From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 00:00:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 00:00:25 +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 AAA12440 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 00:00:17 +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 OAA13459; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:59:50 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36D93DEA.B0A44BA4@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:00:26 +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: 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> <4auH3RAVGE22EwXe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well ...... I prefer to "catch" the queen ....... So , David , should I say "finess her .." or what ???? Thanks for the Don Juan's advice. Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > 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 Mon Mar 1 02:25:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 02:25:06 +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 CAA16092 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 02:25:00 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10H85N-00026o-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:24:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:27:14 +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: <4auH3RAVGE22EwXe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <4auH3RAVGE22EwXe@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >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. > My perception of this is the same. The Young Chelsea *all* finesse the ten, whereas the afternoon rubber bridge club (who don't yet know we Brits no longer have an empire and American colonies) finesse the King. -- 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 Mar 1 03:19:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 03:19:20 +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 DAA16271 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 03:19:09 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-134.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.134]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA65034776 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 11:22:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D96A9B.A563A65@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:11:07 -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> <36D72515.7BDD5DB1@freewwweb.com> <36D90C58.C1107AF7@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx2.freewwweb.com id LAA65034776 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >=20 > 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 w= hat > > 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 makin= g > > 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: negati= ve > > 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. =20 And you will now show me where. [?]. good. > 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. Time out. It sounds good but I do not agree with the meaning that your words have. I chose the fruit analogy to help distinguish a tree that does not produce fruit unless an infraction occurs. Where fruit is something that was not available without pollination. An infraction may or may not bear fruit [pollination and weather you know]. The infraction can be thought of as pollination. It is the weather and nutrients and intervention that frequently determine whether fruit result. If pollination occurs, it is known ahead of time that fruit may result [not all pollination is successful- it is a hit or miss kind of thing, and the same can be said for the weather]. However, without pollination- no fruit. With pollination-maybe fruit. To complete the metaphor. There can be pollination techniques that are perfected to assure that fruit will result because of the intention to eat it [like bidding stayman OOT in order to play 2C via the enforced pass]. This is likened to the case where the pollination was unethical/ cheating whether or not the fruit tasted good. So, I do not hold [your] above contention. I will restate it as I believe the laws provide: This "biting the fruit", is not barred by Law. But, if the offender "could have known" he might create fruit at the time of his infraction an adjustment will be considered [and given if damage resulted from biting the fruit] by the TD.=20 > 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. I do not think that it follows that solely because a particular call will/might result in adjustment means that it is forbidden. L72A5 in fact says that a player is entitled to select any call- and contrary to opinions expressed by others the selected call may still be part of the basis for adjusting the score when the opponents were damaged. You make good points as to exactly what is 'damage'. I think I come close to a definition below. > That is not very clear, is it ? Difficult perhaps to read. It does seem fairly easy to makes sense of it. However, what you say is quite different from my clarification. It is closer to say,' Silencing your partner and then selecting a call which only is available if you have first silenced your partner=85.". > Only examples can help us here. I would venture to say that using examples is the best way to communicate and test concepts etc.=20 > What I want to say is that it is not forbidden to try and > salvage what you can from an unintentional infraction, =20 Yes, I think L72A5 is clear on the matter. > including making calls that you could not have made without > the silenced partner,=20 > because in most cases, you will have a > far better degree of accuracy available when partner is not > silenced. I do not think that this is relevant. If anything it might be an argument for adjustment. Perhaps there is a hang up that offender is entitled to have a call available that does not bar partner. I do not think that there is or ought to be such an entitlement, even though if one does in fact exist I do not take it away. I suspect that this was the reasoning behind changing the interpretation of the double to show the same meaning as the original natural 1H bid- to give offender a way to permit partner to bid/ slash not have a lead penalty. >=20 > > No damage, no adjustment. >=20 > Damage is such a bad choice of words. What is damage ? A > bad score ? > Not necessarily. If you will permit me to not necessarily be comprehensive. Does not damage consist of [a] a result that was not available had no infraction occurred which has the effect of [b] a lower score than if no infraction occurred? Further, 'result' as referred to above is not necessarily constrained to the point score. It might also be the bidding or contract result of the auction. =20 If a side is playing negative doubles for instance the auction of 1D-1H-X where responder's X is penalty is a different result than the normal meaning of takeout. And when the board is scored the tricks taken determine the scoring result. If the contract makes, I can not envision that damage has resulted. However, when the contract was unmakeable by normal play. And further still. There typically would be a high likelihood that even if the fruit was eaten, that no damage would result [no adjustment] because fourth hand may have a normal action that would improve the score. For instance, with poor values, a stiff heart, and seven clubs, if 2C were not conventional, then 2C could have been bid, and ought to be bid. This would probably take offender 'off the hook'. >=20 > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html Yours Roger Pewick From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 05:43:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:43:53 +1100 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA17410 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:43:46 +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 NAA07217 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:42:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990228134540.00735adc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:45:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-Reply-To: <4auH3RAVGE22EwXe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <36e53154.7820415@post12.tele.dk> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:03 PM 2/27/99 +0000, David wrote: >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. This is a fine example in support of my position, that when the player's intent is indisputable, we should concern ourselves with that intent, not with the dictionary definition of his exact words. 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 Mar 1 05:49:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:49:26 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (f89.hotmail.com [207.82.250.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA17498 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:49:18 +1100 Received: (qmail 140 invoked by uid 0); 28 Feb 1999 18:48:43 -0000 Message-ID: <19990228184843.139.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.133.107 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:48:38 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.133.107] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:48:38 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: axeman >Michael Farebrother wrote: >> 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 > I'm not so sure on this one. I'm pretty certain that if I asked a suitably non-leading question to all the people in my club, at least half of them wouldn't know - and probably 70% of them wouldn't be able to come up with an example of how to do it. But the whole point's irrelevant - the laws say "could have known", not "knew". >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. > True, but not relevant - unless you can prove that the new meaning would, at the time of the infraction, not the time of the double, be likely to be useful. >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. > I agree with your contention. It doesn't, however, matter when applying L23. Also, from a reply to Herman De Wael: >So, I do not hold [your] above contention. I will restate it as I >believe the laws provide: >This "biting the fruit", is not barred by Law. But, >if the offender "could have known" he might create fruit at >the time of his infraction an adjustment will be considered >[and given if damage resulted from biting the fruit] by the TD. Here is where you are misreading L23. Above, you have used "may", "can", "possible" (twice), and "might". The law says "likely" which is a much stronger requirement. The law also says, when the "likely" consideration applies, the Director will "consider awarding", not "award" - even if damage has resulted. >> 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? Then e can't make a penalty double, can e? Or if e can, it's very likely that they have at least a game, if not slam, opposite eir unlimited partner. Would you silence your partner, on the hopes that you can penalty double one of 2 suits at the one level, when you are reasonably likely to have slam? Would anyone? >Or...... Certainly if offender changes their call to double it would >enforce a pass and gain the call 'penalty double' by so doing. > Sure. Now prove to me that it was *likely* - not possible, not maybe, not could have - that barring partner would give the offender both the chance to make an otherwise-impossible penalty double (that I grant), but the interest (from a bridge standpoint). In fact, give me an offender (or even an offender's hand) that would be willing to penalize 3 suits that would be likely to benefit from barring partner, who is 13-21, 4+diamonds. That is why I came up with the psych example - it left open a reasonable, before RHO called, chance that you would get to make the penalty double. >> 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. Right. The offender "at the time of [the] irregularity, could have known" that enforcing the pass would be "likely to damage". That's the whole point. >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. > Again, from the reply to HdW: >To complete the metaphor. There can be pollination techniques that >are perfected to assure that fruit will result because of the >intention to eat it [like bidding stayman OOT in order to play 2C via >the enforced pass]. This is likened to the case where the >pollination was unethical/cheating whether or not the fruit tasted >good. Disciplinary action is for unethical/cheating behaviour. It is possible (and actually likely) to be in violation of L23 without being unethical (remember DWS's comments, here probably badly misquoted - "To commit an irregularity is illegal, but not unethical. To commit an irregularity intentionally is unethical."). All that has to happen is that someone commits an irregularity, that enforces a pass on eir partner, at a time when a knowledgable, unethical player would know that barring partner would likely be the best thing to do. For example, in my game, the auction goes (south thinks) 1NT(weak)-(X) to em. South redoubles, with x xxx xxx Q9xxxx, showing a one-suited rescue hand. East actually hasn't called yet. Now, because of L32, South gets to call 2C to play at his turn to call (or pass if East bids), an option e otherwise wouldn't have had. My South here is one of the most ethical players at the club, but e really thought e heard the double (it came from the next table over, say). South is allowed to bid 2C, and by law, should. However, e should expect to have the score adjusted under L23, anyway. >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]. > Actually, that is wrong - and I think this is the root of the problem. There is no sure-fire way to avoid adjustment (save doing something incredibly stupid and trading your adjusted score for a sure bottom, of course) - because the adjustment is to be based on the situation *at the time of the irregularity*, not at the time of offender's in-turn bid. Take the classic case of insufficient blackwood (spades agreed, ...4NT-5H; 4S); even if you bid slam instead of the otherwise impossible 5NT, you can be ruled back under L23, even though the bid you took took no advantage of the "fruit" you grew. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 07:56:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:56:32 +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 HAA18211 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:56:27 +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 JAA12470 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:56:23 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990301095634.0093f880@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 09:56:34 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Amusing consequences of pass out of turn? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello everyone, Disclaimer follows to facilitate snipping by those who might wish to respond. Early board of a fairly significant 12 board match. V vs NV. Jxxx/KQJTx/x/xxx BP RHO YT LHO 1s p 2n p Explanations: 1s = 11-15 5+ spades 2n = 4+ spades, 8-10 or 13+ unspecified splinter (ok I borrowed a point for the good hearts.) p = Out of turn How could this happen you ask? We use written bidding in NZ -- beloved partner was reaching to the bidding pad to circle (i.e. alert) the 2nt bid made by yours truly, when there was a slight motor malfunction and he passed instead (I guess this could happen in spoken bidding, saying "pass" instead of "alert" but it's hard to imagine it happening with bidding boxes.) Being a conscientious sort, I summoned the director (politely of course!) Director begins to instruct RHO on his options, the first of which is to condone the pass. Withou waiting for a full explanation he says he will do so, and marks the bidding sheet // (conventionally denoting a pass which ends the auction.) Issue number 1: I know his pass does not end the auction, and likewise that partner is not penalized in any way, may I/should I now call 3d which would be my conventional response to partner's inquiry re my singleton? [Again with spoken bidding or bidding boxes there would be no problem, since I would just assume that he was a victim of excessive sportsmanship and was giving us a chance to recover. Actually I wouldn't because, it must be said, that is an assumption I would never make about this particular opponent. (Shocked gasps from the readers.)] The story continues: Out of a (probably misplaced) sense of my moral as opposed to legal obligations, I feel compelled to point out that his pass will not end the auction. Director continues her instructions and it becomes clear that if his partner passes, mine must pass once, and the possibility of forcing us to play 2nt will then exist. So now he decides not to condone the pass out of turn. Issue number 2 (rather idle): His partner holds six clubs to the AKQ and a stiff spade. 3c as a lead director/sacrifice suggestion would clearly be considered in the "infraction free" auction. [I would guess, irrelevantly, that he would certainly have called 3c in that case.] He also knows that his partner wishes to pass the board out (presumably UI) and that his partner had no overcall over 1s (AI). Is pass demonstrably suggested over 3c? Is there any real issue here? [If you feel not because the clubs are so good that he will independently gamble on them running against the expected 2n passed out, suppose you change them to KQxxxxx] The denouement: 2n down 6. The disclaimer: As usual when these things happen to me, they happen in a match where we are soundly thrashed in any case. So I have no emotional baggage associated with this story, and offer it up purely as an amusing and possibly instructive example of the way things happen. Flame away. Michael --------------------------------------------------------- Michael H. Albert Ph: (64)-03-479-7778 Senior Teaching Fellow Fax: (64)-03-479-8427 Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 08:27:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:27:17 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA18414 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:27:12 +1100 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990228212705.GII23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:27:05 -0800 Message-ID: <36D9B595.752285C2@home.com> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:31:01 -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: 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 Maybe you should take the hint? > 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. When someone complains about the confusing mountain of words, and you yourself is confused abt what it refers to, it is almost certain that you should try to be more brief :-) (and maybe snip a bit more yourself?) Just a friendly suggestion from one who is himself trying to be less verbose/repetitive. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 08:41:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:41:13 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA18478 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:41:07 +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 <19990228214102.IRY23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:41:02 -0800 Message-ID: <36D9B8D9.D4AD10B7@home.com> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:44:57 -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: The new regime References: <36ed0522.9268357@post12.tele.dk> <199902232154090060.04EB19EF@mail.btinternet.com> <36D3ED4A.EAE19981@village.uunet.be> <36e75a3d.13944110@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: [HdW] > > If David leans with me, we are now 3 against the > >world. [JD] > 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. As a bystander on this one, let me just confirm that this is my recollection/understanding too. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 08:54:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:54:42 +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 IAA18560 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:54:36 +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 <19990228215430.KWF23600.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:54:30 -0800 Message-ID: <36D9BC02.6732D268@home.com> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:58:26 -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 Grattan wrote: > 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 . Indeed. It is too tempting for some to create a problem due to "linguistics", when we all know what it means to "finesse". Having said that let me still mention that in swedish we "finesse out" the King and "finesse with" the Ten. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 10:52:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:52:22 +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 KAA19460 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:52:08 +1100 Received: from modem10.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.138] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10HG09-0005xv-00; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:52:01 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "David Stevenson" Cc: Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:44:42 -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=Default 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: Dany Haimovici > To: David Stevenson > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? > Date: 28 February 1999 13:00 > > Well ...... I prefer to "catch" the queen ....... > > So , David , should I say "finess her .." or what ???? ++++ Actually, quite a number of older authors talk of finessing 'for' the Queen, King, etc. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 10:52:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:52:26 +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 KAA19474 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:52:13 +1100 Received: from modem10.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.138] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10HG0F-0005xv-00; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:52:08 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersennes for Martians Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:54:42 -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 "A man of noble family, shrewd understanding, and a perverse eloquence, who had seduced Julia" - Tacitus #################################### > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersennes for Martians > Date: 28 February 1999 10:22 > > Spike Jones wrote: > > > > > > But, the primes *cannot* be faked. But I doubt if bridge law will help. ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 10:52:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:52:24 +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 KAA19470 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:52:12 +1100 Received: from modem10.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.138] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10HG0E-0005xv-00; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:52:06 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "axeman" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:52:41 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it is true" - Bertrand Russell oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo From: axeman To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings Date: 28 February 1999 16:11 --------------- \x/ -------------- Time out. It sounds good but I do not agree with the meaning that your words have. ------------- \x/ ------------- +++ OK, Roger, we accept that you do not agree. The time has come to talk of something else. ~ Grattan ~ +++. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 10:52:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:52:24 +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 KAA19464 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:52:11 +1100 Received: from modem10.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.138] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10HG07-0005xv-00; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:52:00 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:41:11 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "A man of noble family, shrewd understanding, and a perverse eloquence, who had seduced Julia" - Tacitus #################################### ---------- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? > Date: 28 February 1999 13:27 > > the afternoon rubber bridge club (who don't yet know we > Brits no longer have an empire and American colonies) finesse the King. > -- ++++ Them's fighting words, sonny ! ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 10:52:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:52:25 +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 KAA19465 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:52:11 +1100 Received: from modem10.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.138] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10HG06-0005xv-00; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:51:58 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:34:37 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "A man of noble family, shrewd understanding, and a perverse eloquence, who had seduced Julia" - Tacitus ################################## > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: The new regime > Date: 28 February 1999 03:27 ---------- \x/ ------------ > > From: Jesper Dybdal ---------------- \x/ ---------------- > 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. ++++ In my case I can admit to a generation gap maybe. I was educated in the game in an era when what was improper simply "wasn't done". We did once rely on players' ethical standards to govern their actions - we were let down at times, no doubt, but not all that often and we did not feel nearly as much the need for the protection of laws.Today all that seems to have gone; now we seem to need screens, closed circuit TV observation, and laws to match. Is anyone developing sensors to be inserted under the skin? But we are where we are, here and now, and legislation has to look at the flawed creatures that we are and cater for our natural bent towards crime or, as it may be, for the suspicious minds who envisage that tendency in everyone but themselves. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 10:52:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:52:21 +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 KAA19462 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:52:09 +1100 Received: from modem10.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.138] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10HG0B-0005xv-00; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:52:03 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:26:35 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "A man of noble family, shrewd understanding, and a perverse eloquence, who had seduced Julia" - Tacitus ################################### From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Date: 27 February 1999 18:31 On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:22:33 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: ---------- \x/ -------------- I think this could be workable, but it would be very different from the game we play today. -- "No sooner was the old regime done away with but society was subjected to fresh artificial conditions, always commencing at the same point: the omnipotence of law" - Frederic Bastiat From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 13:09:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:09:07 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA20497 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:08:56 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10HI8R-0006Qz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 02:08:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 00:59:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Amusing consequences of pass out of turn? References: <3.0.1.32.19990301095634.0093f880@emmy.otago.ac.nz> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990301095634.0093f880@emmy.otago.ac.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Albert wrote: >Hello everyone, > >Disclaimer follows to facilitate snipping by those who might wish to respond. > >Early board of a fairly significant 12 board match. V vs NV. > >Jxxx/KQJTx/x/xxx > >BP RHO YT LHO >1s p 2n >p > >Explanations: > >1s = 11-15 5+ spades >2n = 4+ spades, 8-10 or 13+ unspecified splinter (ok I borrowed a point for >the good hearts.) >p = Out of turn > >How could this happen you ask? We use written bidding in NZ -- beloved >partner was reaching to the bidding pad to circle (i.e. alert) the 2nt bid >made by yours truly, when there was a slight motor malfunction and he >passed instead (I guess this could happen in spoken bidding, saying "pass" >instead of "alert" but it's hard to imagine it happening with bidding boxes.) It is extremely common with bidding boxes, which is why L25A is getting known amongst the players. Your partner only needed to say "That's not what I meant" or something like that, summon the TD, and he would have been allowed to change it to alert. >Being a conscientious sort, I summoned the director (politely of course!) > >Director begins to instruct RHO on his options, the first of which is to >condone the pass. Withou waiting for a full explanation he says he will do >so, and marks the bidding sheet // (conventionally denoting a pass which >ends the auction.) This means that he has little respect for the TD or other players. He has passed, the convention that it ends the auction being quite irrelevant: it doesn't. Since he has now chosen an option I would accept it as the TD, and warn him as to his future conduct in a low key manner. I would explain that the auction now continues. >Issue number 1: >I know his pass does not end the auction, and likewise that partner is not >penalized in any way, may I/should I now call 3d which would be my >conventional response to partner's inquiry re my singleton? [Again with >spoken bidding or bidding boxes there would be no problem, since I would >just assume that he was a victim of excessive sportsmanship and was giving >us a chance to recover. Actually I wouldn't because, it must be said, that >is an assumption I would never make about this particular opponent. >(Shocked gasps from the readers.)] Well, it is up to the TD. Your RHO's rudeness to the TD does not justify your taking action before the TD has finished speaking. Of course, the TD should now tell you to continue anyway, and you can bid 3D ethically. >The story continues: > >Out of a (probably misplaced) sense of my moral as opposed to legal >obligations, I feel compelled to point out that his pass will not end the >auction. Director continues her instructions and it becomes clear that if >his partner passes, mine must pass once, and the possibility of forcing us >to play 2nt will then exist. So now he decides not to condone the pass out >of turn. I am flabbergasted that the TD accepted this. >The disclaimer: > >As usual when these things happen to me, they happen in a match where we >are soundly thrashed in any case. So I have no emotional baggage associated >with this story, and offer it up purely as an amusing and possibly >instructive example of the way things happen. Flame away. I suggest that you should instruct your partner in the use of L25A. If you or he ever make a call by accident then *immediately* say so and call the TD. I think you were unlucky in the TD's actions. -- 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 Mar 1 13:18:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:18:58 +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 NAA20573 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:18:52 +1100 Received: from [195.99.53.94] (helo=david-burn) by carbon with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10HHz3-0002eM-00; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 01:59:01 +0000 Message-ID: <199903010200100500.1F8D2B17@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <36e023ca.4354331@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990224093154.00724dd4@pop.cais.com> <36e023ca.4354331@post12.tele.dk> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 02:00:10 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: jesper@dybdal.dk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 27/02/99, at 19:30, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >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". Jesper, this won't do. We can't have Herman changing his position to agree with you at the same time as you change your position to agree with me! Where will it all end? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 15:09:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA21342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:09:02 +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 PAA21337 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:08:55 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA12389 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:08:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:08:45 -0500 (EST) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > > 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. Surely one finesses with the ten against the King? > > > My perception of this is the same. The Young Chelsea *all* finesse the > ten, whereas the afternoon rubber bridge club (who don't yet know we > Brits no longer have an empire and American colonies) finesse the King. Britain still does have an Empire, and what's more, the sun still doesn't set on it. > -- > 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 > -- 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 Mar 1 20:09:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 20:09:08 +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 UAA23014 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 20:09:00 +1100 Received: from modem122.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.250] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10HOh3-0005Uc-00; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:08:54 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:22:08 -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 "Disillusionment in living is finding out no one agrees with you - not those that are fighting for you" - Gertrude Stein 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? > Date: 28 February 1999 18:45 > > At 07:03 PM 2/27/99 +0000, David wrote: ------------------- \x/ ------------------- > This is a fine example in support of my position, that when the player's > intent is indisputable, we should concern ourselves with that intent, not > with the dictionary definition of his exact words. > ++++ I would hope that TDs and ACs would all seek to identify what a player's words are intended to say. Language is a difficult subject for many and players may not always express themselves too clearly; before any kind of judgement can be made TDs/ACs need to understand both sides at the table and not impose their own thoughts upon them. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 20:09:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 20:09:10 +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 UAA23015 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 20:09:01 +1100 Received: from modem122.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.250] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10HOh6-0005Uc-00; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:08:56 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:04:33 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless itis compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it." - Laws of Motion 1687 (or a wrong line?) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? > Date: 26 February 1999 14:16 > > At 01:08 AM 2/26/99 +0000, David wrote: > > > Ok, I say again, what would you do if declarer and dummy were > >reversed, ------ \x/ -------- > Eric:- > 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. > ++++ I am now having some difficulty following this discussion. I had understood that declarer had named the card he was playing from dummy before LHO had played. If that was the case there is nothing inadvertent about it - a deliberate play of a card is a purposeful action and if he wants to change it only when he sees LHO's card this is after pause for thought. On the other hand, if declarer says "finesse" I think his intention is clear (per the dictionary definition I quoted) and that it allows him to cover King with Ace. If declarer says "finesse the ten" I consider the principal intention is "finesse" and that it does not in itself constitute an instruction to play the ten whatever happens. Law 47F leaves no room for doubt once we know what declarer has actually told dummy to do. "Inadvertently putting an unintended card on the table" is a wrong description for an act which knowingly puts the ten on the table (and then wakes up on seeing the King); that play is neither inadvertent nor unintended at the time it is made. The same goes for M. Dubreuil's player who said "play the ten". What follows is a change of mind. It seemed to me that Laval Dubreuil got the law right very early on; that was not his problem : he wished for a way out at club level when opponents wanted their pound of flesh. (IIRC the historic solution was not to allow them any blood with it.) >From the heights and depths of blml Laval cannot expect relief; what he needs is maybe a club director who does not know the laws. Do you have any of those, one who could say that when the player said "play the ten" his incontrovertible intention (Law 46) was to play the Ace? ~ Grattan ~ 'Finesse' - an attempt to take a trick with a card lower than but not in sequence with a card of the same suit also held. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 22:01:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 22:01:59 +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 WAA23441 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 22:01:51 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-79.uunet.be [194.7.13.79]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA01920 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:01:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36DA53A0.BF168661@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 09:45:20 +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: Only in charity tournaments ... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday I directed a charity tournament. One of the worst kind - a service club had gathered all its bridging members and so you have some national sub-toppers playing recreational players and even beginners. But this one I had not yet seen ... I had my first quiet moment (all the names in the computer, first four rounds of barometer entered) and I was stroling through the playing area. A dummy leaves the room, and I sit down opposite a rather good looking declarer to play dummy's cards. I have before me : the diamond 5, 2 clubs, 3 hearts and 6 spades to King-Jack. Naturally I assume these to be trumps. The first trick was taken in dummy (I don't know if that was with a diamond, club or heart) and declarer asks for the diamond, to her jack. "bold play", I think. Next she cashes Ace and King of diamonds. On the Ace, she asks for a heart, on the king, for the three of spades. I do what I'm told. Next she plays the Ace of Spades from hand. Nobody says a thing, and by now I am starting to realise she is actually playing no trump. Next comes a small spade, to the Queen and King. And now she rattles of the spades. By now I was not paying attention, so I don't know who followed suit and who didn't, but it is a fact that my fifth spade, the four, is taken by the ten from LHO ! Nobody says a thing. LHO cashes a few more cards and 3NT= is entered. I left the table and said nothing. That's a nice story, of course, but how about the ruling ? Should I have said something ? We all know that TD must rule on anything that he becomes aware of (L81C6), but we have deduced from this that a director should refrain from following play, since this is unfair to the table he is watching, as these would get more rulings than all the other tables he is not watching. But what if you do follow play at one table. Should you remain quiet? Just to complete the story : no-one noticed, really, no-one. LHO was not trying to cover up a mistake she realised. RHO did nothing, and I am sure he was not a good actor. Declarer didn't even raise an eyebrow when a trick she expected to make did not. They simply did not realise there are only 13 spades in a pack and the fifth one should hold. When partner did return, she did not comment on anything, not even that they were in the wrong contract (6 Spades was made at one table, although I noticed also a 4Sp-1). But my ruling ? I'm still not sure. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 23:44:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:44:56 +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 XAA23932 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:44:49 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-100.uunet.be [194.7.13.100]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA09074 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:44:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36DA763A.BDF036EB@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 12:12:58 +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: Mersenne: Re: Mersennes for Martians References: <002d01be6319$06301820$ddedf1c3@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac Fuchs wrote: (among others) > > Dear Herman, > > please don't tell me you did it again; was this one really intended for BLML > ? > Of course it wasn't. Don't you realise I am just trying to boost my statistics ? No seriously I don't even count these. But just as seriously, it is yet another bad consequence of this list's reluctance to set the reply-to: to the list. I am so used to changing the to: from an individual to blml that I sometimes do it once too often. Sorry yet again. For those of you who were wondering : Mersenne primes are numbers of the nature 2^n-1, where n is itself prime. If that number is prime, (2^n-1)(2^n-1) is a perfect number, like 6 and 28 (28=14+7+4+2+1). There are only 37 such numbers known, and the largest has almost one million digits. About 4,000 people around the world, including me, have consented in devoting their computer's background time to searching these numbers. I am currently checking if 2^6324481-1 is prime. That takes about 6 months on my computer. The message concerning Martians was about a suggestion that we could impress alien intelligences with our finding of 37 perfect numbers. Well, I do manage to keep you entertained about different subjects, don't I ? In any case, apologies yet again. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 23:45:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:45:01 +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 XAA23939 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:44:55 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-100.uunet.be [194.7.13.100]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA09090 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:44:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36DA7CB5.6BA9798D@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 12:40:37 +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> <36D90C58.C1107AF7@village.uunet.be> <36D96A9B.A563A65@freewwweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk axeman wrote: > > > > And you will now show me where. [?]. good. > > > 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. > > Time out. It sounds good but I do not agree with the meaning that your > words have. I chose the fruit analogy to help distinguish a tree that > does not produce fruit unless an infraction occurs. Where fruit is > something that was not available without pollination. An infraction may > or may not bear fruit [pollination and weather you know]. The > infraction can be thought of as pollination. It is the weather and > nutrients and intervention that frequently determine whether fruit > result. If pollination occurs, it is known ahead of time that fruit may > result [not all pollination is successful- it is a hit or miss kind of > thing, and the same can be said for the weather]. However, without > pollination- no fruit. With pollination-maybe fruit. > > To complete the metaphor. There can be pollination techniques that are > perfected to assure that fruit will result because of the intention to > eat it [like bidding stayman OOT in order to play 2C via the enforced > pass]. This is likened to the case where the pollination was unethical/ > cheating whether or not the fruit tasted good. > > So, I do not hold [your] above contention. I will restate it as I > believe the laws provide: > > This "biting the fruit", is not barred by Law. But, > if the offender "could have known" he might create fruit at > the time of his infraction an adjustment will be considered > [and given if damage resulted from biting the fruit] by the TD. > OK, let's try to get the analogy complete now. The infraction is the pollination. Bad analogy, because while most pollinations result in fruit, most infractions do not result in a good result. So let's make the analogy rather with planting seeds. Only a few seeds will in fact result in a tree with fruits. So the infraction is the seeding. Now in my opinion, if the seeding results in a tree, the player IS allowed to choose the branch which he thinks will provide the best fruit. If that branch does indeed have a fat apple, he is allowed to eat it. What is not allowed, and now the analogy is really becoming flawed, is for a player who has no legal recourse into getting food, seeing before him a tree without any fruit, is to plant a seed which will (nearly) always lead to a fruit-bearing branch. It is the act of planting when one sees only fruitless trees which is countered in L23, not the eating of the fruit if the seed results in fruit trees. I'm getting hungry now. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 1 23:45:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:45:04 +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 XAA23941 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:44:57 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-100.uunet.be [194.7.13.100]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA09097 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:44:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36DA7EED.7837C522@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 12:50:05 +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: ACBL National Laws Commission Rulings References: <19990228184843.139.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > > For example, in my game, the auction goes (south thinks) 1NT(weak)-(X) > to em. South redoubles, with x xxx xxx Q9xxxx, showing a one-suited > rescue hand. East actually hasn't called yet. Now, because of L32, > South gets to call 2C to play at his turn to call (or pass if East > bids), an option e otherwise wouldn't have had. My South here is one of > the most ethical players at the club, but e really thought e heard the > double (it came from the next table over, say). South is allowed to bid > 2C, and by law, should. However, e should expect to have the score > adjusted under L23, anyway. > I'm not so sure! At the moment of his infraction, what was south thinking ? First of all, let's believe him when he says he heard a double. (no reason not to) So he was thinking of what to do over 1NTX. He was not thinking ahead about what to do over 1NT-nothing yet. Imagine the worst : this is not an ethical player, and he is actually trying to deceive. He finds himself with that hand and a player who opened 1NT. So what ? If RHO passes, he simply passes and is no worse off than the whole room. If RHO doubles, he has the legal recourse of redoubling to show clubs. If RHO calls, he is off the hook. So why bid out of turn ? If he would do this rationally, by redoubling over a non-existant double, he is telling opponents his hand. They now have a better chance of putting his side in 2Cl doubled, and he may well do his side worse than by just waiting for RHO's bid. Now of course after the illegal redouble OOT (not sure what the ruling is BTW), this player is entitled to make the best possible rescue, which is playing 2Cl, probably doubled, over silenced partner. But I don't see any reason for taking in L23 in this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 00:01:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA24046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 00:01:39 +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 AAA24039 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 00:01:28 +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; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:32:03 +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 MAA10818 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:29:33 GMT From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersennes for Martians In-Reply-To: <36D918CD.D2F0B616@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:27:16 +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 On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 11:22:05 +0100 Herman De Wael wrote: > 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 ? I presume this wasn't intended for the "flags" mailing list either? Are you intending to give us a taster of a new mailing list every month, Herman? --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 00:24:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 00:24:38 +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 AAA26711 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 00:24:25 +1100 Received: from listserv.tudelft.nl (mailhost.tudelft.nl) by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #D3521) with ESMTP id <0F7X004TZ3WIIU@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:24:18 +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 OAA11011 for ; Mon, 01 Mar 1999 14:24:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from angad.tn.tudelft.nl by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl with SMTP (16.6/15.6) id AA21617; Mon, 01 Mar 1999 14:23:24 +0100 Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 14:37:53 +0100 From: Evert Angad-Gaur Subject: Re: Only in charity tournaments ... To: bridge laws Message-id: <36DA9831.1CC70097@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: <36DA53A0.BF168661@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would just play cards and not interfere with the playing. Only when some of the opponents is delibrately trying to take advantage. But suppose that the people at the table think that now that the TD is at the table everything has gone according to the rules ? Evert. Herman De Wael wrote: > Yesterday I directed a charity tournament. > > One of the worst kind - a service club had gathered all its > bridging members and so you have some national sub-toppers > playing recreational players and even beginners. > > But this one I had not yet seen ... > > I had my first quiet moment (all the names in the computer, > first four rounds of barometer entered) and I was stroling > through the playing area. > > A dummy leaves the room, and I sit down opposite a rather > good looking declarer to play dummy's cards. > > I have before me : the diamond 5, 2 clubs, 3 hearts and 6 > spades to King-Jack. Naturally I assume these to be trumps. > > The first trick was taken in dummy (I don't know if that was > with a diamond, club or heart) and declarer asks for the > diamond, to her jack. "bold play", I think. Next she cashes > Ace and King of diamonds. On the Ace, she asks for a heart, > on the king, for the three of spades. > > I do what I'm told. Next she plays the Ace of Spades from > hand. Nobody says a thing, and by now I am starting to > realise she is actually playing no trump. > > Next comes a small spade, to the Queen and King. > > And now she rattles of the spades. By now I was not paying > attention, so I don't know who followed suit and who didn't, > but it is a fact that my fifth spade, the four, is taken by > the ten from LHO ! > > Nobody says a thing. LHO cashes a few more cards and 3NT= > is entered. > > I left the table and said nothing. > > That's a nice story, of course, but how about the ruling ? > > Should I have said something ? > > We all know that TD must rule on anything that he becomes > aware of (L81C6), but we have deduced from this that a > director should refrain from following play, since this is > unfair to the table he is watching, as these would get more > rulings than all the other tables he is not watching. > > But what if you do follow play at one table. Should you > remain quiet? > > Just to complete the story : no-one noticed, really, > no-one. LHO was not trying to cover up a mistake she > realised. RHO did nothing, and I am sure he was not a good > actor. Declarer didn't even raise an eyebrow when a trick > she expected to make did not. They simply did not realise > there are only 13 spades in a pack and the fifth one should > hold. > When partner did return, she did not comment on anything, > not even that they were in the wrong contract (6 Spades was > made at one table, although I noticed also a 4Sp-1). > > But my ruling ? I'm still not sure. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- S.E.Angad-Gaur, tel.: 015-2786150 email:evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl fax.: 015-2781694 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 01:17:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 01:17:12 +1100 Received: from hotmail.com (wya-lfd78.hotmail.com [207.82.252.142]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA28019 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 01:17:05 +1100 Received: (qmail 431 invoked by uid 0); 1 Mar 1999 14:16:26 -0000 Message-ID: <19990301141626.430.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 01 Mar 1999 06:16:26 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Only in charity tournaments ... Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 06:16:26 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >Yesterday I directed a charity tournament. > >SNIP> >I had my first quiet moment (all the names in the computer, >first four rounds of barometer entered) and I was stroling >through the playing area. > >A dummy leaves the room, and I sit down opposite a rather >good looking declarer to play dummy's cards. MORE SNIP OF HAND BEING PLAYED WITH INFRACTION ONLY HERMAN NOTICED >But my ruling ? I'm still not sure. Ruling? What ruling? You weren't the Director, you were a passer-by who was helping by turning the cards over. Go and get yourself a cup of tea would be my suggestion. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 01:18:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 01:18:15 +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 BAA28066 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 01:18:07 +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 JAA23894 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:16:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA19427; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:16:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:16:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903011416.JAA19427@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Only in charity tournaments ... Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >cute story deleted< >Should I have said something ? > >We all know that TD must rule on anything that he becomes >aware of (L81C6), but we have deduced from this that a >director should refrain from following play, since this is >unfair to the table he is watching, as these would get more >rulings than all the other tables he is not watching. > >But what if you do follow play at one table. Should you >remain quiet? I think you were correct in keeping quiet. You were not there as a director, you were there as a "mechanical device" to help facilitate play. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 02:33:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 02:33:13 +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 CAA29216 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 02:33:07 +1100 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-91.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.91]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA72632742 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:36:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36DAB260.AF45A7E2@freewwweb.com> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 09:29:36 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Re: Only in charity tournaments ... References: <36DA53A0.BF168661@village.uunet.be> <36DA9831.1CC70097@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was at a national tournament and an opponent left the table. the TD refused to turn the dummy. This thread makes it pretty clear why. Roger PEwick Evert Angad-Gaur wrote: > > I would just play cards and not interfere with the playing. Only when > some of the opponents is delibrately trying to take advantage. > > But suppose that the people at the table think that now that the TD is > at the table everything has gone according to the rules ? > > Evert. > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Yesterday I directed a charity tournament. > > > > One of the worst kind - a service club had gathered all its > > bridging members and so you have some national sub-toppers > > playing recreational players and even beginners. > > > > But this one I had not yet seen ... > > > > I had my first quiet moment (all the names in the computer, > > first four rounds of barometer entered) and I was stroling > > through the playing area. > > > > A dummy leaves the room, and I sit down opposite a rather > > good looking declarer to play dummy's cards. > > > > I have before me : the diamond 5, 2 clubs, 3 hearts and 6 > > spades to King-Jack. Naturally I assume these to be trumps. > > > > The first trick was taken in dummy (I don't know if that was > > with a diamond, club or heart) and declarer asks for the > > diamond, to her jack. "bold play", I think. Next she cashes > > Ace and King of diamonds. On the Ace, she asks for a heart, > > on the king, for the three of spades. > > > > I do what I'm told. Next she plays the Ace of Spades from > > hand. Nobody says a thing, and by now I am starting to > > realise she is actually playing no trump. > > > > Next comes a small spade, to the Queen and King. > > > > And now she rattles of the spades. By now I was not paying > > attention, so I don't know who followed suit and who didn't, > > but it is a fact that my fifth spade, the four, is taken by > > the ten from LHO ! > > > > Nobody says a thing. LHO cashes a few more cards and 3NT= > > is entered. > > > > I left the table and said nothing. > > > > That's a nice story, of course, but how about the ruling ? > > > > Should I have said something ? > > > > We all know that TD must rule on anything that he becomes > > aware of (L81C6), but we have deduced from this that a > > director should refrain from following play, since this is > > unfair to the table he is watching, as these would get more > > rulings than all the other tables he is not watching. > > > > But what if you do follow play at one table. Should you > > remain quiet? > > > > Just to complete the story : no-one noticed, really, > > no-one. LHO was not trying to cover up a mistake she > > realised. RHO did nothing, and I am sure he was not a good > > actor. Declarer didn't even raise an eyebrow when a trick > > she expected to make did not. They simply did not realise > > there are only 13 spades in a pack and the fifth one should > > hold. > > When partner did return, she did not comment on anything, > > not even that they were in the wrong contract (6 Spades was > > made at one table, although I noticed also a 4Sp-1). > > > > But my ruling ? I'm still not sure. > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > S.E.Angad-Gaur, tel.: 015-2786150 > email:evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl fax.: 015-2781694 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 02:41:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 02:41:05 +1100 Received: from PACIFICO.mail.telepac.pt (mail2.telepac.pt [194.65.3.54]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA29310 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 02:40:59 +1100 Received: from default ([194.65.226.157]) by PACIFICO.mail.telepac.pt (Intermail v3.1 117 241) with SMTP id <19990301154054.CHSG29302@[194.65.226.157]> for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:40:54 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01be63f9$e8299b80$9de241c2@default> From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: Re: Only in charity tournaments ... Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:40:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just my two cents here... >>But what if you do follow play at one table. Should you >>remain quiet? If you do follow play at one table, don´t! If you even so do follow play at one table, kick yourself first, and then act accordingly to the infraction, removing any advantage accrued by the offending side. Even because you could hipothesize that they might be acting knowing that you would not act, and on the basis that the other side would be paying less attention because of the TD being there. If the non-offending side should get any reparation, not being aware of the irregularity, that is another matter and I am not sure about it. The basic principle is that every table in the tournament should have an "equal chance" of having the director near, therefore TDs should circulate and avoid standing/staring at a specific table. Rui Marques From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 03:11:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 03:11:37 +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 DAA29530 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 03:11:26 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-189.uunet.be [194.7.14.189]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA20607 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 17:11:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36DAAF92.4F1D3F44@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 16:17:38 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Only in charity tournaments ... References: <36DA53A0.BF168661@village.uunet.be> <36DA9831.1CC70097@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: > > I would just play cards and not interfere with the playing. Only when > some of the opponents is delibrately trying to take advantage. > > But suppose that the people at the table think that now that the TD is > at the table everything has gone according to the rules ? > Valid point, I often get stares when I ask them, "do you want to call me?" when I'm already there. I usually interpret the smallest raised eyebrow in my direction as a call for the TD. But not even that happened. Three people playing the hand did not notice anything. So much so that I triply checked if I wasn't seeing ghosts - without asking them of course. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 03:11:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 03:11:33 +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 DAA29528 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 03:11:24 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24321 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:08:07 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199903011608.KAA24321@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersennes for Martians To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:08:07 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Jac Fuchs wrote: (among others) > > > > Dear Herman, > > > > please don't tell me you did it again; was this one really intended for BLML > > ? > > > > Of course it wasn't. > > > Don't you realise I am just trying to boost my statistics ? > > No seriously I don't even count these. > > But just as seriously, it is yet another bad consequence of > this list's reluctance to set the reply-to: to the list. > > I am so used to changing the to: from an individual to blml > that I sometimes do it once too often. I am also on another list that doesn't set the 'reply-to' as the List address, so I get used to changing the To: to a listname. While I have not as yet posted any baseball discussion commentary to this list, I have posted a BLML post to my baseball list. I can happily report that not one person dissented from my analysis. OTOH, I do like to occasionally reply personally to individuals on this list, which is certainly easier with the current reply-to settings. > Sorry yet again. No problem. Maybe Craig S. or somebody will be able to tie this post in with our discussions, too. > Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu PS: I hope I'm sending this to the right list. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 03:45:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 03:45:36 +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 DAA00672 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 03:45:20 +1100 Received: from pbcs14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.189] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10HVoS-0005b6-00; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:45:00 +0000 Message-ID: <000001be6402$4053d2a0$bd8e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:57:19 -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: jesper@dybdal.dk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 01 March 1999 02:46 Subject: Re: The new regime >On 27/02/99, at 19:30, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >>I think > DB >Jesper, this won't do. We can't have Herman changing his position to >agree with you at the same time as you change your position to agree >with me! Where will it all end? > +++ Creation seems entirely to go round in circles. I suspect that even when we reach to the uttermost ken we will find that we are within some globule that is itself going round and round. Let me know when you next come back this way. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 04:52:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 04:52:16 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA02224 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 04:52:06 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA24058; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:51:00 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-15.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.47) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma023923; Mon Mar 1 11:50:30 1999 Received: by har-pa1-15.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE63E1.EE1FB780@har-pa1-15.ix.netcom.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:49:22 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE63E1.EE1FB780@har-pa1-15.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Grattan'" , Steve Willner Subject: RE: The new regime Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:46:18 -0500 Encoding: 63 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Was there really a time, before the sharks lowered black magic to an art form and Buenos Aires made it clear that even the most respected names in the game were suspect, when high level bridge was truly a gentleman's game? I can recall social games that adhered to this standard. Yet the "sharp" individual has always been attracted to card play, at least where money was involved. Are the spectacles with which we review the good old days at least somewhat rose tinged? In like manner do we view today's environment through lenses that are a bit too actinic in the light they pass? There really are, today, many highly ethical players, including but not limited to those at the high levels of the game. In tailoring the Laws to defend against the unscrupulous we want to avoid insofar as possible any accusation, however mildly suggested, that the vast majority of players are anything but scrupulously honest. By establishing expectations of good conduct we can encourage it and deter its antithesis. Should we use a carrot or a stick? It may depend on whether we consider the horse to be a much loved friend and helper or a dumb animal/beast of burden. I suspect Teddy Roosevelt may have had it about right...we should at least speak softly. --- Craig ---------- From: Grattan[SMTP:hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, February 28, 1999 1:34 PM To: Steve Willner; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The new regime Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "A man of noble family, shrewd understanding, and a perverse eloquence, who had seduced Julia" - Tacitus ################################## > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: The new regime > Date: 28 February 1999 03:27 ---------- \x/ ------------ > > From: Jesper Dybdal ---------------- \x/ ---------------- > 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. ++++ In my case I can admit to a generation gap maybe. I was educated in the game in an era when what was improper simply "wasn't done". We did once rely on players' ethical standards to govern their actions - we were let down at times, no doubt, but not all that often and we did not feel nearly as much the need for the protection of laws.Today all that seems to have gone; now we seem to need screens, closed circuit TV observation, and laws to match. Is anyone developing sensors to be inserted under the skin? But we are where we are, here and now, and legislation has to look at the flawed creatures that we are and cater for our natural bent towards crime or, as it may be, for the suspicious minds who envisage that tendency in everyone but themselves. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 05:04:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 05:04:09 +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 FAA02359 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 05:04:03 +1100 Received: from ip183.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.183]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990301180352.QKF17403.fep4@ip183.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:03:52 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 19:03:51 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36dccf5e.1476513@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990224093154.00724dd4@pop.cais.com> <36e023ca.4354331@post12.tele.dk> <199903010200100500.1F8D2B17@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199903010200100500.1F8D2B17@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, 01 Mar 1999 02:00:10 +0000, "David Burn" wrote: >On 27/02/99, at 19:30, Jesper Dybdal wrote:=20 >>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". > >Jesper, this won't do. We can't have Herman changing his position to >agree with you at the same time as you change your position to agree >with me! Where will it all end? I haven't changed my position - but I have not made it clear which context I was talking about. The context was information about _your own_ system. I still believe that information about _opponents'_ system is AI, no matter how it is received. This consideration overrides (b) above, because information about opponents' system has this special property (which it shares with certain other types of information, such as the vulnerability, the method of scoring, etc...). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 07:21:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:28:30 +1100 Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA06440 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:28:18 +1100 Received: from ip121.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk (ip121.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.121]) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA09437 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 20:28:01 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 20:28:01 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36eaea06.8299934@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990224093154.00724dd4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990224093154.00724dd4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990227161807.0072a7fc@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990227161807.0072a7fc@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 I posted this Saturday evening; it seems to have been lost somewhere, so I try again: On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 16:18:07 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >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? Nothing. You're absolutely right - now I see what you were saying, and I agree that it _is_ difficult (and probably impossible) to find a legal excuse to call that UI. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 07:26:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 07:26:32 +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 HAA07458 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 07:26:25 +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 <19990301202619.HUXX3323.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:26:19 -0800 Message-ID: <36DAF8D7.1AEDCFC4@home.com> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 12:30:15 -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: Is this a claim? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > ++++ I am now having some difficulty following this discussion. I had > understood that declarer had named the card he was playing from > dummy before LHO had played. If that was the case there is nothing > inadvertent about it - a deliberate play of a card is a purposeful > action > and if he wants to change it only when he sees LHO's card this is > after > pause for thought. Exactly. This is why I've expressed all along that this is a L55, not L45/46/47, situation and as such the opponent's decide whether or not to hold declarer to his POOT of the Ten. > On the other hand, if declarer says "finesse" I think > his intention is clear (per the dictionary definition I quoted) and that > it allows him to cover King with Ace. If declarer says "finesse the > ten" I consider the principal intention is "finesse" and that it does > not in itself constitute an instruction to play the ten whatever happens. Agree again, but this is when I'd consider it a L68 like situation. Based on the original description, I don't see how it can ever be ruled under L46/47, but since almost everyone else is all the time mentioning these laws I must be missing something. Summing it up, to me it is either L55 or L68. If the former only the opponents can let declarer off the hook. If the latter, TD can as well (under L70E). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 11:09:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:09:40 +1100 Received: from finch-post-10.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 LAA11002 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:09:31 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10HckS-0003A0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 00:09:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 00:08:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Only in charity tournaments ... In-Reply-To: <36DA53A0.BF168661@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <36DA53A0.BF168661@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Yesterday I directed a charity tournament. > >One of the worst kind - a service club had gathered all its >bridging members and so you have some national sub-toppers >playing recreational players and even beginners. > >But this one I had not yet seen ... > >I had my first quiet moment (all the names in the computer, >first four rounds of barometer entered) and I was stroling >through the playing area. > >A dummy leaves the room, and I sit down opposite a rather >good looking declarer to play dummy's cards. > >I have before me : the diamond 5, 2 clubs, 3 hearts and 6 >spades to King-Jack. Naturally I assume these to be trumps. > >The first trick was taken in dummy (I don't know if that was >with a diamond, club or heart) and declarer asks for the >diamond, to her jack. "bold play", I think. Next she cashes >Ace and King of diamonds. On the Ace, she asks for a heart, >on the king, for the three of spades. > >I do what I'm told. Next she plays the Ace of Spades from >hand. Nobody says a thing, and by now I am starting to >realise she is actually playing no trump. > >Next comes a small spade, to the Queen and King. > >And now she rattles of the spades. By now I was not paying >attention, so I don't know who followed suit and who didn't, >but it is a fact that my fifth spade, the four, is taken by >the ten from LHO ! > >Nobody says a thing. LHO cashes a few more cards and 3NT= >is entered. > >I left the table and said nothing. > >That's a nice story, of course, but how about the ruling ? > At the YC one is often shown some ludicrous contract and asked to play it. When one enquires quite how we got to the contract the explanation is that "the waiter bid it". I think that if our waiter had been turning the cards he wouldn't have noticed, and I think that when one is turning cards one should just pretend to be the waiter. DWS suggested to me that what one sees, by chance, in terms of infractions are "not seen" until you are called and I think that's best. Who knows, the waiter might even get a drink or a tip :)) 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 Mar 2 11:09:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:09:42 +1100 Received: from post-20.