible but not the suit. >Obviously all assumed it was a diamond (yes including the person who >held the ace). Hearts had been played early in the hand so the revoke >was established. Ruled under 64b3. > >Question 1: was it a faced card? Yes, I believe the definition (to be added in Ch. 1 Definitions?) of a "faced card" is intended as a card defined as "to be faced" by some law, and not as a card which evrybody can see. Anyway, L64B3 also says "belonging to a hand faced on the table". > >Question 2: Under 64C what equity should be restored? (ie equivalent of >two trick penalty, return to usual score made on board, 60/40 ??) > IMO, both sides have some responsability in the revoke and neither of them is non-offending side, so 64C is irrelevant. Table result stands except if a trick was wrongly attributed to a player who didn't win it, as a result of confusion between red aces. Incidentally, what were trumps? Was the revoke a result of not following suit in a heart trick, or of playing HA on a diamond trick? and in which hand was the (other) DA? JP Rocafort >Cheers > >Bruce > > ________________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 27 02:16:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 02:16:32 +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 CAA25980 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 02:16:15 +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 RAA04476 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:14:07 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from svk@int.kiev.ua) Message-ID: <005701be6199$323b7300$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 4 Board VP Scale Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:03:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In Ukraine for matches of 4 boards we usually play Team-Patton. If we play Team matches of 4 boards we play without IMP-VP scale, only IMP, but the win in the match is limited by 14 IMPs. Regards Sergey >Am I right in assuming that the WBF VP scale (15-15 up to 25-0) is only >meant for matches of 8 or more boards? >If so is it unfair to use this same scale for 4 board matches? > >Regards, >Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 02:45:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 02:45:15 +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 CAA26081 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 02:45:09 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA17624; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:44:26 -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 rma017523; Fri Feb 26 09:44:02 1999 Received: by har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE6174.CB9B3640@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:43:07 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE6174.CB9B3640@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA'" Subject: RE: Labrador Flag Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:59:32 -0500 Encoding: 41 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Was not Labrador a separate province until postwar...I think 1947? There could well be a tradition to maintain, much as the Union Jack remains in the field of the flag of some independent Commonwealth nations. One could argue that the choice of colour in the American flag hearkens back to the English roots of the nation...but hardly indicates a movement to replace Clinton with that other adulterer as head of state down the road. We do well to remember our heritage while looking forward. This is true in remembering the impact not only of Kaplan but of his predecessors in shaping Bridge Law, learning from all, and learning from the process of emendation which they also constantly had to face. Both understanding of each other and of the widely diverse possibilities of interpretation of even the simplest language are enhanced by looking at what has gone before, as well as by thrashing out current perceived imperfections. I'm not so sure that Herman really DID post the wrong list...we all got a good laugh from it, but we also noted, validly, the ongoing importance of history and tradition. Change for its own sake can be an irritant just for dislodging the comfortable. Most of us are willing to live with the sometimes unjust revoke penalties because they are so well established. We see what has happened when we have tried to modify them: confusion and consternation in many cases. North America's decision to allow defenders to ask "having none partner" and to make a stop warning optional at the skip bidders peril fall largely into this area, as does the decision to licence Multi at a general level in the UK and most of Europe. We need to continue to consider the preferences and traditions of the playing public when we consider modification of the Laws as one of the ways in which we determine whether the game be worth the candle. Just as Labradoreans cling to the patriotic meanings of a flag after economics dictated a union with Newfoundland over half a century ago, bridge players cling to their comfortable traditions. They should be disturbed only when necessary. --- Craig ---------- From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA[SMTP:Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA] We all.... most..... know that Labrador is part of NewFoundland and already has a flag...Is there some separatists in Labrador....like in Qubec...Interesting...But I agree....it is the wrong list... From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 03:31:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 03:31:10 +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 DAA27110 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 03:30:56 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA24585 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:30:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902261630.IAA24585@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Loss of Redress Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:30:51 -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 There have been many references on BLML to ACBL AC's apparent policy of requiring too high a standard of play for the NOS. Looking through the NABC casebooks, I hadn't found much evidence of that, so I began to think it was a bad rap. Now, continuing to browse through the ACBL Tech files that are part of ACBLScore software, I find that the rap isn't so bad after all. Remember that the Tech files provide ACBL TDs with guidance on all directing matters, from movements to application of the Laws. I wish all LCs would publish the minutes of their meetings, or at least their official "interpretations," in easy-to-find places. Anyway, here's what I came across: ----------------------------------------------------------------- RESPONSIBILITY OF PLAYERS TO PLAY BRIDGE At the 1992 Indianapolis NABCs the ACBL Laws Commission reaffirmed the position that in order to fully protect their rights, bridge players are under an obligation to play at a reasonable level commensurate with their expertise. A serious misplay can be cause for a player to have to accept a bad score that was actually achieved EVEN THOUGH THE OPPONENT'S SCORE MAY BE ADJUDICATED. For example: S T3 H J6 D AKJ4 C KQT52 S A54 S Q9876 H Q7 H T542 D T8 D 976 C J97643 C 8 S KJ2 H AK983 D Q532 C A N E S W P 1H P 2C P 2D P IMPs 3D P 3H P VUL: None 4C P 4H P 5D* P 6D P *Hesitation P P P East/West called for the director when South bid 6 diamonds following the hesitation. The director instructed that play should continue and after South made the slam, ruled the contract to be 5 diamonds making six. North/South appealed. The committee upheld the ruling, reasoning that South's bidding had shown considerable extra values and North had suggested that 5 diamonds was the proper contract. The committee felt a significant minority would have passed over 5 diamonds. However, during their questioning, they learned that South had misplayed the contract and East could have beaten it. After determining how the play went, the committee judged that East should have known he could ruff a trick to set the contract and failed to make an easy play (for his level of expertise) by not ruffing. APPLICATION: The committee rules that North/South can not bid 6 diamonds after the hesitation but that East/West has a clear shot to set the contract which they failed to do only because of their own carelessness. Therefore, the most favorable result for East/West was in fact 6 diamonds properly defended and the most unfavorable result for North/South was 5 diamonds making six. The final ruling was to score East/West minus 920, the result at the table, and North/South plus 420, the presumed result of a 5 diamonds contract. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Too bad we don't even know what the opening lead was. Evidently East did not realize that by trumping in twice he could win a trump trick. So, what does BLML think? (1) Does the 1992 LC statement accord with the "irrational, wild, or gambling" criteria of the WBFLC? (2) Was East's defense possibly bad enough to warrant loss of redress? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 03:51:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 03:51:14 +1100 Received: from ns1.tudelft.nl (ns1.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA27838 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 03:51:00 +1100 Received: from listserv.tudelft.nl (mailhost.tudelft.nl) by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #D3521) with ESMTP id <0F7R00J4ZTGTHA@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:50:53 +0100 (MET) Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl [130.161.188.140]) by listserv.tudelft.nl (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA20660 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:50:51 +0100 (MET) Received: from angad.tn.tudelft.nl by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl with SMTP (16.6/15.6) id AA08442; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:50:09 +0100 Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:04:37 +0100 From: Evert Angad-Gaur Subject: card from dummy. To: bridge laws Message-id: <36D6D425.7F299BE6@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello, Last night I got the following problem : I was called. South was declarer. In dummy the last six cards were Spade 10, Diamonds A,10,9 and Clubs 3,2. South told me that she asked dummy to play club2 and that dummy played diamond 9 and after that East played the King of diamond. That was the situation. East could not tell me what the declarer has said. He just played because Diamond 9 was played by yhe dummy. West had not heard what the declarer South said. Would you decide that the King of Diamond is a penalty card and that the club 2 is played ? And else what ? Evert. -- S.E.Angad-Gaur, tel.: 015-2786150 email:evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl fax.: 015-2781694 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 04:18:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:18:08 +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 EAA28978 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:17:59 +1100 Received: from pcas14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.203] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10GQtV-0007s5-00; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:17:45 +0000 Message-ID: <001a01be61ab$57b2f380$cb8e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Faced Card Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:24:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: 26 February 1999 15:12 Subject: Re: Faced Card >At 10:34 PM 2/26/99 -0800, Bruce.Small wrote: > >>Called to table where defenders were querying a revoke in dummy. Law >>64B3 says no penalty assessed "if the revoke was made in failing to play >>any card >> >>Question 1: was it a faced card? > >It was a "card... belonging to a hand faced on the table", so L64B3 applies. > ++ I agree ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 04:18:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:18:18 +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 EAA28984 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:18:04 +1100 Received: from pcas14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.203] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10GQtW-0007s5-00; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:17:47 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01be61ab$58d04a60$cb8e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "axeman" , Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:42:28 -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: 25 February 1999 17:55 Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings I feel that your post has gone far to educate me in the official position of the ramifications of the enforced pass provisions of a BOOT. Now that was a mouth full. Hopefully, I can apply them accurately. ++++ Well, just before you tuck your file away, it is worth reading Law 72A5 which sets the principle that allows the player to make any call, with his partner silenced, that he thinks advantageous to his side. I say again "ANY call". ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 04:18:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:18:23 +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 EAA28985 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:18:05 +1100 Received: from pcas14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.203] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10GQtY-0007s5-00; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:17:48 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01be61ab$59cc0f80$cb8e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:01:21 -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 4.72.3110.1 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: 26 February 1999 14:10 Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings >At 00:46 25/02/99 -0500, Bruce J. Moore wrote: >>Grattan, ++++ Oh I think the message is plain. It follows that the other disadvantages in the present law which were the first subject raised, must be accepted insofar as there is no remedy already. We can't have it both ways. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 04:18:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:18:32 +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 EAA29007 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:18:22 +1100 Received: from pcas14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.203] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10GQte-0007s5-00; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:17:54 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01be61ab$5d441f40$cb8e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:10:46 -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: blml Date: 26 February 1999 07:43 Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings >Forgive me for stepping into this exchange, but: > >axeman wrote: > >> Question 1. Is the intent of the laws to provide as level a playing >> field as 'reasonable'? > >No - I don't think so. Nowhere have I seen this expressed from >authorized sources. What I have seen is that the primary objective is to >provide redress for damage caused by infractions. > +++ I do not think a level playing field even means very much in this context. The laws are the ground on which we play and by definition the surface is what it is. The game is played according to rules which we make [beforehand mostly :-)) ] and they are what they are and the same for all players, ("unless you are the boss's wife", say some). Of course we do not always anticipate the effects of what we do, nor the twists that players and blml will introduce; so there are times when a quick repair job is necessary. But by and large a 'level playing field' is beauty in the eye of the beholder. ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 04:23:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:23:37 +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 EAA29220 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:23:30 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa28278; 26 Feb 99 9:22 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Loss of Redress In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:30:51 PST." <199902261630.IAA24585@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:22:42 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902260922.aa28278@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > For example: S T3 > H J6 > D AKJ4 > C KQT52 > S A54 S Q9876 > H Q7 H T542 > D T8 D 976 > C J97643 C 8 > S KJ2 > H AK983 > D Q532 > C A N E S W > P 1H P > 2C P 2D P > IMPs 3D P 3H P > VUL: None 4C P 4H P > 5D* P 6D P > *Hesitation P P P > . . . > APPLICATION: > The committee rules that North/South can not bid 6 diamonds after > the hesitation but that East/West has a clear shot to set the > contract which they failed to do only because of their own > carelessness. > > Therefore, the most favorable result for East/West was in fact 6 > diamonds properly defended and the most unfavorable result for > North/South was 5 diamonds making six. The final ruling was to > score East/West minus 920, the result at the table, and North/South > plus 420, the presumed result of a 5 diamonds contract. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Too bad we don't even know what the opening lead was. Evidently > East did not realize that by trumping in twice he could win a trump > trick. > > So, what does BLML think? It's impossible to answer this without knowing exactly how the play went, and how good a player East was. My general impression is that you're right. If RHO leads a suit you're out of, and you think LHO is out too, it's not always a simple question to figure out whether to ruff or not. Sometimes it's better to hold onto your trumps, especially when you have the trump length. Spending a trump can mean that it will take declarer fewer rounds of trumps to draw them all, and on some hands this is just what declarer needs to make his contract. Also, both of West's trump spots are important. Was East supposed to know this? However, we don't have nearly enough facts to criticize the committee for their ruling. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 04:49:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:49:08 +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 EAA00298 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:49:00 +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 RAA03808 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:48:20 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 RAA03884 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:47:04 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990226184822.007b9100@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:48:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:25 26/02/99 -0600, you wrote: >Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> >> At 00:46 25/02/99 -0500, Bruce J. Moore wrote: >> >Grattan, >> > >> > Please don't do this. >> I concur in expressing my preference for the rule as it is: disclose your >> agreements, nothing more nothing less, without any reference to .... >> In the same vein, and in opposition to the "ask when you need" theory, >> once again advocated in a recent mail, I call for the "no inference" >> inquiry. I think highly desirable players randomly ask for the meaning of >> their opponents' bids. > >Hi Jean, > >Could you clarify opinions on some subjects you raised? As I think your post was intended to the whole list, I will answer on it. > >When ever a question is asked, no matter about anything else, this >breaks tempo. Most tempo breaks convey information of one sort or >another, even if it is not clear what the information is. It seems that >L73A calls for avoiding this. It also seems that if there is a bridge >reason to ask, it is a valid reason to infringe on L73A but by doing so, >does not [fully] absolve one's side for UI restrictions. > >Your comments? I think it happens to exist conflicting goals: full disclosure, avoidance of UI and quick play are conflicting. One could also say that stop warnings delay the game but they are considered useful. I think a mean to avoid transmitting UI (like the one I advocate) can justify some delaying of the game. I strongly think that saying that inquiries about partnership agreements, is a plague that conveys UI, delays game, favours cheating and should only be used in case of emergency, goes against the interests of the game. Full disclosure is a prioritary goal and I favor all pragmatic ways to get it. I think the best alert rule is: alert when you suspect it could be useful for opponents, and the best "inquire rule" is the one allowing players not to mind to be damaged by their asking. Most tempo breaks convey information, so it is important to try to decrease the number of times they convey information or to make this information indecipherable, which would be reached with curiosity or random questions. It's preferable to inquire twice without conveying UI to partner (nor AI to help opponents!), than once and conveying a lot of information. > >To ask questions solely to satisfy curiosity strikes me as unnecessarily >delaying the game. > >Your comments? I think the benefits of this attitude are larger than its flaws: to avoid transmission of UI, to promote full disclosure, ... to satisfy curiosity. > >What if there were a law that required the declaring side to explain all >previously unexplained bids that had conventional meaning by agreement >[albeit, all others were natural not needing explanation]. Then the >face down lead is made. > >That would leave only declarer's understanding of the opponent's >bidding. His only damage would be that asking questions would expose >opponent's partner to the answer- which anyway is the case of today. > >Your comments? Your law would be a waste of time: I know many players who prefer not to hear any explanations because they don't mind, or are afraid to be confused, to lose concentration... Today, a player, in order to avoid the same UI problems you care, may require, before opening lead, "to be explained all previously unexplained....". But you know this is not sufficient: declarer can't imagine all pieces of information his opponent wants to get and there will often come subsidiary questions: would you have made the same bids with only 5 spades? Could you have used another way to show a 2-suiter? and so on. Nothing is perfect. JP Rocafort > >Cheers > >Roger Pewick > >> Otherwise, questions transmit information relating to the inquiring >> player's hand, AI for opponents and UI for partner, which will refrain >> players from inquiring and result, in a perverse way, to go against the >> praiseworthy goal of full disclosure. >> >> 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 Feb 27 05:02:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 05:02:08 +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 FAA00758 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 05:02:02 +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 NAA69781676 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:05:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D6E0C7.AFF008E4@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:58:31 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <001b01be61ab$58d04a60$cb8e93c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk IIRC, I have stated that the player is entitled to select any call. I have gone further and contend if the call [the meaning of the call] selected would not have been available without the infraction this is in fact a fruit from the infraction. And following through the idea that a side ought not to be entitled to improve their score because of the infraction, it seems appropriate to adjust under L23 when score was lost due to selecting the call[s] that was the fruit of the infraction. I do not think that L72A5 necessarily precludes applying L23. It says 'appears'. It does not say "even though they thereby profit through their own infraction." Imo, there is a great difference between profitting from bidding 1N that partner would normally carry to 3N and go down; and a double that would normally be for take out and one that would be penalty only because of the infraction. It seems that L23 would not adjust the formaer, but might the latter. If the laws do not recognize it, then they are greatly flawed. I contend that if the laws do intend to entitle an offender the benefit of the fruit of his own infraction, then that is what the laws intend, whether I like it or not, which I don't. Roger Pewick Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > "The law is good, if a man use it lawfully" > - 1. Timothy > ******************************************************************* > > -----Original Message----- > From: axeman > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 25 February 1999 17:55 > Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings > > I feel that your post has gone far to educate me in the official > position of the ramifications of the enforced pass provisions of a > BOOT. Now that was a mouth full. Hopefully, I can apply them > accurately. > > ++++ Well, just before you tuck your file away, it is worth > reading Law 72A5 which sets the principle that allows the > player to make any call, with his partner silenced, that he > thinks advantageous to his side. I say again "ANY call". > ~ Grattan ~ ++++ ps Do not forget to read the entire text. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 05:33:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 05:33:04 +1100 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA01769 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 05:32:56 +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 NAA14292 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:32:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:32:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902261832.NAA15408@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19990226093730.00730aec@pop.cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:37:30 -0500) Subject: Re: Faced Card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: > At 10:34 PM 2/26/99 -0800, Bruce.Small wrote: >> Called to table where defenders were querying a revoke in dummy. Law >> 64B3 says no penalty assessed "if the revoke was made in failing to play >> any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table >> including a card from dummy's hand" The revoke card was the ace of >> hearts which was in the diamonds. The "A" was visible but not the suit. >> Obviously all assumed it was a diamond (yes including the person who >> held the ace). Hearts had been played early in the hand so the revoke >> was established. Ruled under 64b3. >> Question 2: Under 64C what equity should be restored? (ie equivalent of >> two trick penalty, return to usual score made on board, 60/40 ??) > I would restore the result that would have been obtained had the HA been > visible all along if both (a) the revoke worked to declarer's advantage > (L64C provides for restoration of equity only when it is the non-offending > side that was damaged), Agreed. For purposes of this, I would treat the defenders as non=offending and give them the most favorable likely score, and the declarers as offending and give them the least favorable probable score. > and (b) declarer held the DA (the defenders were > damaged by the misplacement of dummy's cards, not by their own failure to > realize that the deck doesn't contain two DAs). Is a defender allowed to call attention to the fact that dummy is mis-sorted? With the suit not visible, the defender with the DA would make it known to partner that he held the DA, and thus defender's DA would become a penalty card. -- 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 Feb 27 05:47:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 05:47:16 +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 FAA02278 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 05:47:08 +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 NAA14680 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:46:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:46:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902261846.NAA15706@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <36D6D425.7F299BE6@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl> (message from Evert Angad-Gaur on Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:04:37 +0100) Subject: Re: card from dummy. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Evert Angad-Gaur writes: > Last night I got the following problem : > I was called. South was declarer. In dummy the last six cards were Spade > 10, Diamonds A,10,9 and Clubs 3,2. > South told me that she asked dummy to play club2 and that dummy played > diamond 9 and after that East played the King of diamond. That was the > situation. East could not tell me what the declarer has said. He just > played because Diamond 9 was played by yhe dummy. West had not heard > what the declarer South said. > Would you decide that the King of Diamond is a penalty card and that the > club 2 is played ? And else what ? Law 45D: If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw (without penalty) a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarer's RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick (see Law 16C2). If declarer didn't say "Diamond 9", then the D9 is a card that must be retracted, and East's erroneous DK may be retracted without penalty (and is UI to declarer.) The C2 is led, and play proceeds normally except for the UI problem. -- 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 Feb 27 06:17:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 06:17:32 +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 GAA03319 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 06:17:23 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-38.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.38]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA69210343 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:21:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D6F27B.41460AE4@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:14:03 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Loss of Redress References: <199902261630.IAA24585@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let me see. Win the club and trump the third round of hearts. Lay down the CK, ruff, over ruff. Pull two rounds of trump, and lead the spade ten, getting it right. They lead a club and you get 3C, 2H,1S, and 6D. if they lead a spade, trump a heart, pitch a spade, trump a club, and cash the fifth heart for 2C,3H,1S, and 6D. No it seems that the only non recoverable play that declarer could make which fits the description is that they cashed the DQ before playing spades. It sounds like the AC fell for some faulty analysis of the offenders. I thought about this for a few minutes. [a] it seems that the adjustment for the offenders should indeed be 5D. And that [b] the adjustment for the defenders should also be 5D UNLESS 6D was always beatable by normal* [as opposed to inspired] defense. That is to say that the standard of play does not depend the expectation of the offending side making a subsequent error that must be capitalized upon. * I am not sure that when there are more than one normal line that all normal lines must lead to defeat to require the table result stand for the non offenders. It seems about right though, unless the standard for normal lines is so loose as to include some pretty bad play. It seems that a little wisdom would be in order when adjudicating. Roger Pewick Marvin L. French wrote: > > There have been many references on BLML to ACBL AC's apparent > policy of requiring too high a standard of play for the NOS. > Looking through the NABC casebooks, I hadn't found much evidence of > that, so I began to think it was a bad rap. Now, continuing to > browse through the ACBL Tech files that are part of ACBLScore > software, I find that the rap isn't so bad after all. Remember that > the Tech files provide ACBL TDs with guidance on all directing > matters, from movements to application of the Laws. > > I wish all LCs would publish the minutes of their meetings, or at > least their official "interpretations," in easy-to-find places. > > Anyway, here's what I came across: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > RESPONSIBILITY OF PLAYERS TO PLAY BRIDGE > > At the 1992 Indianapolis NABCs the ACBL Laws Commission reaffirmed > the position that in order to fully protect their rights, bridge > players are under an obligation to play at a reasonable level > commensurate with their expertise. A serious misplay can be cause > for a player to have to accept a bad score that was actually > achieved EVEN THOUGH THE OPPONENT'S SCORE MAY BE ADJUDICATED. > > > For example: S T3 > H J6 > D AKJ4 > C KQT52 > S A54 S Q9876 > H Q7 H T542 > D T8 D 976 > C J97643 C 8 > S KJ2 > H AK983 > D Q532 > C A N E S W > P 1H P > 2C P 2D P > IMPs 3D P 3H P > VUL: None 4C P 4H P > 5D* P 6D P > *Hesitation P P P > > East/West called for the director when South bid 6 diamonds > following the hesitation. The director instructed that play should > continue and after South made the slam, ruled the contract to be 5 > diamonds making six. North/South appealed. > > The committee upheld the ruling, reasoning that South's bidding had > shown considerable extra values and North had suggested that 5 > diamonds was the proper contract. The committee felt a significant > minority would have passed over 5 diamonds. However, during their > questioning, they learned that South had misplayed the contract and > East could have beaten it. After determining how the play went, > the committee judged that East should have known he could ruff a > trick to set the contract and failed to make an easy play (for his > level of expertise) by not ruffing. > > APPLICATION: > The committee rules that North/South can not bid 6 diamonds after > the hesitation but that East/West has a clear shot to set the > contract which they failed to do only because of their own > carelessness. > > Therefore, the most favorable result for East/West was in fact 6 > diamonds properly defended and the most unfavorable result for > North/South was 5 diamonds making six. The final ruling was to > score East/West minus 920, the result at the table, and North/South > plus 420, the presumed result of a 5 diamonds contract. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Too bad we don't even know what the opening lead was. Evidently > East did not realize that by trumping in twice he could win a trump > trick. > > So, what does BLML think? > > (1) Does the 1992 LC statement accord with the "irrational, wild, > or gambling" criteria of the WBFLC? > (2) Was East's defense possibly bad enough to warrant loss of > redress? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 06:35:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 06:35:16 +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 GAA03808 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 06:35:07 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa06771; 26 Feb 99 11:34 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Faced Card In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:32:39 PST." <199902261832.NAA15408@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:34:19 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9902261134.aa06771@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Is a defender allowed to call attention to the fact that dummy is > mis-sorted? Yes. L41D, L9A2. > With the suit not visible, the defender with the DA would > make it known to partner that he held the DA, and thus defender's DA > would become a penalty card. L49 says if a defender names a card as being in his hand, it's a penalty card; but "making it known" is not the same as "naming", and there are ways to call attention to the fact that dummy is missorted without naming the card. Also, L49 has an exception for "application of law", and I think this might apply here, since exercising one's right under 9A2 to call attention to the irregularity might be the kind of "application of law" that L49 refers to---but I'm not sure about that. Personally, I'd request something like "Can you spread the diamond suit out---one of the cards seems to be partially covered?" Then I don't see how anyone could say I'm violating any Laws. Of course, the real answer to all this is to give the white part of the minor-suit cards a pleasing light-blue tint to distinguish them from the major-suit cards, so that stuff like this can't happen. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 07:00:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 07:00:52 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA04448 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 07:00:42 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-38.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.38]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA68789316; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:04:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D6FC97.9FEF8819@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:57:11 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jean-Pierre Rocafort CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <3.0.5.32.19990226184822.007b9100@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean, Your response was excellent and well thought. Here is the dilemma that I am looking at: You believe in full disclosure, but only if the opponents ask questions. Yet, you conclude that full disclosure is unwise when it is done out of responsibility every time and without any questions. You give reasons such as it might confuse the very players that it was intended to benefit. I can see how confusion might result, but this confusion is surely preferred to the confusion of sorting out MI and UI that happen with great frequency. However. You advise me that practically no player would want such a system. I accept your advice. I was merely recognizing that full disclosure is important and that there are conflicting priorities. I was looking for a practical [as in the best way] to accomplish as many desirable things as possible while eliminating as many undesirable things as possible without creating too many [hopefully none] undesired side effects. You have made it clear that what I set out to accomplish in itself was and is undesirable. And that the mechanisms that are in place work quite adequately. Cheers Roger Pewick Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > At 09:25 26/02/99 -0600, you wrote: > >Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >> > >> At 00:46 25/02/99 -0500, Bruce J. Moore wrote: > >> >Grattan, > >> > > >> > Please don't do this. > >> I concur in expressing my preference for the rule as it is: disclose your > >> agreements, nothing more nothing less, without any reference to .... > > >> In the same vein, and in opposition to the "ask when you need" theory, > >> once again advocated in a recent mail, I call for the "no inference" > >> inquiry. I think highly desirable players randomly ask for the meaning of > >> their opponents' bids. > > > >Hi Jean, > > > >Could you clarify opinions on some subjects you raised? > > As I think your post was intended to the whole list, I will answer on it. > > > >When ever a question is asked, no matter about anything else, this > >breaks tempo. Most tempo breaks convey information of one sort or > >another, even if it is not clear what the information is. It seems that > >L73A calls for avoiding this. It also seems that if there is a bridge > >reason to ask, it is a valid reason to infringe on L73A but by doing so, > >does not [fully] absolve one's side for UI restrictions. > > > >Your comments? > I think it happens to exist conflicting goals: full disclosure, avoidance > of UI and quick play are conflicting. One could also say that stop warnings > delay the game but they are considered useful. I think a mean to avoid > transmitting UI (like the one I advocate) can justify some delaying of the > game. I strongly think that saying that inquiries