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 LAA11000 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:09:30 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10HckS-0007lT-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 00:09:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 00:07:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Only in charity tournaments ... In-Reply-To: <36DAB260.AF45A7E2@freewwweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <36DAB260.AF45A7E2@freewwweb.com>, axeman writes >I was at a national tournament and an opponent left the table. the TD >refused to turn the dummy. This thread makes it pretty clear why. > >Roger PEwick The EBU Directors are taught not to as well, for that reason. But at the club one likes to chat with the customers so I do turn cards then - and say nothing. > >Evert Angad-Gaur wrote: >> >> I would just play cards and not interfere with the playing. Only when >> some of the opponents is delibrately trying to take advantage. >> >> But suppose that the people at the table think that now that the TD is >> at the table everything has gone according to the rules ? >> -- 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 Mar 2 12:24:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 12:24:21 +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 MAA12324 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 12:23:53 +1100 Received: from pcbs12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.204] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10HduB-0005pd-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 01:23:28 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 01:28:52 -0000 Message-ID: <01be644c$082cd300$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Jan Kamras To: blml Date: Monday, March 01, 1999 8:52 PM Subject: Re: Is this a claim? >Grattan wrote: > >> ++++ I am now having some difficulty following this discussion. I had >> understood that declarer had named the card he was playing from >> dummy before LHO had played. If that was the case there is nothing >> inadvertent about it - a deliberate play of a card is a purposeful > action >> and if he wants to change it only when he sees LHO's card this is > after >> pause for thought. > >Exactly. This is why I've expressed all along that this is a L55, not >L45/46/47, situation and as such the opponent's decide whether or not to >hold declarer to his POOT of the Ten. > >> On the other hand, if declarer says "finesse" I think >> his intention is clear (per the dictionary definition I quoted) and that >> it allows him to cover King with Ace. If declarer says "finesse the >> ten" I consider the principal intention is "finesse" and that it does >> not in itself constitute an instruction to play the ten whatever happens. > >Agree again, but this is when I'd consider it a L68 like situation. >Based on the original description, I don't see how it can ever be ruled >under L46/47, but since almost everyone else is all the time mentioning >these laws I must be missing something. >Summing it up, to me it is either L55 or L68. If the former only the >opponents can let declarer off the hook. If the latter, TD can as well >(under L70E). I think this is wrong. Law 55 is the law that refers to Leads. Definition "lead" is the first card played to a trick. This does not apply here. Law 68 is the law that refers to "claims", and in order for a claim to be a claim it must refer to tricks other than the trick in progress. That does not apply here. I read this as declarer having nominated a card from dummy before LHO played. This is a play out of turn, and unfortunately I think declerer is fixed by Law 45. What a shame he didn't say, "whatever you play, I'm winning it." I think Law 46 allows him to do this. Law 74C3 indicates however that this is not an appropriate action, and I would view repeated behaviour of this type as bullying. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 15:11:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:11:32 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA13138 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:11:18 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA15565 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:11:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id XAA19937 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:10:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:10:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199903020410.XAA19937@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersennes for Martians Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > But just as seriously, it is yet another bad consequence of > this list's reluctance to set the reply-to: to the list. > > I am so used to changing the to: from an individual to blml > that I sometimes do it once too often. If your mailer has a "reply to all," function, I'd suggest you use that and then delete the unwanted individual address. This is easier, at least for me, than changing one address to another. Even if you don't change the address, nothing terrible happens. Another option is to use a mail alias and originate a new message to 'blml' instead of replying. You will have to copy the subject line or move the existing one and delete any preceding '> '. Having 'reply-to' set to the individual rather than the list avoids problems, so I hope Markus will keep it that way. But it's up to him to decide. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 15:53:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:53:39 +1100 Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA13370 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:53:35 +1100 Received: from accordion (accordion.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA17159 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:53:34 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990302155342.009ceea0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 15:53:42 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Reply-to's... again... (was Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersennes for Martians) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> From: Herman De Wael >> But just as seriously, it is yet another bad consequence of >> this list's reluctance to set the reply-to: to the list. [...look Ma, I snipped ! ...] Steve Willner wrote: >Having 'reply-to' set to the individual rather than the list avoids >problems, so I hope Markus will keep it that way. But it's up to him to >decide. Oooh - the power of it all. :-) As many subscribers are aware I have offered on previous occassions to change the reply-to setting to whatever people wanted. I'm even happy to take on a couple of additional list-admins in case of problems. However, with a total populace on this list of around 220-230 people the clearest vote result was 5:3 against. No - that's not the final ratio, I actually got only 8 votes. And an implied 212-222 abstains :-) As noted last time, this poll is perpetually open. Cast your votes direct to me, if you care one way or the other. I'll warn the list if I make any changes. I will *not* however change the BLML Reply-To to be Flags-List or Martian-List for anybody :-) Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 2 21:57:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA16780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:57:35 +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 VAA16775 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:57:27 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by farida.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10HmrY-00017X-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:57:20 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990302115631.00a89630@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:56:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-Reply-To: <01be644c$082cd300$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:28 02-03-99 -0000, you wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jan Kamras >To: blml >Date: Monday, March 01, 1999 8:52 PM >Subject: Re: Is this a claim? > > >>Grattan wrote: >> >>> ++++ I am now having some difficulty following this discussion. I had >>> understood that declarer had named the card he was playing from >>> dummy before LHO had played. If that was the case there is nothing >>> inadvertent about it - a deliberate play of a card is a purposeful > >action >>> and if he wants to change it only when he sees LHO's card this is > after >>> pause for thought. >> >>Exactly. This is why I've expressed all along that this is a L55, not >>L45/46/47, situation and as such the opponent's decide whether or not to >>hold declarer to his POOT of the Ten. >> >>> On the other hand, if declarer says "finesse" I think >>> his intention is clear (per the dictionary definition I quoted) and that >>> it allows him to cover King with Ace. If declarer says "finesse the >>> ten" I consider the principal intention is "finesse" and that it does >>> not in itself constitute an instruction to play the ten whatever happens. >> >>Agree again, but this is when I'd consider it a L68 like situation. >>Based on the original description, I don't see how it can ever be ruled >>under L46/47, but since almost everyone else is all the time mentioning >>these laws I must be missing something. >>Summing it up, to me it is either L55 or L68. If the former only the >>opponents can let declarer off the hook. If the latter, TD can as well >>(under L70E). > >I think this is wrong. Law 55 is the law that refers to Leads. Definition >"lead" is the first card played to a trick. This does not apply here. Law 68 >is the law that refers to "claims", and in order for a claim to be a claim >it must refer to tricks other than the trick in progress. But, see the footnote in 68. ....if the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick in progress, play proceeds normally...... So 68 fits perfectly i think regards, anton That does not >apply here. > I read this as declarer having nominated a card from dummy before LHO >played. This is a play out of turn, and unfortunately I think declerer is >fixed by Law 45. What a shame he didn't say, "whatever you play, I'm winning >it." I think Law 46 allows him to do this. Law 74C3 indicates however that >this is not an appropriate action, and I would view repeated behaviour of >this type as bullying. > >Anne > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 3 03:02:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 03:02:17 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA24019 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 03:02:07 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA11973; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:01:19 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-14.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.78) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma011881; Tue Mar 2 10:00:49 1999 Received: by har-pa2-14.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE649B.C4F74340@har-pa2-14.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:59:40 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE649B.C4F74340@har-pa2-14.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Markus Buchhorn'" Subject: RE: Reply-to's... again... (was Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersennes for Martians) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:59:08 -0500 Encoding: 45 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If it ain't broke don't fix it. Please don't change anything. An occasional mispost is an acceptable price to pay for the flexibility of easily responding just to an individual when desired using reply to or to whole group using a reply to group. Some comments rightly belong in private email and we should be able to use it easily when appropriate. Others affect much or all of the group, and like this post should go to the whole group. I think the present system best allows us that flexibility. (There...now you have one less abstention) Besides Herman is interested is such fascinating things that even his misposts are interesting. :-)) --- Craig ---------- From: Markus Buchhorn[SMTP:markus@acsys.anu.edu.au] >> From: Herman De Wael >> But just as seriously, it is yet another bad consequence of >> this list's reluctance to set the reply-to: to the list. [...look Ma, I snipped ! ...] Steve Willner wrote: >Having 'reply-to' set to the individual rather than the list avoids >problems, so I hope Markus will keep it that way. But it's up to him to >decide. Oooh - the power of it all. :-) As many subscribers are aware I have offered on previous occassions to change the reply-to setting to whatever people wanted. I'm even happy to take on a couple of additional list-admins in case of problems. However, with a total populace on this list of around 220-230 people the clearest vote result was 5:3 against. No - that's not the final ratio, I actually got only 8 votes. And an implied 212-222 abstains :-) As noted last time, this poll is perpetually open. Cast your votes direct to me, if you care one way or the other. I'll warn the list if I make any changes. I will *not* however change the BLML Reply-To to be Flags-List or Martian-List for anybody :-) Cheers, Markus From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 3 04:21:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA25242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 04:21:26 +1100 Received: from firewall.dit.dk (firewall.dit.dk [194.192.112.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA25227 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 04:21:15 +1100 Received: from JD.internal (jd.internal [10.145.1.46]) by firewall.dit.dk (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA11000; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 18:21:04 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Reply-to's... again... (was Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersennes for Martians) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 18:21:04 +0100 Message-ID: <36dd19e2.29793020@firewall.dit.dk> References: <3.0.32.19990302155342.009ceea0@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990302155342.009ceea0@acsys.anu.edu.au> 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, 1 Mar 1999 23:10:59 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >Another option is to use a mail alias and originate a new message to >'blml' instead of replying. You will have to copy the subject line or >move the existing one and delete any preceding '> '. This way of doing it has some disadvantages, however: If you accidentally change the subject line in any way at all (such as by correcting a spelling error or by using a lower case letter instead of an upper case letter or vice versa), you will create a new thread, making it more difficult for those who have good e-mail software to follow BLML. And even if you do keep the subject line unchanged, your mail program will not insert an "In-Reply-To" (or "References") header indicating exactly where in a long and complicated thread the message belongs. (Some programs never do this anyway, but that is no reason not to get the benefit from those that do.) So I suggect following Steve's primary advice: "reply to all" and manually remove superfluous addresses. (Unless of course Markus changes the setup.) The reverse also holds, of course: when you want to start a new thread, please do not do so by replying to an existing thread. E-mail programs that use the "In-Reply-To" headers to show the thread structure will show your new "thread" as part of the old one even if its subject line is changed. As you might suspect from the above, I recommend using e-mail software that can show the thread structure of mail messages - it makes it very much easier to get an overview of the active threads. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 3 13:42:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:42:57 +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 NAA19468 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:42:47 +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 AA098718956; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:42:36 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA197478955; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:42:35 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:42:30 -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 hermes wrote: ---------- "Inadvertently putting an unintended card on the table" is a wrong description for an act which knowingly puts the ten on the table (and then wakes up on seeing the King); that play is neither =20 inadvertent nor unintended at the time it is made. The same goes for = =20 M. Dubreuil's player who said "play the ten". What follows is a change of mind. It seemed to me that Laval Dubreuil got the law right very early on; that was not his problem : he wished for= =20 a way out at club level when opponents wanted their pound of flesh. (IIRC the historic solution was not to allow them any blood with it.)= From the heights and depths of blml Laval cannot expect relief; what = =20 he needs is maybe a club director who does not know the laws. Do =20 you have any of those, one who could say that when the player said "play the ten" his incontrovertible intention (Law 46) was to play the =20 Ace? ~ Grattan ~ I was not searching for nothing else but to be sure I could apply Law 45= in this case and not beeing told there is something else in Laws that allows declarer to take back his played card. I fully agree with John Probst: "the commercial considerations at the club are best met by sympathetically handling down the Law as it is written". My wife and I apply this policy from begining and have one of the biggest clubs in Quebec City. What I enjoy most is hear players tell I apply laws as they are and have the same approach no matter who is at table. I was not the TD when this happens. When called, the TD allows declarer to take back the D10 and play the A on K, saying the declarer intent was evident......... Thanks all Laval Du Breuil Quebec City =20 =20 =20 =20 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 3 13:46:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:46:47 +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 NAA19671 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:46:39 +1100 Received: from modem57.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.185] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10I1g1-0008Mv-00; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 02:46:27 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:45:13 -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 "Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it." - Laws of Motion 1687 (or a wrong line?) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww > From: Anne Jones > To: BLML > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? > Date: 02 March 1999 01:28 > ----------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > > I think this is wrong. Law 55 is the law that refers to Leads. Definition > "lead" is the first card played to a trick. This does not apply here. Law 68 > is the law that refers to "claims", and in order for a claim to be a claim > it must refer to tricks other than the trick in progress. That does not > apply here +++ Agree to both statements. +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 3 17:06:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 17:06:39 +1100 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA29255 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 17:06:32 +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 <19990303060622.NZD3323.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:06:22 -0800 Message-ID: <36DCD24A.A0ADC6D3@home.com> Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 22:10:18 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <01be644c$082cd300$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I already agreed L68 didn't apply here, since no proper claim-statement was made. I just mentioned that ruling it a L68 *like* situation was the only way a TD could let declarer off the hook. Re-reading L45/46 and 55 I also agree if "lead" is thus limited. However, I don't see in L45 anything about "play out of turn". It seems to me that "plays that are not leads" out of turn are not specifically covered. If they are, can someone pls tell me where? Anne Jones wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Kamras > To: blml > Date: Monday, March 01, 1999 8:52 PM > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? > > >Grattan wrote: > > > >> ++++ I am now having some difficulty following this discussion. I had > >> understood that declarer had named the card he was playing from > >> dummy before LHO had played. If that was the case there is nothing > >> inadvertent about it - a deliberate play of a card is a purposeful > > action > >> and if he wants to change it only when he sees LHO's card this is > after > >> pause for thought. > > > >Exactly. This is why I've expressed all along that this is a L55, not > >L45/46/47, situation and as such the opponent's decide whether or not to > >hold declarer to his POOT of the Ten. > > > >> On the other hand, if declarer says "finesse" I think > >> his intention is clear (per the dictionary definition I quoted) and that > >> it allows him to cover King with Ace. If declarer says "finesse the > >> ten" I consider the principal intention is "finesse" and that it does > >> not in itself constitute an instruction to play the ten whatever happens. > > > >Agree again, but this is when I'd consider it a L68 like situation. > >Based on the original description, I don't see how it can ever be ruled > >under L46/47, but since almost everyone else is all the time mentioning > >these laws I must be missing something. > >Summing it up, to me it is either L55 or L68. If the former only the > >opponents can let declarer off the hook. If the latter, TD can as well > >(under L70E). > > I think this is wrong. Law 55 is the law that refers to Leads. Definition > "lead" is the first card played to a trick. This does not apply here. Law 68 > is the law that refers to "claims", and in order for a claim to be a claim > it must refer to tricks other than the trick in progress. That does not > apply here. > I read this as declarer having nominated a card from dummy before LHO > played. This is a play out of turn, and unfortunately I think declerer is > fixed by Law 45. What a shame he didn't say, "whatever you play, I'm winning > it." I think Law 46 allows him to do this. Law 74C3 indicates however that > this is not an appropriate action, and I would view repeated behaviour of > this type as bullying. > > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 3 20:25:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:25:42 +1100 Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02373 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:25:29 +1100 Received: from default ([195.89.178.123]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 5073100 ; Wed, 03 Mar 1999 09:18:48 -0000 Message-ID: <000201be6557$aa672880$7bb259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "Grattan" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:09:52 -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 -----Original Message----- From: Grattan To: Bridge Laws Discussion List ; Eric Landau Date: 01 March 1999 10:25 Subject: Re: Is this a claim? >Grattan >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > >"Every body continues in its state of rest, or of >uniform motion in a right line, unless itis compelled >to change that state by forces impressed upon it." > - Laws of Motion 1687 >(or a wrong line?) >wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww >> From: Eric Landau >> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >> Subject: Re: Is this a claim? >> Date: 26 February 1999 14:16 >> >> At 01:08 AM 2/26/99 +0000, David wrote: >> >> > Ok, I say again, what would you do if declarer and dummy were >> >reversed, >------ \x/ -------- >> > Eric:- >> 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, I think Eric makes a strong case. I have a feeling that the player has described a manovre which places Ace on anything higher than ten and plays ten when there is no big card to cover. I do not believe the director should be taking away that intent from him by fixing a different meaning on his words. The play of the ten before seeing the next card is not the player's meaning and nasty opponents should not profit from some technical point in the director's mind. mt. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 3 23:15:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:15:49 +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 XAA02904 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:15:41 +1100 Received: from pd3s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.212] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10IAYc-0004H0-00; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:15:22 +0000 Message-ID: <000901be656e$e87f0900$d48993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: The new regime Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 13:20:34 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ******************************************************************* -----Original Message----- From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: 01 March 1999 20:51 Subject: Re: The new regime wrote: >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? Jesper: Nothing. You're absolutely right - now I see what you were saying, and I agree that it _is_ difficult (and probably impossible) to find a legal excuse to call that UI. -- +++ The controls are upon communication with partner. I know of no law which stops a player making an enquiry for his own information. Indeed just the contrary, that is what he is entitled to ask for, although his question may tell partner something and this is UI.. ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 3 23:20:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:20:27 +1100 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA02924 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:20:20 +1100 Received: from pb5s03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.182] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10IAdJ-0004P3-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:20:13 +0000 Message-ID: <000801be656f$95cf0420$b68393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Subject: Fw: Is this a claim? Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:14:43 -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: Grattan Endicott Date: 03 March 1999 09:41 Subject: Fw: Is this a claim? >Grattan >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > >"Every body continues in its state of rest, or of >uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled >to change that state by forces impressed upon it." > - Laws of Motion 1687 >(or a wrong line?) >wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww >Did it go properly first time? Repeated message. >v >v >v >> From: Grattan >> To: Anne Jones ; BLML > >> Subject: Re: Is this a claim? >> Date: 02 March 1999 22:45 >> >> Grattan >> Secretary, WBF Laws Committee >> >> "Every body continues in its state of rest, or of >> uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled >> to change that state by forces impressed upon it." >> - Laws of Motion 1687 >> (or a wrong line?) >> wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww >> >> > From: Anne Jones >> > To: BLML >> > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? >> > Date: 02 March 1999 01:28 >> > >> ----------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- >> > >> > I think this is wrong. Law 55 is the law that refers to Leads. Definition >> > "lead" is the first card played to a trick. This does not apply here. Law >> 68 >> > is the law that refers to "claims", and in order for a claim to be a >claim >> > it must refer to tricks other than the trick in progress. That does not >> > apply here >> >> +++ Agree to both statements. +++ >> .. >> > I read this as declarer having nominated a card from dummy before LHO >> > played. This is a play out of turn, and unfortunately I think declerer >is >> > fixed by Law 45. What a shame he didn't say, "whatever you play, I'm >> winning >> > it." I think Law 46 allows him to do this. Law 74C3 indicates however >that >> > this is not an appropriate action, and I would view repeated behaviour of >> > this type as bullying. >> > >> +++ This is the classical position and nothing wrong with it. The >> interpretation >> is based upon a view that the player in saying 'finesse the ten' has named >> the >> card to play and is subject to Law 45C4a. I think when a player uses the >> word >> "finesse" he states an incontrovertible intention to attempt to take the >> trick >> and justice is better served if the naming of a card is treated as >erroneous >> >> under Law 46B. There is no ruling or precedent that I know of which >supports >> such a commonsense standpoint. If a player just says "finesse" my >missionary >> zeal would argue strongly that he be allowed to play the Ace on the King. I >> gather this is known as the 'missionary position'. ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ >> > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 3 23:44:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:44:38 +1100 Received: from gatekeeper2.agro.nl (gatekeeper2.agro.nl [145.12.10.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA02973 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:44:31 +1100 Received: from mgate.nic.agro.nl (agro01.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.12]) by gatekeeper2.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/5Jun1998) with ESMTP id NAA23162 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:44:25 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01J8E928F3NU00E1IT@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:43:38 +0100 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Wed, 03 Mar 1999 13:47:05 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 13:43:43 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Loss of Redress To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C144@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 Interesting case concerning the question of redress after playing badly. But there is more information available. This board was played in the worldchampionships in the early nineties. Defenders were Polish, declarer I am not sure (Brazil?). And when able to ruff east knew (could have known) that his 9 was high! The appealcommittee was not ACBL, but WBF of course. I agree with their decision. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Adam Beneschan [mailto:adam@flash.irvine.com] Verzonden: vrijdag 26 februari 1999 18:23 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Onderwerp: Re: Loss of Redress > 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 Thu Mar 4 01:26:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 01:26:59 +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 BAA05502 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 01:26:51 +1100 Received: from p5ds13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.94] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10ICbl-0004y3-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 14:26:46 +0000 Message-ID: <000401be6581$43679140$5e8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Subject: diary note entered Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:54:38 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 01:32:37 +1100 Received: from roger (ppp-48.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.48]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA74776176 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:36:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36DD47E6.4C6D@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 08:32:06 -0600 From: Roger Pewick Reply-To: axeman@freewwweb.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <000201be6557$aa672880$7bb259c3@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems to me that LHO played in turn. It seems to me that LHO played a legal card. It seems to me that LHO called the TD to verify the status of dummy's card. I believe that the case is weak for requiring LHO to call the TD before playing in order to protect his right to have the king win. I see no law that LHO violated. I see no profit from a legal technicality. On the other hand: Declarer called for dummy's card OOT. It was a legal card. That declarer called the 10 is evidence that they intended to play the 10. That declarer called the 10 OOT is evidence that they intended to play the 10. That declarer did not say they were finessing is evidence that they intended to play the 10. Only the fact that RHO showed out gives them reason to believe that they can be certain they can win the remaining diamond tricks. However, a necessary condition for winning those tricks is that they play the remaining cards accurately. In this case they did not. I can see that requiring that the play of a card must stand can seem morally reprehensible. However, a ruling that permits a change of play is a profit to the player that played OOT. It also is damage to those who broke no law. Such things seem morally reprehensible to a greater degree. Roger Pewick magda.thain wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Grattan > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List ; Eric Landau > > Date: 01 March 1999 10:25 > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? > > >Grattan > >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > > >"Every body continues in its state of rest, or of > >uniform motion in a right line, unless itis compelled > >to change that state by forces impressed upon it." > > - Laws of Motion 1687 > >(or a wrong line?) > >wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww > >> From: Eric Landau > >> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > >> Subject: Re: Is this a claim? > >> Date: 26 February 1999 14:16 > >> > >> At 01:08 AM 2/26/99 +0000, David wrote: > >> > >> > Ok, I say again, what would you do if declarer and dummy were > >> >reversed, > >------ \x/ -------- > >> > > Eric:- > >> 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, > > I think Eric makes a strong case. I have a feeling that the player has > described a manovre which places > Ace on anything higher than ten and plays ten when there is no big card to > cover. I do not believe the > director should be taking away that intent from him by fixing a different > meaning on his words. > The play of the ten before seeing the next card is not the player's meaning and > nasty opponents should > not profit from some technical point in the director's mind. mt. - It is said that a camel is a horse built by committee. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 4 03:29:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 03:29:16 +1100 Received: from acheron.uwa.edu.au (uniwa.uwa.edu.au [130.95.128.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA06173 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 03:29:12 +1100 Received: from cygnus.uwa.edu.au (root@cygnusl.uwa.edu.au [130.95.128.5]) by acheron.uwa.edu.au (8.8.7/8.8.0) with ESMTP id AAA23697 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 00:29:09 +0800 (WST) Received: from oemcomputer (dial139.cygnus.uwa.edu.au [203.24.97.139]) by cygnus.uwa.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA13751 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 00:29:07 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <36DD62D2.271A0881@cygnus.uwa.edu.au> Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 00:26:58 +0800 From: Peter Hart X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re:Is this a claim? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bravo, Laval: I have been monitoring this `channel' for several weeks and this is the first time I have seen anyone - anyone - talk sense about a ruling. "...the Declarer's intent was obvious..." What game - repeat - game requires a player to play the 10 from A 10 under the King for a losing trick, irrespective of (a) his standard of play, (b) his lack of application, and, most importantly, (c) the interests of the rest of the room? As TD I consider my paramount duty is to protect the interests of the rest of the room, not the interests of one super-smart, rapacious individual. It is called `The Pursuit of Equity' in my organisation. Cheers, Peter. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 4 03:34:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 03:34:06 +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 DAA06220 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 03:33:59 +1100 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (q.inter.net.il [192.116.192.34]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA27426; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:33:49 +0200 (IST) Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.181]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA10322; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:33:48 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36DD6492.285918B1@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 18:34:26 +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: Only in charity tournaments ... References: <36DA53A0.BF168661@village.uunet.be> <36DA9831.1CC70097@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl> <36DAAF92.4F1D3F44@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear "mechanical device" fed by ..."cups of tea"...!!!!! I think ou acted in the best way , being more careful with the ghosts around the table.... I ask your permision to quote this story in my humor articles. Thank you in advance Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > > Evert Angad-Gaur wrote: > > > > I would just play cards and not interfere with the playing. Only when > > some of the opponents is delibrately trying to take advantage. > > > > But suppose that the people at the table think that now that the TD is > > at the table everything has gone according to the rules ? > > > > Valid point, I often get stares when I ask them, "do you > want to call me?" when I'm already there. > > I usually interpret the smallest raised eyebrow in my > direction as a call for the TD. But not even that > happened. Three people playing the hand did not notice > anything. > > So much so that I triply checked if I wasn't seeing ghosts - > without asking them of course. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 4 04:30:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 04:30:28 +1100 Received: from finch-post-11.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 EAA06505 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 04:30:18 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10IFSq-000FtS-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 17:29:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:39:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <01be644c$082cd300$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <36DCD24A.A0ADC6D3@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36DCD24A.A0ADC6D3@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >Re-reading L45/46 and 55 I also agree if "lead" is thus limited. >However, I don't see in L45 anything about "play out of turn". It seems >to me that "plays that are not leads" out of turn are not specifically >covered. If they are, can someone pls tell me where? A lead is defined [see Definitions] as the first card played to a trick. Therefore every lead is a play, and the first play to any trick is a lead. L45 defines when a card is played, and that card is a lead if it is the first play to a trick. -- 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 Mar 4 05:00:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 05:00:48 +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 FAA06599 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 05:00:38 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA06935; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 11:59:59 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-08.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.40) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma006852; Wed Mar 3 11:59:42 1999 Received: by har-pa1-08.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE6575.8B2E5100@har-pa1-08.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:58:33 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE6575.8B2E5100@har-pa1-08.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Peter Hart'" Subject: RE: Is this a claim? Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:53:21 -0500 Encoding: 51 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I strongly disagree with this approach. Would you also refuse to apply a revoke penalty because the player didn't fail to follow suit intentionally? How about forgiving penalty cards because he didn't mean to drop his cards face up on the table? Let's ignore bids and leads out of turn too...they usually aren't intentional. I don't want to go there. There are laws that govern our game, that when applied evenhandedly make it playable. You would ignore them out of some sense of justice. But would this justice extend equally to a well-loved regular member of the club and some fast talking out-of-towner? Does your brother-in-law fare better (or worse) than a stranger? Does your lady friend get a better ruling? When you start making needless subjective decisions based upon a mind-reader's decision of what "he meant to do" rather than applying the laws as written, you start down a slippery slope that can only erode your credibility as a director and ultimately produce more unfairness. It is NOT obvious that declarer was not being careless. He did call out of turn after all in addition to naming a specific card. He should accept the penalty for his too swift and inaccurate speech graciously. A gentleman would never have presumed on the goodwill of the opponents or a friendly director to rescue himself from such a misplay. Allow this, and soon he will want to change his bid when he finds an extra ace...and will want to revive that famous party bridge call of "undouble". This dog won't hunt...let's kennel it. ----- Craig (Aside to DWS) David would you please comment on the idea of protecting "the rest of the room"? You express that position so much more forcefully and wholeheartedly than I do and it certainly seems to apply here. ---------- From: Peter Hart[SMTP:pjhart@cygnus.uwa.edu.au] Bravo, Laval: I have been monitoring this `channel' for several weeks and this is the first time I have seen anyone - anyone - talk sense about a ruling. "...the Declarer's intent was obvious..." What game - repeat - game requires a player to play the 10 from A 10 under the King for a losing trick, irrespective of (a) his standard of play, (b) his lack of application, and, most importantly, (c) the interests of the rest of the room? As TD I consider my paramount duty is to protect the interests of the rest of the room, not the interests of one super-smart, rapacious individual. It is called `The Pursuit of Equity' in my organisation. Cheers, Peter. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 4 07:24:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 07:24:18 +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 HAA06906 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 07:24:10 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa02584; 3 Mar 99 12:23 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Mar 1999 12:53:21 PST." <01BE6575.8B2E5100@har-pa1-08.ix.NETCOM.com> Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 12:23:26 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9903031223.aa02584@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > I strongly disagree with this approach. Would you also refuse to apply a > revoke penalty because the player didn't fail to follow suit intentionally? > How about forgiving penalty cards because he didn't mean to drop his cards > face up on the table? Let's ignore bids and leads out of turn too...they > usually aren't intentional. I don't want to go there. Personally, I've never understood the "pursuit of equity" or "protecting the room" argument to reduce the penalties of those who screw up. I mean, I make lots of mistakes all the time that give my opponents undeserved tops, and some of those have, perhaps, caused some other pair who deserved to win third place drop down to fourth, or something like that. But nobody ever says anything should be done about this, because *my* mistakes are almost never infractions of the Laws. I mess up by losing count of a suit, or by forgetting whether a key honor has been played already, or by not noticing that I need to overtake my partner's trick to protect him from a throw-in. When I commit one of these stupidities, should I call the director and ask for an adjusted score, on the grounds that my mistake has given the opponents an undeserved top and damaged the field? In fact, since all mistakes by one side give undeserved matchpoints to the other side, perhaps we should adopt the following solution to make perfectly sure the field is protected: deal out the cards, then let the directors look at all the hands to figure out what would happen if nobody made any mistakes, then just assign that score to everybody. The happy end to the Pursuit of Equity. So if the mistakes I commit damage the field by handing out undeserved gifts, why should I get weepy about someone else's mistakes doing the same thing, just because their mistakes happen to violate correct procedure? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 4 08:52:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 08:52:47 +1100 Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA08568 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 08:52:40 +1100 From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA039817954; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:52:35 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA128297954; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:52:34 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:52:24 -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 I dont know if it is a language question.. (my mother language is French...) but I just wanted to say the contrary. My first approach is to try to respect Laws as they are written. As TD I often say to players that bridge without laws is unplayable. "If you do not trust me, try to play against me without laws.." If laws are not good enough, we have to change them (the WBF job). In the meanwhile, we are stuck with. Laval Du Breuil ---------- De : pjhart Date d'envoi : 3 mars, 1999 11:26 A : bridge-laws Cc : pjhart Objet : Re:Is this a claim? =20 Bravo, Laval: I have been monitoring this `channel' for several weeks= and this is the first time I have seen anyone - anyone - talk sense about a ruling. "...the Declarer's intent was obvious..." What game - repeat - game requires a player to play the 10 from A 10 under the King for a losing trick, irrespective of (a) his standard of play, (b) his= lack of application, and, most importantly, (c) the interests of the rest of the room? As TD I consider my paramount duty is to protect the interests of the rest of the room, not the interests of one super-smart, rapacious individual. It is called `The Pursuit of Equity' in my organisation. Cheers, Peter. =20 =20 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 4 09:50:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:50:22 +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 JAA08791 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:50:16 +1100 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-157-25.lsan.grid.net [207.205.157.25]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA28180 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 17:50:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36DDBCD4.67BACC22@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 14:51:00 -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: <36DD62D2.271A0881@cygnus.uwa.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Hart wrote: > > Bravo, Laval: I have been monitoring this `channel' for several weeks > and this is the first time I have seen anyone - anyone - talk sense > about a ruling. "...the Declarer's intent was obvious..." What game - > repeat - game Games have rules. In Monopoly, you can't steal from the bank. In Cosmic Encounter, you may be able to. requires a player to play the 10 from A 10 under the King > for a losing trick, irrespective of (a) his standard of play, (b) his > lack of application, and, most importantly, (c) the interests of the > rest of the room? Duplicate Contract Bridge. (That was an easy question!) --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 4 10:59:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA09017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:59:58 +1100 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA09012 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:59:51 +1100 Received: from modem8.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.136] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10ILYG-0007yy-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:59:45 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:32:19 -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 "Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it." - Laws of Motion 1687 (or a wrong line?) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww > From: Kooijman, A. > To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' > Subject: RE: Is this a claim? > Date: 25 February 1999 12:51 > > -------------------- \x/ ------------------- > > 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? +++ Suddenly I got interested in meanings of directions by declarer to dummy. I am not sure who quoted the AHD, you Eric? I have quoted the OED; they are significantly apart in their definition of 'finesse'. When American English definitions differ from English English definitions I favour the solution of giving an authoritative bridge definition from at least Zonal level. Having consulted a third dictionary and found yet another statement, I am getting more convinced. In the meantime the Director on the spot has to decide what instruction the player gives in statements of various kinds incorporating the word 'finesse'. ~ Grattan ~ [Longman's dictionary : "finesse" - the withholding of one's highest card in the hope that a lower card will take the trick because the only opposing higher card is in the hand of an opponent *who has already played* - oops, unexecutable instruction when the player has not played a card??! This dictionary has it so. Consulting dictionaries has all the excitements of consulting lawyers, but not quite the peso power.] +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 4 12:12:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:12:48 +1100 Received: from post-20.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 MAA09209 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:12:43 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10IMgk-00073Y-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 01:12:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:26:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: diary note entered References: <000401be6581$43679140$5e8d93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000401be6581$43679140$5e8d93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >A well known professional company has just sent me a pamphlet which >informs me that if I need advice on making a Will I should not leave it >until it is too late. Sounds unarguable to me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 4 12:40:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:40:31 +1100 Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA09313 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:40:25 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10IN7a-000F45-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 01:40:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 01:26:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-Reply-To: <000201be6557$aa672880$7bb259c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000201be6557$aa672880$7bb259c3@default>, "magda.thain" writes > But a verbal statement is a different kettle of fish; >>> when everyone in the room knows what the player's intention is, snip > >I think Eric makes a strong case. I have a feeling that the player has >described a manovre which places > Ace on anything higher than ten and plays ten when there is no big card to >cover. I do not believe the >director should be taking away that intent from him by fixing a different >meaning on his words. >The play of the ten before seeing the next card is not the player's meaning and >nasty opponents should >not profit from some technical point in the director's mind. mt. > It is not a technical point. It is a matter of Law. If the TD will not give the Law when it is clear then he is failing as a TD. I had another one this evening. RHO leads, declarer covers and calls for a pitch (naming a card) from dummy. LHO ruffs and dummy has a higher trump. "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming it" I said. "Sorry" I said "but that is the Law". "ok Director, thank you". At least the players in the clubs where I direct (and get paid well for it) *know* that I am scrupulously fair. There is no suggestion in their minds that I have "favoUrites" which is what *any other ruling* would inevitably suggest. The playing field is clear and level in my games. What is the problem with applying the Law? I really don't understand how this thread can have drifted on for so long and so aimlessly. 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 Thu Mar 4 12:41:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:41:36 +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 MAA09328 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:41:29 +1100 Received: from modem54.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.182] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10IN8Y-0000qk-00; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 01:41:18 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Peter Hart" , Subject: Re: Re:Is this a claim? Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 01:19:32 -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 "Will the bombardier in step change to avoid showing up the rest of us!" - Parade Command, 1897 .(thought to be apocryphal or possibly bowdlerized) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I thought the Martian Numbers Game and the Labrador Flags were OK. Didn't you? > From: Peter Hart > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re:Is this a claim? > Date: 03 March 1999 16:26 > > Bravo, Laval: I have been monitoring this `channel' for several weeks > and this is the first time I have seen anyone - anyone - talk sense > about a ruling. "...the Declarer's intent was obvious..." What game - > repeat - game requires a player to play the 10 from A 10 under the King > for a losing trick, irrespective of (a) his standard of play, (b) his > lack of application, and, most importantly, (c) the interests of the > rest of the room? As TD I consider my paramount duty is to protect the > interests of the rest of the room, not the interests of one super-smart, > rapacious individual. It is called `The Pursuit of Equity' in my > organisation. Cheers, Peter. +++ Hi Peter, and welcome! I have no doubt your decisions will assist us greatly. Our big problem indeed is that there is often more than one opinion and we are not greatly skilled at picking them. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 4 12:41:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:41:37 +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 MAA09329 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:41:29 +1100 Received: from modem54.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.182] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10IN8Z-0000qk-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 01:41:19 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 01:34:25 -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 "Will the bombardier in step change to avoid showing up the rest of us!" - Parade Command, 1897 .(thought to be apocryphal or possibly bowdlerized) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww > It is said that a camel is a horse built by committee. === 'Twas God who made all creatures And saved them from the Squall, And She declared the camel was "Most heavenly of all". === From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 4 14:07:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:07:44 +1100 Received: from post-20.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 OAA09579 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:07:36 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10IOTu-0001OE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 03:07:28 +0000 Message-ID: <9RDuFvBPZf32EwOX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 02:56:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <36DD62D2.271A0881@cygnus.uwa.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <36DD62D2.271A0881@cygnus.uwa.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Hart wrote: >Bravo, Laval: I have been monitoring this `channel' for several weeks >and this is the first time I have seen anyone - anyone - talk sense >about a ruling. "...the Declarer's intent was obvious..." What game - >repeat - game requires a player to play the 10 from A 10 under the King >for a losing trick, irrespective of (a) his standard of play, (b) his >lack of application, and, most importantly, (c) the interests of the >rest of the room? As TD I consider my paramount duty is to protect the >interests of the rest of the room, not the interests of one super-smart, >rapacious individual. It is called `The Pursuit of Equity' in my >organisation. Cheers, Peter. I find this article incredibly worrying. First, the detailed answer, what game requires a player to play the ten? The answer is Bridge, of course: he *did* play the ten. But this pales into insignificance when I read the rest of the paragraph. I really think you must re-consider your duty as a TD. To totally ignore the Laws of the game to support some ill-advised notion of equity that has no basis in Law or regulation is to try to destroy this game. Your paramount duty as a TD is to apply the Laws and regulations in a fair fashion. You appear to be uninterested in this concept. How does ignoring the Laws protect the interests of the room? Perhaps you merely think you are cleverer than the people who wrote the Laws, so you can ignore them? If not, why not apply them? The reason the concept of "protecting the field" was invented was so that people who like to use the Laws to their advantage by taking matters to Directors that no reasonable human being would do had an excuse. By putting it first on your agenda you are supporting the Bridge Lawyers, and how is that good for the game? If you wish to be an adequate Director, then you should apply the Laws, reading them from the book, and applying judgement where the Laws permit it, not make up your own agenda and work to that in defiance of fairness, common sense and justice. -- 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 Mar 4 14:27:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:27:49 +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 OAA09665 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:27:43 +1100 Received: from [195.99.43.12] (helo=david-burn) by carbon with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10IOlh-0002Sz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 03:25:50 +0000 Message-ID: <199903040326540530.025EA0E6@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <36DDBCD4.67BACC22@mindspring.com> References: <36DD62D2.271A0881@cygnus.uwa.edu.au> <36DDBCD4.67BACC22@mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 03:26:54 +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 Chaos umpire sits, And by decision more embroils the fray. John Milton, "Paradise Lost" Thought I'd better get that one in before Grattan found it. Suppose declarer had A10x in hand, and a small card in the dummy, which he led. Suppose, before seeing RHO's card, he played the ten from his hand, and suppose RHO had chosen to play the king. What would your ruling (in the inconceivable event of your being asked for one) be then? If you pull a wrong card from your hand, you've played it. If you call for a wrong card from the dummy, you've also played it. Why will this principle (a) not work and (b) not solve almost all possible problems? And, since you ask, it is not a claim. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 4 20:29:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA10248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 20:29:24 +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 UAA10243 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 20:29:16 +1100 Received: from modem75.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.203] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10IURJ-0003Hp-00; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:29:09 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:26:15 -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 "Will the bombardier in step change to avoid showing up the rest of us!" - Parade Command, 1897 .(thought to be apocryphal or possibly bowdlerized) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww > From: David Burn > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? > Date: 04 March 1999 03:26 > > Chaos umpire sits, > And by decision more embroils the fray. > > John Milton, "Paradise Lost" > > Thought I'd better get that one in before Grattan found it. > ++ "Confusion is a word we have invented for an order which is not understood". [Henry Miller] ---------------------------- \x/ ----------------------------- > > If you pull a wrong card from your hand, you've played it. If you call > for a wrong card from the dummy, you've also played it. Why will this > principle (a) not work and (b) not solve almost all possible problems? > And, since you ask, it is not a claim. ++ All true. But Doubt in dusty corners lurks/And tends to cloud the mind/Can deaf who hear the spoken word/ Be to its meaning blind?++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 4 21:10:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 21:10:54 +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 VAA10322 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 21:10:49 +1100 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10IV5V-0000pC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:10:41 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990304110947.00a88990@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 11:09:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-Reply-To: References: <000201be6557$aa672880$7bb259c3@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:26 04-03-99 +0000, you wrote: >In article <000201be6557$aa672880$7bb259c3@default>, "magda.thain" > writes >> But a verbal statement is a different kettle of fish; >>>> when everyone in the room knows what the player's intention is, > >snip >> >>I think Eric makes a strong case. I have a feeling that the player has >>described a manovre which places >> Ace on anything higher than ten and plays ten when there is no big card to >>cover. I do not believe the >>director should be taking away that intent from him by fixing a different >>meaning on his words. >>The play of the ten before seeing the next card is not the player's meaning and >>nasty opponents should >>not profit from some technical point in the director's mind. mt. >> >It is not a technical point. It is a matter of Law. If the TD will not >give the Law when it is clear then he is failing as a TD. I had another >one this evening. RHO leads, declarer covers and calls for a pitch >(naming a card) from dummy. LHO ruffs and dummy has a higher trump. >"Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming it" I said. "Sorry" I said >"but that is the Law". "ok Director, thank you". At least the players in >the clubs where I direct (and get paid well for it) May i ask a delicate question then. What do you get for leading a tournament (or club evening) in the UK? In holland the NBB pays between 25 and 38$ (depending on skill) for a night. Usually clubs pay about 50$ a night for a TD are these fees normal for professinal TD's in other countries? regards, anton *know* that I am >scrupulously fair. > >There is no suggestion in their minds that I have "favoUrites" which is >what *any other ruling* would inevitably suggest. The playing field is >clear and level in my games. > >What is the problem with applying the Law? I really don't understand >how this thread can have drifted on for so long and so aimlessly. > >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 > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 4 22:55:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:55:20 +1100 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA10519 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:55:12 +1100 Received: from pb3s04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.180] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10IWiX-0002h9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:55:05 +0000 Message-ID: <001401be6635$3c0653a0$b48493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:49:45 -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 EndicottGrattan >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > >"Will the bombardier in step change to avoid >showing up the rest of us!" > - Parade Command, 1897 > .(thought to be apocryphal or > possibly bowdlerized) >wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww > >> From: David Burn >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: Is this a claim? >> Date: 04 March 1999 03:26 >> >> Chaos umpire sits, >> And by decision more embroils the fray. >> >> John Milton, "Paradise Lost" >> >> Thought I'd better get that one in before Grattan found it. >> >++ "Confusion is a word we have invented for an order >which is not understood". [Henry Miller] >---------------------------- \x/ ----------------------------- >> >> If you pull a wrong card from your hand, you've played it. If you call >> for a wrong card from the dummy, you've also played it. Why will this >> principle (a) not work and (b) not solve almost all possible problems? >> And, since you ask, it is not a claim. > >++ All true. But Doubt in dusty corners lurks/And tends to cloud the >mind/Can deaf who hear the spoken word/ Be to its meaning blind?++ >~ Grattan ~ > #### To expand my thoughts a little. I believe all those cemented into a view the Ancients propounded should try to clear their minds for a moment and wash the subject again. It appears to me very dubious to suggest that "finesse the ten" is the same instruction as "play the ten", or more simply "the ten". There is validity in the argument that a finesse is a bridge device or manoeuvre and carries a meaning other than simply "play the ten". I would say that the player intends, and that his words do mean, that dummy should play the ten on any card lower than the ten and I do not consider it right for people to say that the laws impose the play of the ten upon him in all circumstances. The laws leave it to the director to determine the meaning of declarer's words and I think there is error in an assertion that "finesse the ten" means "play the ten" even when it no longer constitutes a finesse to do so. The language of bridge has given to 'finesse' a technical meaning, and we should honour it. You may quote me, I do! ~ Grattan ~ #### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 5 02:05:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 02:05:53 +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 CAA13582 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 02:05:46 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-218.uunet.be [194.7.9.218]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA28543 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:05:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36DE706D.9CAA6234@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 12:37:17 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Only in charity tournaments ... References: <36DA53A0.BF168661@village.uunet.be> <36DA9831.1CC70097@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl> <36DAAF92.4F1D3F44@village.uunet.be> <36DD6492.285918B1@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have recently received another suggestion about how to deal with this problem. Wait for the next board (L64B4/5) in order to not interfere in play. Then apply L64C, rectifying the tricks. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 5 04:42:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA14056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 04:42:06 +1100 Received: from finch-post-10.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 EAA14051 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 04:41:56 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Ic7r-0001fV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 17:41:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:49:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} References: <001401be6635$3c0653a0$b48493c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001401be6635$3c0653a0$b48493c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >#### To expand my thoughts a little. I believe all those cemented >into a view the Ancients propounded should try to clear their minds >for a moment and wash the subject again. It appears to me very >dubious to suggest that "finesse the ten" is the same instruction >as "play the ten", or more simply "the ten". There is validity in the >argument that a finesse is a bridge device or manoeuvre and >carries a meaning other than simply "play the ten". I would say >that the player intends, and that his words do mean, that dummy >should play the ten on any card lower than the ten and I do not >consider it right for people to say that the laws impose the play of >the ten upon him in all circumstances. The laws leave it to the >director to determine the meaning of declarer's words and I think >there is error in an assertion that "finesse the ten" means "play the >ten" even when it no longer constitutes a finesse to do so. The >language of bridge has given to 'finesse' a technical meaning, >and we should honour it. You may quote me, I do! ~ Grattan ~ >#### The reason that David B has just asked the same question that I asked several articles back is because the question that started this thread was whether declarer was forced to play the ten when he had called for the ten. It might be of interest, in fact it probably is of interest, to consider other questions not included in the original question, but the trouble with such questions is that they take the thread off into murky waters where people propound different questions, answer ones not asked, answer the wrong ones, and so on. The original question had no mention of the word "finesse". declarer called for the ten, playing out of turn. He has played a card. You wouldn't have to call the TD if David B or I was the declarer: having done such a damfool thing we would both expect LHO to put his king on it and smile at our discomfiture. Why ever not? If declarer said "Finesse the ten"? Well, he didn't. So, while it is not unreasonable to answer that question, it should **not** be answered **as though** it was the original question, and several people seem to be discussing it as though it were. In my view, if he said finesse the ten, then declarer has some case, since he has issued an impossible instruction to his partner. But he has still deliberately played out of turn, and I find the degree of sympathy offered by this list to a declarer who has done an idiocy to be out of all proportion with the game as we would wish it to be played. I see no reason why players should play out of turn, and people complain because their opponents would like a ruling. Do you, each one of you, ignore plays out of turn? However, if he does say "finesse the ten" the Laws do not appear to cover it. They do not give you a right to withdraw a card played out of turn: once declarer names a card then it is played, whether in or out of turn: however, the clause "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" complicates life. He does say "the ten", and the rest of his designation cannot be determined, since LHO should wait till he sees the card played before choosing his own. So I rule the ten *is* played. Suppose he says "finesse"? Now I rule that he has stated an intent rather than played a card, so I do not rule any card as played. No card is played by declarer. What happens if you play in a "friendly" game? Declarer accepts any punishment in a friendly manner, realising it is all his fault. He should, *of course*, be the first to call the TD to save his opponents embarrassment. No "friendly" declarer wishes to take advantage of his own stupidity to the detriment of the opponents. Would you? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 5 05:09:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 05:09:56 +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 FAA14127 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 05:09:49 +1100 Received: from mmsinet1.mms-inc.com ([207.227.69.130] helo=pcmjn) by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10IcYn-000443-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:09:25 -0500 X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 13:09:01 +0000 To: From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_11935412==_.ALT" Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_11935412==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:32 PM 3/3/99 , Grattan wrote: >Grattan >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > >"Every body continues in its state of rest, or of >uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled >to change that state by forces impressed upon it." > - Laws of Motion 1687 >(or a wrong line?) >wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww > >> From: Kooijman, A. >> To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' >> Subject: RE: Is this a claim? >> Date: 25 February 1999 12:51 >> > >-------------------- \x/ ------------------- >> >> 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? > > +++ Suddenly I got interested in meanings of directions by declarer >to dummy. > I am not sure who quoted the AHD, you Eric? I have quoted the >OED; they are significantly apart in their definition of 'finesse'. When >American English definitions differ from English English definitions >I favour the solution of giving an authoritative bridge definition from >at least Zonal level. Having consulted a third dictionary and found yet >another statement, I am getting more convinced. In the meantime the >Director on the spot has to decide what instruction the player gives >in statements of various kinds incorporating the word 'finesse'. >~ Grattan ~ > [Longman's dictionary : "finesse" - the withholding of one's highest >card in the hope that a lower card will take the trick because the only >opposing higher card is in the hand of an opponent *who has already >played* - oops, unexecutable instruction when the player has not > played a card??! This dictionary has it so. Consulting dictionaries >has all the excitements of consulting lawyers, but not quite the peso >power.] +++ > Exactly -- The instruction "finesse" given to dummy before LHO plays requires that dummy wait until the condition "who has already played" becomes true and then play accordingly. John S. Nichols --=====================_11935412==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 11:32 PM 3/3/99 , Grattan wrote:
>Grattan<Hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk>
>Secretary, WBF Laws Committee
>
>"Every body continues in its state of rest, or of
>uniform motion in a right line, unless it  is compelled
>to change that state by forces impressed upon it."
>                        - Laws of Motion 1687
>(or a wrong line?)
>wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
>                     
>> From: Kooijman, A. <A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL>
>> To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'
>> Subject: RE: Is this a claim?