about partnership > agreements, is a plague that conveys UI, delays game, favours cheating and > should only be used in case of emergency, goes against the interests of the > game. Full disclosure is a prioritary goal and I favor all pragmatic ways > to get it. I think the best alert rule is: alert when you suspect it could > be useful for opponents, and the best "inquire rule" is the one allowing > players not to mind to be damaged by their asking. Most tempo breaks convey > information, so it is important to try to decrease the number of times they > convey information or to make this information indecipherable, which would > be reached with curiosity or random questions. > It's preferable to inquire twice without conveying UI to partner (nor AI > to help opponents!), than once and conveying a lot of information. > > > > >To ask questions solely to satisfy curiosity strikes me as unnecessarily > >delaying the game. > > > >Your comments? > > I think the benefits of this attitude are larger than its flaws: to avoid > transmission of UI, to promote full disclosure, ... to satisfy curiosity. > > > > >What if there were a law that required the declaring side to explain all > >previously unexplained bids that had conventional meaning by agreement > >[albeit, all others were natural not needing explanation]. Then the > >face down lead is made. > > > >That would leave only declarer's understanding of the opponent's > >bidding. His only damage would be that asking questions would expose > >opponent's partner to the answer- which anyway is the case of today. > > > >Your comments? > > Your law would be a waste of time: I know many players who prefer not to > hear any explanations because they don't mind, or are afraid to be > confused, to lose concentration... Today, a player, in order to avoid the > same UI problems you care, may require, before opening lead, "to be > explained all previously unexplained....". But you know this is not > sufficient: declarer can't imagine all pieces of information his opponent > wants to get and there will often come subsidiary questions: would you have > made the same bids with only 5 spades? Could you have used another way to > show a 2-suiter? and so on. Nothing is perfect. > > JP Rocafort > > > >Cheers > > > >Roger Pewick > > > >> Otherwise, questions transmit information relating to the inquiring > >> player's hand, AI for opponents and UI for partner, which will refrain > >> players from inquiring and result, in a perverse way, to go against the > >> praiseworthy goal of full disclosure. > >> > >> 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 Feb 27 07:33:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 07:33:49 +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 HAA05172 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 07:33:38 +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 PAA00251 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:06:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990226150848.00728da4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:08:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Faced Card In-Reply-To: <199902261832.NAA15408@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <3.0.1.32.19990226093730.00730aec@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:32 PM 2/26/99 -0500, David wrote: >Is a defender allowed to call attention to the fact that dummy is >mis-sorted? With the suit not visible, the defender with the DA would >make it known to partner that he held the DA, and thus defender's DA >would become a penalty card. Good question, and one that had never occurred to me. I've always pointed out a missorted dummy, even as defender, as soon as I realized it, without even thinking about how I knew. Perhaps I should not be so quick to do so in the future. Of course, I don't have the best vision, so if dummy places the cards so tightly bunched that the pips aren't visible, I will spread the cards out so that I can see them better, or, in a formal game, ask the dummy to do so. Here's a hypothetical question for the group: Dummy (North) holds A9762 of a suit, but has carelessly laid them on the table in the order A7962. East leads the 3, declarer plays the 4, West plays the 8, and declarer wins the 9. West now calls the TD and states that he didn't see the 9 in dummy; the suit as tabled appeared to be ace-seven-fifth. Had the suit been tabled properly, he would have played the 10 to force the A. Dummy has clearly violated L41D ("dummy spreads his... cards in order of rank"), and the TD determines that this did indeed induce West to misplay. Should we consider redress for West? 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 Feb 27 08:15:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:15:11 +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 IAA06068 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:15:03 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA13967; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:14:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.52) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma013930; Fri Feb 26 15:13:47 1999 Received: by har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE61A2.DCFFCB20@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:12:53 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE61A2.DCFFCB20@har-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: bridge laws , "'Evert Angad-Gaur'" Subject: RE: card from dummy. Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:56:46 -0500 Encoding: 31 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This appears to be a case for 45D...correct the play by dummy, withdraw the KD without penalty. ---------- From: Evert Angad-Gaur[SMTP:evert_np@tn.tudelft.nl] Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 12:04 PM To: bridge laws Subject: card from dummy. Hello, Last night I got the following problem : I was called. South was declarer. In dummy the last six cards were Spade 10, Diamonds A,10,9 and Clubs 3,2. South told me that she asked dummy to play club2 and that dummy played diamond 9 and after that East played the King of diamond. That was the situation. East could not tell me what the declarer has said. He just played because Diamond 9 was played by yhe dummy. West had not heard what the declarer South said. Would you decide that the King of Diamond is a penalty card and that the club 2 is played ? And else what ? Evert. -- S.E.Angad-Gaur, tel.: 015-2786150 email:evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl fax.: 015-2781694 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 08:44:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:44:27 +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 IAA06671 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:44:21 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA02422 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:44:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902262144.NAA02422@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Loss of Redress Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:43:27 -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 I wrote: > There have been many references on BLML to ACBL AC's apparent > policy of requiring too high a standard of play for the NOS. > Looking through the NABC casebooks, I hadn't found much evidence of > that, so I began to think it was a bad rap. Now, continuing to > browse through the ACBL Tech files that are part of ACBLScore > software, I find that the rap isn't so bad after all. I think this last sentence has been taken to mean that I disagree with the AC decision that was included in the Tech file along with the above. No, I meant that the LC "interpretation" seems to be more demanding of NOS to "play bridge" than is appropriate. I have no opinion on the case itself, and didn't mean to imply that I did. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 08:47:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:47:35 +1100 Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA06740 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:47:28 +1100 Received: from default ([195.89.178.98]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 4094500 ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 21:39:38 -0000 Message-ID: <000c01be61d1$5339ab20$62b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "axeman" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 21:42:11 -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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk cookbury@purplenet.co.uk Wow. What a lot of words. What kind of logic is it that says any player whose partner must pass will make a bid that he is not ready to see passed out? -----Original Message----- From: axeman To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 25 February 1999 18:55 Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings > You must come into the real world. Consider this, as a bidding > problem: From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 09:09:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:09:44 +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 JAA07238 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:09:35 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10GVRh-0006i9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:09:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:36:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> <36CAE805.B11A533C@freewwweb.com> <36CBAA93.407DA73C@freewwweb.com> <36D56A1B.C146521F@freewwweb.com> <36D62C42.43DEC899@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: <36D62C42.43DEC899@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: >We do need to determine what we are talking about before getting into >splitting hairs of composing the words that define exactly what is >meant. To that end I start here asking your opinions: > >Question 1. Is the intent of the laws to provide as level a playing >field as 'reasonable'? No, I don't think so. The intent of the Laws is to provide a framework in which a game can be played. There is much luck in this game, and much of it cannot be removed, nor is it desirable to do so. >Question 2. If a player breaks a rule, has the playing field remained >at its original levelness? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. ------------------------ Jan Kamras wrote: >Forgive me for stepping into this exchange, but: > >axeman wrote: > >> Question 1. Is the intent of the laws to provide as level a playing >> field as 'reasonable'? > >No - I don't think so. Nowhere have I seen this expressed from >authorized sources. What I have seen is that the primary objective is to >provide redress for damage caused by infractions. It may be stated as the primary objective but it is in fact secondary. The primary objective is to make the game playable. In other words, a Law that says play goes clockwise is more important than one that provides redress for UI: if the former Law did not exist, there would be anarchy, and the game would be unplayable. Actually, individual SOs would probably feel they needed a regulation .... -- 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 Feb 27 09:53:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:53:24 +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 JAA08165 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:53:17 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-38.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.38]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA68891407 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:56:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D72515.7BDD5DB1@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:49:57 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <000c01be61d1$5339ab20$62b259c3@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There has been so much snipping of my posts in this thread it is easy to take things out of context. I can not tell if what you posted is in reference to what I said or what DWS said since you quoted nothing that I said but did quote him. But, in case you are referring to my posting: Nowhere have I said that offender is or ought to be barred from making any call he sees fit- including biting out of the fruit. What I have said is that that when the infraction created fruit, as in the change of meaning for a call [such as a call which was takeout oriented: negative double, and it then becomes penalty], and then bites into the fruit, if it causes damage, then an adjustment is in order. No damage, no adjustment. Of course, if he does not bite into the fruit, it would not be an issue. And of course, a normal person would see that there would only be downside to biting into the fruit and hence would tend to decline out of self interest. And what if the offender chooses to pass and the opponent goes down, well, the opponent bid on their own behest, no damage due to the enforced pass. And what if offender bid 1N- a bid that did not change in meaning because of the infraction ruling- it does not look like a problem to me. Result should stand because of no damage from the infraction. [I have tended to imply my antecedents to my previous posts, please don't get to bent out of shape that my examples are not well constructed]. Roger Pewick magda.thain wrote: > > cookbury@purplenet.co.uk > > Wow. What a lot of words. What kind of logic is it that says any player whose > partner must pass will make a bid that he is not ready to see passed out? > > -----Original Message----- > From: axeman > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 25 February 1999 18:55 > Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings > > > You must come into the real world. Consider this, as a bidding > > problem: From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 11:12:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:12:28 +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 LAA09684 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:12:15 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-52.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.52]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA69832710 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 19:15:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D73798.55A85DD7@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:08:56 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <199902162123.NAA04259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <36CA5985.A9AB5829@freewwweb.com> <36CAE805.B11A533C@freewwweb.com> <36CBAA93.407DA73C@freewwweb.com> <36D56A1B.C146521F@freewwweb.com> <36D62C42.43DEC899@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > axeman wrote: > >We do need to determine what we are talking about before getting into > >splitting hairs of composing the words that define exactly what is > >meant. To that end I start here asking your opinions: > > > >Question 1. Is the intent of the laws to provide as level a playing > >field as 'reasonable'? > > No, I don't think so. The intent of the Laws is to provide a > framework in which a game can be played. > > There is much luck in this game, and much of it cannot be removed, nor > is it desirable to do so. I think it is not luck that tilts the playing field. It is a flaw in the playing field that tilts it. If the playing field is that a player's turn comes in clockwise fashion and it is the same for all, this is as level as the playing field can practically be. For all players to act at once, it would unplayable. However, when a player acts not at his proper turn I do not attribute it to luck; nevertheless, the playing field has tilted, perhaps quite a lot. Or has it? What say you? Roger Pewick > >Question 2. If a player breaks a rule, has the playing field remained > >at its original levelness? > > Sometimes yes, sometimes no. > > ------------------------ > > Jan Kamras wrote: > >Forgive me for stepping into this exchange, but: > > > >axeman wrote: > > > >> Question 1. Is the intent of the laws to provide as level a playing > >> field as 'reasonable'? > > > >No - I don't think so. Nowhere have I seen this expressed from > >authorized sources. What I have seen is that the primary objective is to > >provide redress for damage caused by infractions. > > It may be stated as the primary objective but it is in fact secondary. > The primary objective is to make the game playable. > > In other words, a Law that says play goes clockwise is more important > than one that provides redress for UI: if the former Law did not exist, > there would be anarchy, and the game would be unplayable. Actually, > individual SOs would probably feel they needed a regulation .... > > -- > 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 Feb 27 11:39:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:39:07 +1100 Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA10161 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:39:02 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME ([203.96.101.223]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990227003940.TJZT3226200.mta2-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 13:39:40 +1300 Message-ID: <36D865CA.3C91@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 13:38:18 -0800 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: card from dummy. References: <36D6D425.7F299BE6@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Evert Angad-Gaur wrote: > > Hello, > > Last night I got the following problem : > > I was called. South was declarer. In dummy the last six cards were Spade > 10, Diamonds A,10,9 and Clubs 3,2. > South told me that she asked dummy to play club2 and that dummy played > diamond 9 and after that East played the King of diamond. That was the > situation. East could not tell me what the declarer has said. He just > played because Diamond 9 was played by yhe dummy. West had not heard > what the declarer South said. > Would you decide that the King of Diamond is a penalty card and that the > club 2 is played ? And else what ? > > Covered by 45D. Must assume declared said C2. Knowing DK is in RHO hand is not going to help and according to 45D it is not a penalty card. Ask declarer to be clear on designations. Situation changes if play gets round to LHO who has DK as now gives declarer info which can be used in the form of finnessing but hard to imagine an situation like this would occur without being noticed by declarer. Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 20:01:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA18402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 20:01:46 +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 UAA18397 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 20:01:38 +1100 Received: from modem31.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.159] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Gfcj-0001Pk-00; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:01:26 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "axeman" , Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:00:15 -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 If you're thinking you'd better know how to thwim #################################### ---------- > From: axeman > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings > Date: 26 February 1999 17:58 > > IIRC, I have stated that the player is entitled to select any call. I > have gone further and contend if the call [the meaning of the call] > selected would not have been available without the infraction this is in > fact a fruit from the infraction. And following through the idea that a > side ought not to be entitled to improve their score because of the > infraction, it seems appropriate to adjust under L23 when score was > lost due to selecting the call[s] that was the fruit of the infraction. > I do not think that L72A5 necessarily precludes applying L23. It says > 'appears'. It does not say "even though they thereby profit through > their own infraction." > > > ++++ The difficulty for you is that you are still selecting the words that fit your wishes; the law says "It is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side" and this is not qualified at all; the additional words "even though etc." only serve to block attempts to place any limit on the principal statement in the law. They do not create a limit. I also think the distinction you try to make over the inclusion of "appears" would be feeble if it mattered; if a side gets a top by post-irregularity action it will still "appear" to other players that they have profited; 'appears' covers actual profit as well as alleged profit, in order to avoid argument as to whether they have actually gained a profit. It was Kaplan's view, and mine, that the offenders have rights as well as the non-offenders. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 27 20:08:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA18509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 20:08:24 +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 UAA18504 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 20:08:16 +1100 Received: from modem52.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.180] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10GfjF-0001WG-00; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:08:10 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "magda.thain" , "axeman" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:06:32 -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 "A man of noble family, shrewd understanding, and a perverse eloquence, who had seduced Julia" - Tacitus #################################### ---------- > From: magda.thain > To: axeman ; Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings > Date: 26 February 1999 21:42 > > > cookbury@purplenet.co.uk > > Wow. What a lot of words. What kind of logic is it that says any player whose > partner must pass will make a bid that he is not ready to see passed out? > ++++ You are right, Magda, of course, it requires a certain perverse cast of mind to suppose the double we have been discussing as anything but penalty, given the 100% risk of partner passing. To be fair to axeman, he recognizes this well enough but questions whether the law allows it. In other words he would bar the call. ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 01:43:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 01:43:31 +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 BAA25828 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 01:43:24 +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 JAA70295234 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:47:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D803C0.137520EC@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:40:00 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk But Grattan, The words of L31A2ab&B say to see L23 when there is an enforced pass. According to you, those words about seeing L23 do not exist. The WBFLC could have worded L72A5 differently and all the other laws that refer to L23 to not refer to L23 and could have omitted L23 altogether. Oops, almost forgot L72B1. The opportunity was there when the 1997 rewrite of the laws were being drafted. Perhaps I am in error but it seems to me that the sole intent of L72A5 is to send the message,' even though you have committed an irregularity, you are entitled to play as well as you can.' This encouragement does not preclude taking an action that may cause an adjustment via L23. Roger Pewick Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > If you're thinking you'd better know how to thwim > #################################### > ---------- > > From: axeman > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings > > Date: 26 February 1999 17:58 > > > > IIRC, I have stated that the player is entitled to select any call. I > > have gone further and contend if the call [the meaning of the call] > > selected would not have been available without the infraction this is in > > fact a fruit from the infraction. And following through the idea that a > > side ought not to be entitled to improve their score because of the > > infraction, it seems appropriate to adjust under L23 when score was > > lost due to selecting the call[s] that was the fruit of the infraction. > > I do not think that L72A5 necessarily precludes applying L23. It says > > 'appears'. It does not say "even though they thereby profit through > > their own infraction." > > > > > ++++ The difficulty for you is that you are still selecting the words that > fit your wishes; the law says "It is appropriate for the offenders to make > any call or play advantageous to their side" and this is not qualified at > all; the additional words "even though etc." only serve to block > attempts to place any limit on the principal statement in the law. They > do not create a limit. > I also think the distinction you try to make over the inclusion > of "appears" would be feeble if it mattered; if a side gets a top by > post-irregularity action it will still "appear" to other players that > they have profited; 'appears' covers actual profit as well as alleged > profit, in order to avoid argument as to whether they have actually > gained a profit. It was Kaplan's view, and mine, that the offenders > have rights as well as the non-offenders. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 01:54:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 01:54:19 +1100 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [205.181.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA26024 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 01:54:13 +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 JAA70198642 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:57:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D8064C.E134E8A7@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:50:52 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I never said that the offender was barred from making the double [call that he saw fit to make]. I implied and even said that it would not make sense to select such a call because of the possibility of adjustment. Is that what the bone of contention was? But, I suspect not. I have always said that if the double became penalty only because of the result of the infraction AND that if it were selected AND it damaged the other side's score, then L23 allows an adjustment. Roger Pewick Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > "A man of noble family, shrewd understanding, > and a perverse eloquence, who had seduced Julia" > - Tacitus > #################################### > ---------- > > From: magda.thain > > To: axeman ; Bridge Laws > > > Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings > > Date: 26 February 1999 21:42 > > > > > > cookbury@purplenet.co.uk > > > > Wow. What a lot of words. What kind of logic is it that says any player > whose > > partner must pass will make a bid that he is not ready to see passed out? > > > ++++ You are right, Magda, of course, it requires a certain perverse cast > of mind to suppose the double we have been discussing as anything but > penalty, given the 100% risk of partner passing. To be fair to axeman, he > recognizes this well enough but questions whether the law allows it. In other > words he would bar the call. ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 05:31:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:31:21 +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 FAA28839 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:31:14 +1100 Received: from ip9.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.9]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990227183107.QCJJ17403.fep4@ip9.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:31:07 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:31:06 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36e53154.7820415@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990222165402.007160e0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990222165402.007160e0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990224165243.00691f7c@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990224165243.00691f7c@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 Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:52:43 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >But when we reach the point where a player's intent is patently obvious = to >everyone in the room, we shouldn't care if the exact literal meaning of = the >player's words parses to something which isn't exactly what he intended. >Bridge is a game of *bridge* mistakes, not a game of mistakes in the >precise use of language. I think that if it were possible in general to distinguish between "bridge mistakes" and those mistakes that you do not call bridge mistakes, then the law book would do so. I think this distinction is something that can only exist in a subjective way for each individual. It is perfectly proper for a LHO who considers this mistake "not a bridge mistake" to choose to let declarer off the hook by playing small. But this must be his personal choice, and it would IMO be quite unacceptable for a TD to try to impose his own ideas of what is and is not a "bridge mistake" on such a player. The TD needs to follow the laws: the laws are the definition of bridge, and anything that the law book penalizes is therefore, by definition, a bridge mistake. Winning at bridge requires you to not call for dummy's cards too early, to show up in time, to not revoke, etc., just as much as it requires you to be able to count to 13. All these skills are part of what makes a good bridge player, and failing in any of these skills is therefore a "bridge mistake". >Suppose that instead of saying "ten" declarer had said "finesse". My >American Heritage Dictionary says, "finesse... 3. Bridge. The playing of= a >card in a suit in which one holds a nonsequential higher card...", so if= we >take the word at its literal meaning, playing the ace on LHO's king is >*not* a finesse! Would anyone consider not allowing declarer to win the >trick? I would allow him to win the trick: he has in effect stated that in just a moment he will want one of the two cards depending on LHO's play. My opinion may, however, be influenced by a linguistic difference: where your verb "to finesse" has the 10 as its object, and therefore literally means "playing the 10 (when LHO has - supposedly - played small)", the corresponding Danish verb "at knibe" has the K as its object, and therefore (IMO - I do not have a dictionary with a clear definition) means "catching the K by choosing a card after LHO has played". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 05:31:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:31:13 +1100 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA28831 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:31:07 +1100 Received: from ip9.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.9]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990227183100.QCJG17403.fep4@ip9.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:31:00 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:31:00 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36e126cc.5124468@post12.tele.dk> References: <199902260722.CAA16403@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199902260722.CAA16403@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, 26 Feb 1999 02:22:33 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >Sorry, I was too terse. The alternative I had in mind is to say that >all _correct_ information about one's own system and all information >about the opponent's system, no matter how derived, is AI.=20 I think this would only work if we went all the way: allowed players to read their own CCs and system descriptions during the game - basically making your own written-down system knowledge that you have a right to. I think this could be workable, but it would be very different from the game we play today. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 05:31:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:31:24 +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 FAA28845 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:31:19 +1100 Received: from ip9.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.9]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990227183112.QCJK17403.fep4@ip9.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:31:12 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:31:12 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36e4304f.7559439@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:44:43 +0100 (CET), af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: >I'm not ruling here (the ruling is clear, almost all of us=20 >agree that the laws say he can't take it >back). I am talking about the bridge lawyering >*defenders* who think they need to take >advantage of such a situation when it is clear to >everybody at the table that it was declarer's >intention to finesse again. > >To me, this is like calling director when >declarer has 25 tricks in 7H and claims by spreading >his hand, because declarer did not=20 >explicitely state that he would draw >trumps.=20 To me, it is like calling the TD when an opponent has revoked even though the revoke made no difference to the play. Is that "bridge lawyering"? "Bridge lawyer" is a negative term - it should not be used about people who simply follow their duty to call the TD when attention has been called to an irregularity. I suggest that the term (which I don't like much in any case, since it basically indicates that there is something wrong with following the laws) is _never_ suitable in relation to a clear mechanical irregularity, such as playing out of turn. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 05:31:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:31:08 +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 FAA28825 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:31:02 +1100 Received: from ip9.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.9]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990227183054.QCJB17403.fep4@ip9.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:30:54 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:30:53 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36e023ca.4354331@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990224093154.00724dd4@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990224093154.00724dd4@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 Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:31:54 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 08:48 PM 2/23/99 +0100, Jesper wrote: > >>That is often the case, but if the mistake was misremembering >>your own system and the "action" that made it obvious to you was >>an opponents' reply to your partner's (or your own) question, >>then IMO it is UI. >> >>If it were AI, then we would have the problematic situation that >>if you cannot remember your system, then you should try >>interviewing the opponents about their calls in the hope that the >>answer might tell you or imply something about your own system. >>I would not like that. > >I don't much care for it myself, but I see absolutely no justification = for >believing that it is improper or illegal. It certainly isn't covered by >L16A ("After a player makes available to his partner..."), or by L16B >("When a player accidentally receives..."), or by L16C ("...information >arising from a withdrawn action..."), so on what possible basis can we = call >it UI? I think (a) that it is very difficult to draw a clear line between "information from partner" and "information received as a result of partner's question" - it would mean that the exact phrasing of partner's question could make a great difference, and (b) that we are not too far from the words of the law if we consider information received as the result of partner's question equivalent to information received directly from partner. The words of L16A are "makes available to his partner". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 06:47:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 06:47:15 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f126.hotmail.com [207.82.251.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA29717 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 06:47:08 +1100 Received: (qmail 16350 invoked by uid 0); 27 Feb 1999 19:46:26 -0000 Message-ID: <19990227194626.16349.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.132.145 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:46:25 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.132.145] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:46:25 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: axeman >I have always said that if the double became penalty only because of >the result of the infraction AND that if it were selected AND it >damaged the other side's score, then L23 allows an adjustment. > Yes, it does. But the "Director ... shall ... consider awarding an adjusted score" only if "the offender, *at the time of his irregularity* could have known that the enforced pass would be *likely* to damage the non-offending side" (my emphases). So, I consider. The auction under consideration, IIRC, went 1m - 1H OOT. Then RHO bids 1H herself. Now the double, meant as penalty. Could the offender have known that enforcing a pass would be likely to do damage? It's going to help only when RHO bids 1H, which isn't likely by any standards. Now if offender had psyched 1S OOT with a void, then doubled 1H (his 6 card suit) when partner was barred, then I might adjust. The classic example for L23 is an insufficient bid after 1NT-(X) in order to play 2C, otherwise impossible under their methods. Compared to that, the likelihood of damage at the time of the irregularity is miniscule, IMO. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 08:16:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 08:16:30 +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 IAA00831 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 08:16:21 +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 QAA25125 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 16:15:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990227161807.0072a7fc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 16:18:07 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: The new regime In-Reply-To: <36e023ca.4354331@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990224093154.00724dd4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990224093154.00724dd4@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:30 PM 2/27/99 +0100, Jesper wrote: >On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:31:54 -0500, Eric Landau > wrote: > >>At 08:48 PM 2/23/99 +0100, Jesper wrote: >> >>>If it were AI, then we would have the problematic situation that >>>if you cannot remember your system, then you should try >>>interviewing the opponents about their calls in the hope that the >>>answer might tell you or imply something about your own system. >>>I would not like that. >> >>I don't much care for it myself, but I see absolutely no justification for >>believing that it is improper or illegal. It certainly isn't covered by >>L16A ("After a player makes available to his partner..."), or by L16B >>("When a player accidentally receives..."), or by L16C ("...information >>arising from a withdrawn action..."), so on what possible basis can we call >>it UI? > >I think >(a) that it is very difficult to draw a clear line between >"information from partner" and "information received as a result >of partner's question" - it would mean that the exact phrasing of >partner's question could make a great difference, and >(b) that we are not too far from the words of the law if we >consider information received as the result of partner's question >equivalent to information received directly from partner. The >words of L16A are "makes available to his partner". I agree, but what has this to do with the issue I was commenting on, which was asking questions of the opponents in the hope that their answers would provide you with information about your own system, to your own benefit, with partner not involved at all? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 09:31:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 09:31:13 +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 JAA01611 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 09:31:06 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-139.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.139]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA71205036 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 17:34:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D8715F.651985B7@freewwweb.com> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 16:27:43 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <19990227194626.16349.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > >From: axeman > > >I have always said that if the double became penalty only because of > >the result of the infraction AND that if it were selected AND it > >damaged the other side's score, then L23 allows an adjustment. > > > Yes, it does. But the "Director ... shall ... consider awarding an > adjusted score" only if "the offender, *at the time of his irregularity* > could have known that the enforced pass would be *likely* to damage the > non-offending side" (my emphases). a] it is general bridge knowledge that a BOOT may result in a penalty which includes an enforced pass b] it is general bridge knowledge that there can be occasions where an enforced pass will gain for the offender. c] for instance, when the enforced pass gives the offender a meaning for a call that was not available without the infraction. I go so far to say in this case that without the infraction a double would have been a negative double. in other words, this new bid is fruit of the infraction. d] it is general bridge knowledge that if you make use of the fruit and acheive a better score because of it, then you have benefitted. It certainly is possible to know that biting into the fruit could cause damage. I contend that one does not have to accurately fortune tell to know that it is possible. > So, I consider. The auction under consideration, IIRC, went 1m - 1H > OOT. Then RHO bids 1H herself. Now the double, meant as penalty. > Could the offender have known that enforcing a pass would be likely to > do damage? It's going to help only when RHO bids 1H, which isn't likely > by any standards. Are you sure? what if there is a 2C overcall? or a 1S overcall? Or...... Certainly if offender changes their call to double it would enforce a pass and gain the call 'penalty double' by so doing. Now if offender had psyched 1S OOT with a void, then > doubled 1H (his 6 card suit) when partner was barred, then I might > adjust. I would not adjust because of the psych. but I would probably adjust when the penalty double of 1H was only available because of the BOOT infraction and it resulted in damage [probably defined as the difference between 1H and 1HX]. Illucidating further, after backing up the auction to 1D-1H-P-1S-P*-2H-X P*=enforced pass. in this auction, the penalty double of 2H was not fruit of the infraction and I probably could not find damage arising from the enforced pass. > The classic example for L23 is an insufficient bid after 1NT-(X) in > order to play 2C, otherwise impossible under their methods. Compared to > that, the likelihood of damage at the time of the irregularity is > miniscule, IMO. In this instance, there looks like a whole lot of evidence that there was intent to commit the infraction in order to gain the enforced pass. In this case we probably are not only anticipating an adjustment if there was damage but even if there was no damage, disciplinary action is called for. Is there a ['sure-fire'] way to avoid an adjustment AND discipline? probably. Just don't make any call that the infraction gained you which in this case seems to be limited to 2C [to play]. Roger Pewick > Michael. > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 10:37:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:37:45 +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 KAA02234 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:37:38 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10GtIV-00030q-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 23:37:28 +0000 Message-ID: <4auH3RAVGE22EwXe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:03:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <3.0.1.32.19990222165402.007160e0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990222165402.007160e0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990224165243.00691f7c@pop.cais.com> <36e53154.7820415@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <36e53154.7820415@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >My opinion may, however, be influenced by a linguistic >difference: where your verb "to finesse" has the 10 as its >object, and therefore literally means "playing the 10 (when LHO >has - supposedly - played small)", the corresponding Danish verb >"at knibe" has the K as its object, and therefore (IMO - I do not >have a dictionary with a clear definition) means "catching the K >by choosing a card after LHO has played". The English word is ambiguous. People refer to finessing the ten and finessing the king. Perhaps this is no longer correct, but it used to be. I think the usage has moved towards finessing the ten, and finessing against the king, but language moves slowly, and I am sure many English-speakers still finesse the king. -- 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 Feb 28 10:37:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:37:45 +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 KAA02233 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:37:38 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10GtIV-00030p-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 23:37:28 +0000 Message-ID: <6KJHDMAIDE22Ew31@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:00:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <36D803C0.137520EC@freewwweb.com> In-Reply-To: <36D803C0.137520EC@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: >The words of L31A2ab&B say to see L23 when there is an enforced pass. >According to you, those words about seeing L23 do not exist. > >The WBFLC could have worded L72A5 differently and all the other laws >that refer to L23 to not refer to L23 and could have omitted L23 >altogether. Oops, almost forgot L72B1. The opportunity was there when >the 1997 rewrite of the laws were being drafted. The text of L31A2 does refer to L23, that is true, and accordingly in any given L31A2 case one should look and see whether L23 is relevant. But in most L31A2 situations, including the one being discussed, L23 does not apply. -------- axeman wrote: >I never said that the offender was barred from making the double [call >that he saw fit to make]. I implied and even said that it would not >make sense to select such a call because of the possibility of >adjustment. > >Is that what the bone of contention was? But, I suspect not. > >I have always said that if the double became penalty only because of the >result of the infraction AND that if it were selected AND it damaged the >other side's score, then L23 allows an adjustment. This is where your argument breaks down. It is not credible that people are going to bid out of turn solely to set up the possibility of a penalty double if RHO [who has heard/seen your bid OOT] is fool enough to make the one bid you can double for penalties. Since people can see no advantage in bidding OOT unless a very unlikely possibility occurs, L23 is not operative. L23 only applies when the enforced pass would be *likely* to damage the non-offending side and this could be known to the offender at the time of his irregularity. The advantage to his side is not apparent to the offender at the time of the irregularity in the example case, so L23 does not apply. -- 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 Feb 28 12:13:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA03663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:13:36 +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 MAA03655 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:13:28 +1100 Received: from modem121.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.249] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10GunF-0007OF-00; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 01:13:17 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 01:11:50 -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 "A man of noble family, shrewd understanding, and a perverse eloquence, who had seduced Julia" - Tacitus #################################### ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? > Date: 27 February 1999 19:03 > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > >My opinion may, however, be influenced by a linguistic > >difference: where your verb "to finesse" has the 10 as its > >object, and therefore literally means "playing the 10 (when LHO > >has - supposedly - played small)", the corresponding Danish verb > >"at knibe" has the K as its object, and therefore (IMO - I do not > >have a dictionary with a clear definition) means "catching the K > >by choosing a card after LHO has played". > > The English word is ambiguous. People refer to finessing the ten and > finessing the king. > > Perhaps this is no longer correct, but it used to be. I think the > usage has moved towards finessing the ten, and finessing against the > king, but language moves slowly, and I am sure many English-speakers > still finesse the king. > ++++ I broadly agree with your views about Kings and Tens but note that my heaviest dictionary says: "an attempt to take a trick by a card lower than but not in sequence with a card of the same suit also held". This would argue that the reference to King or Ten is by way of clarification of the intention; if the King is the only card missing from between the two cards which constitute the finesse then once the player talks about a finesse it should be clear what he means and the 'clarification' can be dust in the eyes. The aim is "to take a trick" and that seems to imply that if the King rises it is to be covered . ~ Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 14:28:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:28:00 +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 OAA06131 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:27:51 +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 WAA27480 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 22:27:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id WAA18144 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 22:27:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 22:27:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902280327.WAA18144@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I'm about to drop this thread, but let me offer a few more clarifications. I doubt anyone is going to be converted, but at least let's understand what is being proposed. > From: Herman De Wael > As I have often said, many a ruling requires mind reading, > and we TD's have become quite good at it. Not that I'm doubting you, but what evidence would appear if you were bad at it? > > Sorry, I was too terse. The alternative I had in mind is to say that > > all _correct_ information about one's own system and all information > > about the opponent's system, no matter how derived, is AI. I realize > > this is quite a leap from what Grattan and David B. have been > > advocating, but [snip] Since Kaplan advocated this approach at one time, perhaps it's not crazy. > The pro question is not really a problem. We tell pros they > should not do this, sometimes they do it anyway, and we > can't prove that it was for partner's benefit; what's the > problem ? If it isn't obvious from what you have just written, I don't know how to explain it better. Dishonest players benefit, and honest players are unhappy. And please don't give me the line about "a few cheats." There are more than a few players involved. > But now Steve introduces a new problem : > > According to him, information coming from partner, telling a > player how partner has interpreted his last call, is UI if > partner is wrong, but AI if partner is right. > > So now we will have to decide what is the "correct" system. Oh, come on. If there is any question of a wrong explanation, we are going to have to determine the correct system in order to deal with the MI issues. There is nothing new here at all. And at least the decision can be based on evidence, not mind reading. The really hard problem -- inventing a fantasy bidding system when somebody has misbid -- goes away. > And worse, the player at the table should decide what is the > "correct" system in order for him to know whether or not he > can take use of the information he has just received. He already has to do that in order to correct MI, either before the opening lead or after the hand is over. _At worst_, he will have to do it a little earlier. Usually it won't matter. I can't imagine the player's problems will become any worse than they are now. Right now, when correct information is UI, the player has to go through the whole LA/suggested over another business every time partner explains a call. This is simple? > From: Jesper Dybdal > I think this would only work if we went all the way: allowed > players to read their own CCs and system descriptions during the > game - basically making your own written-down system knowledge > that you have a right to. I don't see why this is needed. We can forbid looking at one's own convention card and offering gratuitous explanations. But there is a difference: if the opponents ask for an explanation, they are taking a chance that the answer may reveal a misunderstanding. To me, that makes the game a little more exciting, but it will hardly ever matter. Perhaps more people will look at CC's instead of asking. I don't think that would be a bad thing. Perhaps the best rebuttal to the proposal is Craig's essay on the value of tradition. Had the "new regime" come into use 30 years ago, when conventions began proliferating, I'm sure everyone would be quite happy with it. But now that people have gotten used to "partner's answers are UI," and "don't ask for partner's benefit," change would cause real trauma. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 18:09:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:09:17 +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 SAA08792 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:09:10 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n26.san.rr.com [204.210.47.38]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA00048 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 23:09:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902280709.XAA00048@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 23:09:41 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Butler throws out perfectly valid scores, averages scores as if > >the IMP-scale were linear when it is not, and compares scores > >with a datum that may or may not include the score being > >compared. I don't understand why anyone with a computer bothers > > with it. > > Naturally, because it has advantages. Players, especially > average ones, like to have a datum score so that [a] they can > check the scoring easily. With computers there is nothing to check other than data input, XIMP or Butler. If scoring is manual, or done with an adding machine, then of course Butler must be used, and there is nothing further to discuss. Or perhaps the UK computer program doesn't print out recap sheets that show every result in detail. Is that it? Just a datum for each board and a total imp score for each pair? I'd prefer Butler too! > and [b] they can see what the datum actually is. XIMP uses no datum, so there's none to see. Besides, the Butler datum combines apples and oranges to get grapes. +630 and +110 average to +370, what kind of a bridge number is that? Just add a passout to those scores in a three-table game and it becomes evident how invalid Butler is, even with no scores discarded. > It is a form of scoring that appeals, which cross-imps is not. > We have DALB's word for how much difference it makes [damn all]. Let's look at the imp scores for a randomly-selected board: N/S Pair Score Butler(1) XIMP(2) 1 +1100 12 11.1 2 +660 5 4.0 3 +660 5 4.0 4 +630 5 3.7 5 +630 5 3.7 6 +500 1 0.5 7 +500 1 0.5 8 +500 1 0.5 9 +300 -4 -3.6 10 +300 -4 -3.6 11 +200 -6 -5.8 12 +150 -7 -6.8 13 +100 -8 -7.7 Totals +6 +0.5 (roundoff error, actually 0) (1) Top and bottom score not included in the 460 datum (really 457.3, but Butler uses round numbers) used as a comparision to determine imp scores. (2) Cross-imps averaged, total imps won divided by 13 Now, what is so appealing about Butler? If it's the nice round numbers, that could be done for XIMP too, although I wouldn't like to see rounding to whole numbers. The XIMP scores are tidier, always totalling to the proper zero before rounding. For this deal Butler manages to award N/S 6 more imps than were won at the tables (hence 6 fewer imps for the E/W pairs). > It is the general aim of sponsoring organisations to run events > in the way that suits the players best: total fairness is not > and should not be the only goal. It is not the only goal, but it is the primary goal. Fairness is not a popularity contest. Compromises are often necessary when total fairness is difficult to implement, but this is not such a case. XIMP simply adds up all the imps won by a pair vs every other pair playing the same hands, a straightforward method that is intuitively and mathematically right, plus easy to understand. Why play around with compromises? Note that I am only advocating XIMP for ACBL-land. If other SOs want to use Butler, fine, chacun a son gout. I believe that XIMP scoring would suit ACBL players better, if our TDs would just give it a try. For the technically minded, correct XIMP scoring shares the credit/blame for total imps won/lost by a pair with their "teammates," hence the divisor of 13. As with Butler, if you were to add a second section with identical results, there would be no change in imp scores. That does not hold true if you divide total imps by the number of comparisons. That may be the intuitive way to score XIMPs, but this is one time when intuition is wrong. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 21:30:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:30:18 +1100 Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA10968 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:30:11 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-65.uunet.be [194.7.13.65]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18962 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 11:29:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D90C58.C1107AF7@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:28:56 +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: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <000c01be61d1$5339ab20$62b259c3@default> <36D72515.7BDD5DB1@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: > > There has been so much snipping of my posts in this thread it is easy to > take things out of context. > > I can not tell if what you posted is in reference to what I said or what > DWS said since you quoted nothing that I said but did quote him. But, > in case you are referring to my posting: > > Nowhere have I said that offender is or ought to be barred from making > any call he sees fit- including biting out of the fruit. What I have > said is that that when the infraction created fruit, as in the change of > meaning for a call [such as a call which was takeout oriented: negative > double, and it then becomes penalty], and then bites into the fruit, if > it causes damage, then an adjustment is in order. Then you have misread the Laws. This "biting the fruit" nice analogy, is only barred by Law, if the offender "could have known" he was creating fruit at the time of his infraction. Silencing your partner and then selecting a call which happens to work because partner is silenced is not forbidden. Silencing your partner and then selecting a call which only works if you have first silenced your partner is forbidden. That is not very clear, is it ? Only examples can help us here. What I want to say is that it is not forbidden to try and salvage what you can from an unintentional infraction, including making calls that you could not have made without the silenced partner, because in most cases, you will have a far better degree of accuracy available when partner is not silenced. > No damage, no adjustment. Damage is such a bad choice of words. What is damage ? A bad score ? Not necessarily. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 21:30:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:30:47 +1100 Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA10978 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:30:41 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-65.uunet.be [194.7.13.65]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19017 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 11:30:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36D918CD.D2F0B616@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 11:22:05 +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: Mersenne: Re: Mersennes for Martians References: <199902270332.TAA04411@acid.base.com> <36D781BC.E48DFDCD@ibm.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Spike Jones wrote: > > > But, the primes *cannot* be faked. You either have the computational > ability to find them or not. We could send out a list of all known > primes as a proof of computational prowess, but I would suggest > sending only the Mersennes would prove our technology to any possible > exocivilizations with far less power wasted sending all known primes. > > Can anyone think of any way to *prove* the level of sophistication > of our current society, better than a list of Mersenne primes? spike > Now consider the next problem. Suppose we receive the numbers 345,698,564 and 47. Would we immediately recognise this as meaning that this is the 47th Mersenne prime and therefor this civilisation is far ahead of us? Would we be able to perform a LL-test on that number ? We probably could. Would we even dare to reply 3,...,... and 37 ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 21:53:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA11236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:53:46 +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 VAA11231 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:53:39 +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 FAA32691 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:53:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id FAA18521 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:53:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:53:19 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199902281053.FAA18521@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > If scoring is manual, or done with an adding > machine, then of course Butler must be used Depends on who you are, I guess, and how many tables are in play. Up to six or seven, I'm happy to do cross-IMPs by hand. With more than that, I'd be tempted to revert to Butler myself. Actually, I'd be even more tempted to IMP against the median score. That's just as reasonable and much simpler. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 28 23:03:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:03:30 +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 XAA11946 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:03:23 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10H4wG-0007cH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:03:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:00:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games References: <199902280709.XAA00048@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199902280709.XAA00048@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 Stevenson wrote: > > > Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >Butler throws out perfectly valid scores, averages scores as if >> >the IMP-scale were linear when it is not, and compares scores >> >with a datum that may or may not include the score being >> >compared. I don't understand why anyone with a computer bothers >> > with it. >> >> Naturally, because it has advantages. Players, especially >> average ones, like to have a datum score so that [a] they can >> check the scoring easily. > >With computers there is nothing to check other than data input, >XIMP or Butler. If scoring is manual, or done with an adding >machine, then of course Butler must be used, and there is nothing >further to discuss. Or perhaps the UK computer program doesn't >print out recap sheets that show every result in detail. Is that >it? Just a datum for each board and a total imp score for each >pair? I'd prefer Butler too! Butler has advantages, as I have said, and your style of response does not affect that. No, I am not going to argue details when you are in this mood. -- 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 Feb 28 23:30:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:30:43 +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 XAA12211 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:30:36 +1100 Received: from modem10.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.138] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10H5Mb-0000lQ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:30:30 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 11:48:49 -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 "A man of noble family, shrewd understanding, and a perverse eloquence, who had seduced Julia" - Tacitus #################################### ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings > Date: 27 February 1999 19:00 > > axeman wrote: > >The words of L31A2ab&B say to see L23 when there is an enforced pass. > >According to you, those words about seeing L23 do not exist. > > > >The WBFLC could have worded L72A5 differently and all the other laws > >that refer to L23 to not refer to L23 and could have omitted L23 > >altogether. Oops, almost forgot L72B1. The opportunity was there when > >the 1997 rewrite of the laws were being drafted. > > The text of L31A2 does refer to L23, that is true, and accordingly in > any given L31A2 case one should look and see whether L23 is relevant. > > But in most L31A2 situations, including the one being discussed, L23 > does not apply. > ++++ Yes, "see Law 23" says look at Law 23 in case you consider the conditions it specifies for its application are met; it does not mean apply the last two lines of Law 23 without considering whether the preceding words of the Law apply; it is to the *whole* of Law 23 that the Director is referred. ~ Grattan ~ ++++