>> Date: 25 February 1999 12:51
>> >
>--------------------   \x/   -------------------
>>
>> 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?
>
>     +++ Suddenly I got interested in meanings of directions by declarer
>to dummy.
>     I am not sure who quoted the AHD, you Eric?  I have quoted the
>OED; they are significantly apart in their definition of 'finesse'. When
>American English definitions differ from English English definitions
>I favour the solution of giving an authoritative bridge definition from
>at least Zonal level. Having consulted a third dictionary and found yet
>another statement, I am getting more convinced. In the meantime the
>Director on the spot has to decide what instruction the player gives
>in statements of various kinds incorporating the word 'finesse'. 
>~ Grattan ~
>  [Longman's dictionary : "finesse" - the withholding of one's highest
>card in the hope that a lower card will take the trick because the only
>opposing higher card is in the hand of an opponent *who has already
>played* - oops, unexecutable instruction when the player has not
> played a card??!  This dictionary has it so. Consulting dictionaries
>has all the excitements of consulting lawyers, but not quite the peso
>power.] +++
>

Exactly -- The instruction "finesse" given to dummy before LHO plays requires that dummy wait until the condition "who has already played" becomes true and then play accordingly.


John S. Nichols
--=====================_11935412==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 5 11:55:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA15025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:55:33 +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 LAA15020 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:55:22 +1100 Received: from pfbs06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.252] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10IitX-0005gB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 00:55:15 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 01:01:44 -0000 Message-ID: <01be66a3$bd0e83a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reading David's posting, and his reference to the original question prompted me to look back (not in anger) to re-read the original. I realised that I had considered the problem from the hand record down, and had overlooked the first sentence. I suspect that others may have done the same. The statement that declarer made "I will play 10 if you play small, Ace if you put K". viewed on it's own, presents a different scenario, if one has not realised that he first said "Ten" I should have remembered that I was taught in school, to always read the question properly ! Anne -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, March 04, 1999 7:08 PM Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply>>#### with much snipped. > > The reason that David B has just asked the same question that I asked >several articles back is because the question that started this thread >was whether declarer was forced to play the ten when he had called for >the ten. It might be of interest, in fact it probably is of interest, >to consider other questions not included in the original question, but >the trouble with such questions is that they take the thread off into >murky waters where people propound different questions, answer ones not >asked, answer the wrong ones, and so on. > > The original question had no mention of the word "finesse". declarer >called for the ten, playing out of turn. He has played a card. You >wouldn't have to call the TD if David B or I was the declarer: having >done such a damfool thing we would both expect LHO to put his king on it >and smile at our discomfiture. Why ever not? >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 5 12:06:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:06:31 +1100 Received: from post-20.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 MAA15042 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:06:25 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Ij47-0002yL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 01:06:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 18:15:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Only in charity tournaments ... References: <36DA53A0.BF168661@village.uunet.be> <36DA9831.1CC70097@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl> <36DAAF92.4F1D3F44@village.uunet.be> <36DD6492.285918B1@internet-zahav.net> <36DE706D.9CAA6234@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36DE706D.9CAA6234@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 recently received another suggestion about how to >deal with this problem. > >Wait for the next board (L64B4/5) in order to not interfere >in play. > >Then apply L64C, rectifying the tricks. > I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but you have sucked me in! Either act like a TD, or don't. Take your pick. But this is dreadful. This is neither. -- 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 Mar 6 01:12:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 01:12:49 +1100 Received: from gatekeeper2.agro.nl (gatekeeper2.agro.nl [145.12.10.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA18969 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 01:12:40 +1100 Received: from mgate.nic.agro.nl (agro01.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.12]) by gatekeeper2.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/5Jun1998) with ESMTP id PAA02426 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 15:12:31 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01J8H4Q77KWC00EL50@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 15:11:47 +0100 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 05 Mar 1999 15:15:15 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 15:12:02 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C14F@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 Interesting issue, which gets not enough attention. I still don't know what to do with an artificial score in a cross-imp event with n results. What I feel is that n*3 is too much, but we do not have enough data in the Netherlands to analyse thoroughly. From some data I got the impression that 2*n is better (equal to the score of the winning pair, which is similar to the score for the winning pair in a pairs event (60%)). My impression is that topplayers do not like butler because they consider it not to be fair. In a recent discussion I became aware of an approach followed in Australia and Poland, both different but with the same effect, in which Steve's suggestion is more or less followed. Throw out many scores and use the average of a minority of middle scores (which could be described as approaching the par-score). Now you are suddenly playing with and against a top-pair, no incidental slams or junior -1400 anymore. I think that the WBF should pay more attention to results in all kinds of events and take an advisors role. I would like to learn from your experiences. (another example: we play swiss teams events in the Bermuda/Venice cup and Olympiad teams now. Does it make sense to play the same boards in all matches (which is a burden to the organization and slows down the time schedule)? We do so in the final stage at the top-tables. And what about experiences with swiss pairs and the best way to score?) ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa183.harvard.edu] Verzonden: zondag 28 februari 1999 11:53 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games > 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 Sat Mar 6 05:41:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA19787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 05:41:47 +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 FAA19782 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 05:41:41 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n57.san.rr.com [204.210.49.87]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA21409 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:41:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903051841.KAA21409@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:40:13 -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: Kooijman, A. > > > 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. I was thinking of larger games. Those who like Butler for small games should consider discarding a portion of those extreme scores, instead of two entire scores (or none). Question: Would it be illogical to discard only unique scores when using Butler? It seems odd to discard a 400 and a 460 when those scores have the same frequency as a 430. > Actually, I'd be even > more tempted to IMP against the median score. That's just as > reasonable and much simpler. I marvel at the extreme precision demanded of matchpoint scoring compared to IMP-Pairs, such as the handling of a missing result. When I suggested inserting a median result for matchpointing purposes when there is an artificial score, everyone jumped on me: "No, no, that's invalid! You must give the top score 11.96 matchpoints, not 12!" Another question: Is overall ranking customary in IMP-Pairs run as a straight Mitchell? If so, is it appropriate? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 6 06:47:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 06:47:17 +1100 Received: from finch-post-10.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 GAA19977 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 06:47:10 +1100 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10J0Yp-0006DS-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 19:47:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 18:38:46 +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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C14F@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C14F@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >And what about >experiences with swiss pairs and the best way to score?) That's a fairly all-embracing question! In England/Wales we run many Swiss Pairs events, some Current Match Assignments, some Match in Arrears. If we run a Current Match Assignments one then we usually collect some of the scores as we go along. The time scale is generally that playing eight board rounds and making up the boards at the table it takes about 1.15 to 1.20 to play a round. Assignments are posted on the wall, and it is a bit chaotic at the start of rounds. If we run a Match in Arrears one then we collect all the scores at the end of the round. The time scale is generally that playing eight board rounds and making up the boards at the table it takes about 1.05 to 1.10 to play a round. Assignments are given to the players, and many players are in their places for the next round while some boards from the last round are still being played. We generally play seven or eight board rounds. If made up at the table, then each table makes up two boards, so they either play eight of the ten boards in play for that round, or seven from nine. Sometimes the organisers prepare the boards in advance. Then they play all seven or all eight, and rounds tend to be five minutes quicker. Which is better? Well, CMA is fairer: the leading two pairs are always playing each other [subject to not having played each other previously]. Since we put people in table order, you can always tell how you are doing from where you are in the room [subject to the odd stationary table for infirmities]. MiA is faster, and less messy between rounds. It is also safer: there is a little more time to recover if something goes wrong. For historical reasons, Swiss Pairs in the North of England and the South- West is generally CMA, elsewhere is usually MiA. Whatever the type, scores are calculated using Matchpoints within a section [up to about sixty tables or so] and then converted to Victory Points on a 20 VP scale. Swiss Pairs has taken over in England as the most popular type of Bridge. I can answer any further questions that you wish. As a TD, I have more experience running CMA Swiss Pairs than any other form of the game. It is possible that I am the most experienced English TD at this form as well. For the right price I am willing to run a Swiss Pairs anywhere in the world. If you look at my Lawspage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uklws_menu.htm#orgbrg you will find two simple articles on running Swiss Pairs. Unfortunately, there is meant to be a third article on more advanced topics but I have not written it yet! -- 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 Mar 6 06:52:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 06:52:16 +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 GAA20001 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 06:52:11 +1100 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n57.san.rr.com [204.210.49.87]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA27264 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:52:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903051952.LAA27264@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:52:07 -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 Ton Kooijman wrote: > I still don't know what > to do with an artificial score in a cross-imp event with n results. What I > feel is that n*3 is too much, but we do not have enough data in the > Netherlands to analyse thoroughly. From some data I got the impression that > 2*n is better (equal to the score of the winning pair, which is similar to > the score for the winning pair in a pairs event (60%)). Here is the rule for the 1998 Cavendish Invitational IMP-Pairs: 14. Each board will be scored by International Match Points as follows: each pair's score will be compared with every other score achieved by a pair in the same direction. The maximum swing on any single comparison will be 17 IMPs. The total IMPs won and lost in the 29 comparisons will be the score for the board. (Thus, top on a board is +459 IMPs and bottom is -459 IMPs). Average-plus and average-minus scores will be calculated according to a pre-determined formula, as will the adjustment for a fouled board. In the event a wrong board (or boards) is played during a round, both pairs will receive an average-minus for each board played. Pairs who have been denied the opportunity to play a board (or boards) will receive average-plus. Anyone know what the "predetermined formula" is? Hamman-Nickel won with 3209 imps, which when averaged is something like 2.2+ imps per board. From what I've seen, averaging 2 imps per board is enough to place pretty high in IMP-Pairs, and comparing it with 60% for matchpoints seems about right. In the Caveendish 60 pairs played four sessions of 24 boards and one of 22 boards, all-play-all. Anyone know the movements that were used to accomplished this? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 6 08:07:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 08:07:00 +1100 Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA20216 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 08:06:54 +1100 Received: from default ([195.89.178.122]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 5733000 ; Fri, 05 Mar 1999 20:56:49 -0000 Message-ID: <003001be674b$83468e80$7ab259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 21:00:40 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk cookbury@purplenet.co.uk I believe Mr Endicott drew attention to this in an earlier message. mt -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 04 March 1999 19:34 Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} >Grattan Endicott wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > The original question had no mention of the word "finesse". From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 6 08:52:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 08:52:07 +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 IAA20313 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 08:52:00 +1100 Received: from modem17.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.17] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10J2Vd-0000sC-00; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 21:51:53 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Only in charity tournaments ... Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 21:12:51 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "Will the bombardier in step change to avoid showing up the rest of us!" - Parade Command, 1897 .(thought to be apocryphal or possibly bowdlerized) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Only in charity tournaments ... > Date: 04 March 1999 11:37 > > I have recently received another suggestion about how to > deal with this problem. > > Wait for the next board (L64B4/5) in order to not interfere > in play. > > Then apply L64C, rectifying the tricks. > +++ I am glad it was someone else's suggestion. A little sorry you mentioned it. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 6 08:52:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 08:52:08 +1100 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA20314 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 08:52:01 +1100 Received: from modem17.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.17] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10J2Ve-0000sC-00; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 21:51:55 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 21:42:14 -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 "Will the bombardier in step change to avoid showing up the rest of us!" - Parade Command, 1897 .(thought to be apocryphal or possibly bowdlerized) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww > From: Anne Jones > To: BLML > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} > Date: 05 March 1999 01:01 > > Reading David's posting, and his reference to the original question prompted > me to look back (not in anger) to re-read the original. > I realised that I had considered the problem from the hand record down, and > had overlooked the first sentence. > I suspect that others may have done the same. +++ But not I. I had already agreed that in Laval Dubreuil's example finesse was not an issue. This has developed as an intertwined subject as the thread has extended. "Finesse the ten " is, in my opinion, a conditional instruction, in line with your alternative wording (if the player said "On a low card play the ten" I presume David would decide the named card was played out of turn). ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 6 12:46:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 12:46:00 +1100 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA20730 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 12:45:53 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10J69y-000LOi-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 01:45:47 +0000 Message-ID: <4ipn6lB4gI42Ewk4@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 01:43:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games In-Reply-To: <199903051952.LAA27264@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199903051952.LAA27264@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes snip > >Anyone know what the "predetermined formula" is? > >Hamman-Nickel won with 3209 imps, which when averaged is something >like 2.2+ imps per board. From what I've seen, averaging 2 imps per >board is enough to place pretty high in IMP-Pairs, and comparing it >with 60% for matchpoints seems about right. > At the YC we have data going back 20 years comparing the frequency of butler scores with match point scores. We are *certain* that the correct factor for 24 boards is 4.25 imps = 1%. So for 28 boards it would be 7/6x4.25 = 1% etc. The frequency correlation is amazing right up through 75% scores (149 imps Butler over 28 boards). This leads to what is an appropriate imp fine in Butler. It is clear that a 10% fine at match points is about 0.4% of your overall, which leads to 0.4 * 4.25 or a tad less than 2 imps. The EBU standard fine is 2 imps in Butler, so it seems right to me. >In the Caveendish 60 pairs played four sessions of 24 boards and >one of 22 boards, all-play-all. Anyone know the movements that were >used to accomplished this? > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > > > -- 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 Mar 6 12:46:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 12:46:00 +1100 Received: from finch-post-10.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 MAA20729 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 12:45:53 +1100 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10J69y-00044j-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 01:45:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 01:35:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games In-Reply-To: <199903051841.KAA21409@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199903051841.KAA21409@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >Another question: Is overall ranking customary in IMP-Pairs run as >a straight Mitchell? If so, is it appropriate? > oh dear! The YC runs imp pairs once a week and we arrow switch to the same schedule as for matchpoints. David Martin and I both think this is unsound; we think it should be more arrow switches, but neither of us has found the time to do the research. However we've done it for 30 years and the customers expect it. It's certainly inappropriate without arrow switches. Cheers John >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > > > -- 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 Mar 6 13:36:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 13:36:38 +1100 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA20824 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 13:36:32 +1100 Received: from modem6.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.134] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10J6x0-0005Mg-00; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 02:36:26 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "magda.thain" , Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 02:34:56 -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: magda.thain > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} > Date: 05 March 1999 21:00 > > cookbury@purplenet.co.uk > > I believe Mr Endicott drew attention to --\x/-- gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg 'Mr' Your mother told you not to wrate In language over-intimate? Then rustic speech, just faintly crude Though never seen as being rude, Is something your not into quate? eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 6 17:43:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA21088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:43:33 +1100 Received: from svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net ([194.152.65.204]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA21083 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:43:26 +1100 Received: from modem68.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.196] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10JAni-00080x-00; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 06:43:07 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 06:41:34 -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 "It is always thus, impelled by a state of mind which is destined not to last, that we make our irrevocable decisions." - Marcel Proust. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} > Date: 04 March 1999 13:49 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >#### To expand my thoughts a little. I believe -------------- \x/ -------------- DWS: > However, if he does say "finesse the ten" the Laws do not appear to > cover it. They do not give you a right to withdraw a card played out of > turn: once declarer names a card then it is played, whether in or out of > turn: however, the clause "except when declarer's different intention is > incontrovertible" complicates life. He does say "the ten", and the rest > of his designation cannot be determined, since LHO should wait till he > sees the card played before choosing his own. So I rule the ten *is* > played. ----------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- ++++ Ah, David, do not mislead yourself. You have ruled that under Law 45C4(a) by saying "finesse the ten" the player has designated the ten as "the card he proposes to play" absolutely, unconditionally. If this is not the case you have no ground for declaring the ten a played card. You have the right to do this and probably should if you are in doubt as to the meaning of 'finesse', but I find a condition in the words and consider your ruling should not stand on appeal. . ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 6 18:10:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA21121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 18:10:19 +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 SAA21116 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 18:10:13 +1100 Received: from modem81.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.209] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10JBDp-0008P7-00; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 07:10:05 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 07:07:35 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "It is always thus, impelled by a state of mind which is destined not to last, that we make our irrevocable decisions." - Marcel Proust. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ---------- > From: Grattan > To: David Stevenson ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} > Date: 06 March 1999 06:41 > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > "It is always thus, impelled by a state of > mind which is destined not to last, that > we make our irrevocable decisions." > - Marcel Proust. > mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm > > > From: David Stevenson > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} > > Date: 04 March 1999 13:49 > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > >#### To expand my thoughts a little. I believe > -------------- \x/ -------------- > DWS: > > However, if he does say "finesse the ten" the Laws do not appear to > > cover it. They do not give you a right to withdraw a card played out of > > turn: once declarer names a card then it is played, whether in or out of > > turn: however, the clause "except when declarer's different intention is > > incontrovertible" complicates life. He does say "the ten", and the rest > > of his designation cannot be determined, since LHO should wait till he > > sees the card played before choosing his own. So I rule the ten *is* > > played. > ----------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- > ++++ Ah, David, do not mislead yourself. You have ruled that under > Law 45C4(a) by saying "finesse the ten" the player has designated the > ten as "the card he proposes to play" absolutely, unconditionally. If > this is not the case you have no ground for declaring the ten a played > card. You have the right to do this and probably should if you are > in doubt as to the meaning of 'finesse', but I find a condition in the > words and consider your ruling should not stand on appeal. > .. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ #### Addendum. Perhaps I should add that were I the on-site referee my action would be to note that as Director you had ruled on the effect of the relevant Law and that on site I would loyally adhere to your ruling. I would add that nevertheless I disagreed with your interpretation of the law, considered that the player's words incorporated a condition for which your ruling did not allow, and recommended that the matter be appealed to the national authority if you were not minded to revise the ruling. ~G~ #### From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 6 21:25:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 21:25:54 +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 VAA21383 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 21:25:47 +1100 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-139.uunet.be [194.7.14.139]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA01965 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 11:25:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36E0FF84.F1C82734@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 11:12:20 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: 60 pairs, 4 sessions (was: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games) References: <199903051952.LAA27264@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: > > > In the Caveendish 60 pairs played four sessions of 24 boards and > one of 22 boards, all-play-all. Anyone know the movements that were > used to accomplished this? > This is easy. You want 5 sessions ? Then divide the field in 5 groups. In every session, 2 groups play another group and the 5th play among themselves. So each pair has 4 12 round Mitchell sessions and 1 11 round Howell. Of course not all pairs have their 11 round session at the same time. I am certain that boards 23-24, which will be played 24 times each, must have some correction applied to in order to make them comparable to boards 1-22, which have 30 results each. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 7 02:17:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 02:17:37 +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 CAA24306 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 02:17:30 +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 QAA11870; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 16:16:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA22214; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 16:16:54 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 16:16:53 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Herman De Wael cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 60 pairs, 4 sessions (was: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games) In-Reply-To: <36E0FF84.F1C82734@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > In the Caveendish 60 pairs played four sessions of 24 boards and > > one of 22 boards, all-play-all. Anyone know the movements that were > > used to accomplished this? > So each pair has 4 12 round Mitchell sessions and 1 11 round > Howell. > > Of course not all pairs have their 11 round session at the > same time. I miight be wrong here, but I thought that the Cavendish uses a Howell, played as a Barometer event, for security reasons. 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 Sun Mar 7 05:11:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 05:11:33 +1000 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 FAA24809 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 05:11:25 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n57.san.rr.com [204.210.49.87]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA04925; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 11:11:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903061911.LAA04925@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , "Herman De Wael" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: 60 pairs, 4 sessions (was: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 11:10:42 -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 > Henk Uijterwaal > > On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > > > > In the Caveendish 60 pairs played four sessions of 24 boards and > > > one of 22 boards, all-play-all. Anyone know the movements that were > > > used to accomplished this? > > > So each pair has 4 12 round Mitchell sessions and 1 11 round > > Howell. > > > > Of course not all pairs have their 11 round session at the > > same time. > I might be wrong here, but I thought that the Cavendish uses a Howell, > played as a Barometer event, for security reasons. Yes, it was Barometer, and everyone played 12 rounds the first four sessions, 11 the second. I don't know why they didn't describe the movement to be used in the Cavendish Rules. At least, I couldn't find them on the Bridge Plaza web site. The subject isn't right, it's 60 pairs, 5 sessions. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 7 05:15:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 05:15:11 +1000 Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA24828 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 05:15:03 +1000 Received: from s_foxy (foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru [194.190.176.114]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.7/Dmiter-4.1) with SMTP id WAA08104; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:12:34 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <011e01be6805$3d9bd2e0$72b0bec2@s_foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:11:53 +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 WW91IGNhbiByZWFkIGFib3V0IGJhbGFuY2UgYW5kIGFycm93IHN3aXRjaGluZyBpbiBwYWlyIHRv dXJuYW1lbnRzIGluIHRoZSBib29rICJCcmlkZ2UgTW92ZW1lbnRzIChGYWlyIGFwcHJvYWNoKSIg YnkgSGFsbGVuLCBIYW5zZW4gYW5kIEphbm5lcnN0ZW4uDQoNClNlcnRnZWkgTGl0dmFrLA0KQ2hp ZWYgVEQgb2YgUkJMLg0KDQpKb2huIChNYWREb2cpIFByb2JzdCA8am9obkBwcm9ic3QuZGVtb24u Y28udWs+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+SW4gYXJ0aWNsZSA8MTk5OTAzMDUxODQxLktBQTIxNDA5QHByb3h5 YjEtYXRtLnNhbi5yci5jb20+LCAiTWFydmluIEwuDQo+RnJlbmNoIiA8bWZyZW5jaDFAc2FuLnJy LmNvbT4gd3JpdGVzDQo+PkFub3RoZXIgcXVlc3Rpb246IElzIG92ZXJhbGwgcmFua2luZyBjdXN0 b21hcnkgaW4gSU1QLVBhaXJzIHJ1biBhcw0KPj5hIHN0cmFpZ2h0IE1pdGNoZWxsPyBJZiBzbywg aXMgaXQgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGU/DQo+Pg0KPm9oIGRlYXIhICBUaGUgWUMgcnVucyBpbXAgcGFpcnMg b25jZSBhIHdlZWsgYW5kIHdlIGFycm93IHN3aXRjaCB0byB0aGUNCj5zYW1lIHNjaGVkdWxlIGFz IGZvciBtYXRjaHBvaW50cy4gRGF2aWQgTWFydGluIGFuZCBJIGJvdGggdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBpcw0K PnVuc291bmQ7IHdlIHRoaW5rIGl0IHNob3VsZCBiZSBtb3JlIGFycm93IHN3aXRjaGVzLCBidXQg bmVpdGhlciBvZiB1cw0KPmhhcyBmb3VuZCB0aGUgdGltZSB0byBkbyB0aGUgcmVzZWFyY2guICBI b3dldmVyIHdlJ3ZlIGRvbmUgaXQgZm9yIDMwDQo+eWVhcnMgYW5kIHRoZSBjdXN0b21lcnMgZXhw ZWN0IGl0LiAgDQoNCj5JdCdzIGNlcnRhaW5seSBpbmFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHdpdGhvdXQgYXJyb3cg c3dpdGNoZXMuICAgICBDaGVlcnMgSm9obg0KPg0KPg0KPj5NYXJ2IChNYXJ2aW4gTC4gRnJlbmNo LCBtbGZyZW5jaEB3cml0ZW1lLmNvbSkNCj4+DQo+LS0gDQo+Sm9obiAoTWFkRG9nKSBQcm9ic3R8 ICAgL3xfICAgIEZGQiAzMjY4NTcyfCsgcGhvbmUgJiBmYXggOjE4MSA5ODAgNDk0Nw0KPjQ1MSBN aWxlIEVuZCBSb2FkICAgfCAgLyAgQFxfXy5BQ0JMNzc5NTU1NnxpY3EgMTA4MTA3OTgsICBPS2Ig Q2hpZW5Gb3UNCj5Mb25kb24gRTMgNFBBICAgICAgIHwgL1wgICAgX18pRUJVIEwwMTg4Mjl8ZS1t IGpvaG5AcHJvYnN0LmRlbW9uLmNvLnVrDQo+KzQ0LSgwKTE4MSA5ODMgNTgxOCB8L1w6XCAgLy0t ICAgICAgICAgICAgfFNpdGUgd3d3LnByb2JzdC5kZW1vbi5jby51aw0KPg0K From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 7 16:46:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA25795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:46:20 +1000 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA25790 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:46:13 +1000 Received: from modem114.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.242] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10JXKB-0003jn-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 06:46:08 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: DWS etc. Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 06:42:41 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "Many a young man has followed a beautiful head of hair to catch up with an old battleaxe of a face" ( - the late Laura Halewood once in middle age upon being complimented on the condition of her hair.) [more recently expressed: 'any woman who turns her back on you thinks her face not the handsomest thing about her]. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv DWS is probably directing, may be playing, this week-end (Ranked Pairs, I think) so expect a scuttle of messages Sunday evening and night. ~ G ~. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 7 21:55:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA26077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 21:55:23 +1000 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 VAA26070 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 21:55:16 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-83.uunet.be [194.7.9.83]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA17038 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 12:55:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36E25C9D.46765A46@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 12:01:49 +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: 60 pairs, 4 sessions (was: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games) References: <199903061911.LAA04925@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: > > > Henk Uijterwaal > > > > > I might be wrong here, but I thought that the Cavendish uses a > Howell, > > played as a Barometer event, for security reasons. > > Yes, it was Barometer, and everyone played 12 rounds the first four > sessions, 11 the second. I don't know why they didn't describe the > movement to be used in the Cavendish Rules. At least, I couldn't > find them on the Bridge Plaza web site. > > The subject isn't right, it's 60 pairs, 5 sessions. > Yep, typo. But actually, if it is Barometer, the number of sessions is not important. You can stop a barometer at any moment. So it's actually a 1-session, 59 rounds (or 59-session) Barometer Howell. Even easier. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 7 23:07:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 23:07:09 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA26256 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 23:07:02 +1000 Received: from p7es03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.127] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10JdGh-00058w-00; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 13:06:56 +0000 Message-ID: <000801be689a$c23a3740$7f8393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Is this a claim? Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 12:59:54 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott >There is no suggestion in their minds that I have "favoUrites" which is >what *any other ruling* would inevitably suggest. The playing field is >clear and level in my games. ++ Self assessment? 'How I like to be liked, and what I do to be liked!' as Charles Lamb wrote. > >What is the problem with applying the Law? I really don't understand >how this thread can have drifted on for so long and so aimlessly. #Not aimlessly, altogether; I am encouraging people to think - instead of mouthing old songs. ~ GE ~# From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 05:16:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 05:16:58 +1000 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 FAA29482 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 05:16:50 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n57.san.rr.com [204.210.49.87]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA19406 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 11:16:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903071916.LAA19406@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: 60 pairs, 4 sessions (was: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 11:16:40 -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 DE WAEL wrote: > But actually, if it is Barometer, the number of sessions is > not important. You can stop a barometer at any moment. > > So it's actually a 1-session, 59 rounds (or 59-session) > Barometer Howell.> Thanks, I should have realized that a Barometer could be run as one big 30-table Howell. So that makes it a perfectly fair game, all play all and all compare an equal number of times with all? I dislike Barometer games in general, believing that one of the skills required for duplicate bridge is the ability to estimate one's game during its progress. Probably, however, the standings weren't revealed to the participants until a session was completed. The custom now in the U. S. is to post "one round to go" rankings in pair games. I don't even like that, as players should have to estimate what they need to score on the last round of a game. Also, this (unauthorized?) information is accessible only to those with enough between-round time to run over and look at it. I'd be interested in knowing whether this is done elsewhere. A comparison of the Cavendish rules for 1997 and 1998 as shown on Bridge Plaza is interesting, since both games involved 60 pairs: 1997 - 1. There are 60 pairs entered in this event. Each pair will play 2 boards against every other pair during the course of the two days. 3. The tournament will be played in four sessions: three sessions of 28 boards each and one session of 26 boards. [Don't know how they could squeeze 59 opponents into 55 rounds, so this must reflect a change of mind from 1. But wait, 60 pairs did participate.] [Just looked up the VuGraph results: 30 boards for the first three sessions, 28 boards for the last session, same total number of boards (118) as in 1998] 14. Each board will be scored by International Match Points as follows: each pair's score will be compared with every other score achieved by a pair in the same direction. The maximum swing on any single comparison will be 17 IMPs. The total IMPs won and lost in the 27 comparisons will be the score for the board. (Thus, top on a board is +459 IMPs and bottom is -459 IMPs). [They obviously had an original 56 pairs, then added four more and forgot to change 3. and 14.] 1998 - 1. There are 60 pairs entered in this event. Each pair will play 2 boards against every other pair during the course of the three days (118 boards total). 3. The tournament will be played in five sessions: four sessions of 24 boards each and one session of 22 boards. 14. Each board will be scored by International Match Points as follows: each pair's score will be compared with every other score achieved by a pair in the same direction. The maximum swing on any single comparison will be 17 IMPs. The total IMPs won and lost in the 29 comparisons will be the score for the board. (Thus, top on a board is +459 IMPs and bottom is -459 IMPs). [17 x 29 is 493. Obviously someone marked up the 1997 rules for 1998 and missed this change. I do not know the rationale used to arrive at the 17-imp maximum score on a board, vs the standard 24. Anybody? I'll volunteer to proofread for the Cavendish if I get all expenses. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 06:21:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 06:21:25 +1000 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 GAA29696 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 06:21:18 +1000 Received: from modem9.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.137] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Jk2t-0006vB-00; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 20:21:08 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { the question of equity} Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 09:01:45 -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 "Many a young man has followed a beautiful head of hair to catch up with an old battleaxe of a face" ( - the late Laura Halewood once in middle age upon being complimented on the condition of her hair.) [more recently expressed: 'any woman who turns her back on you thinks her face not the handsomest thing about her]. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? > Date: 04 March 1999 02:56 > > Peter Hart wrote: >As TD I consider my paramount duty is to protect the > >interests of the rest of the room, not the interests of one super-smart, > >rapacious individual. It is called `The Pursuit of Equity' in my > >organisation. Cheers, Peter. > ------------------ \x/ ------------------ > > But this pales into insignificance when I read the rest of the > paragraph. I really think you must re-consider your duty as a TD. To > totally ignore the Laws of the game to support some ill-advised notion > of equity that has no basis in Law or regulation is to try to destroy > this game. > ------------------ \x/ ------------------ ++++ The WBF Laws Committee referred to this question when it established wording in Law 92A to show that players had no rights in respect of rulings at tables other than their own. Edgar Kaplan put it to the Committee that provisions in the laws for the restoration of equity following an irregularity relate to the equity as it existed between the two sides at the table immediately prior to the irregularity and that the Director must rule on that basis without regard to the consequences for players at other tables. The Committee concurred. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 06:21:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 06:21:22 +1000 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 GAA29694 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 06:21:15 +1000 Received: from modem9.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.137] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Jk2v-0006vB-00; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 20:21:09 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Sergei Litvak" , "John Probst" , Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 09:06:21 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee "Many a young man has followed a beautiful head of hair to catch up with an old battleaxe of a face" ( - the late Laura Halewood once in middle age upon being complimented on the condition of her hair.) [more recently expressed: 'any woman who turns her back on you thinks her face not the handsomest thing about her']. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > From: Sergei Litvak > To: John Probst ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games > Date: 06 March 1999 19:11 > > You can read about balance and arrow switching in pair tournaments in the book "Bridge Movements (Fair approach)" by Hallen, Hansen and Jannersten. > ++ I have left this commercial to run++ ------------------- \x/ -------------------------- > > >It's certainly inappropriate without arrow switches. Cheers John ++ But I just want to clarify my mind on this bit. Presumably with a variable i.m.p. 'top' on each board nothing you ever do with comparisons that switch can ever* be quite 'fair' but the longer the event the less abrupt the effect. What I am asking is whether two separate fields with no arrowswitch is not the only absolute? * Might you get somewhere with a proportioned conversion on each board of imps to match points with a constant top? ~ Grattan ~ ++ > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 07:25:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 07:25:17 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA29925 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 07:25:10 +1000 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 QAA01603 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:24:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id QAA23829 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:24:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:24:51 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199903072124.QAA23829@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan" > Perhaps I should add that were I the on-site referee my action would be > to note that as Director you had ruled on the effect of the relevant Law > and that on site I would loyally adhere to your ruling. Would you consider ruling, as a question of fact under L45C4a, that the player had not "named or otherwise designated" the ten? That seems a lot simpler than appealing to the National Authority. Personally, I consider "finesse" (when there is only one finesse to be taken) and "finesse the ten" as expressing the same intention, and any ruling that treats them differently seems very strange. Otherwise, I agree with David S. (!) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 07:37:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 07:37:10 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA29983 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 07:36:59 +1000 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 QAA01007 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:36:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id QAA23846 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:36:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:36:45 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199903072136.QAA23846@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan" > Presumably > with a variable i.m.p. 'top' on each board nothing you ever do > with comparisons that switch can ever be quite 'fair' You can arrange to award the same number of IMPs to the EW line and the NS line _on every board_. (Cross-IMPs does this automatically, but other forms of scoring could be adjusted to do it too.) That seems fair to me. Of course some boards are just part-scores and don't count as much as the games and slams, but that's an inherent property of IMPs (teams too!). All you can do about that is play more boards. I'd guess the randomness in an IMP game is about equivalent to a matchpoint game with 1/3 the number of boards, but I'd love to know if anybody has real statistics. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 08:17:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:17:18 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA00241 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:17:11 +1000 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 RAA00343 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 17:17:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id RAA23885 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 17:17:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 17:17:05 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199903072217.RAA23885@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > At the YC we have data going back 20 years comparing the frequency of > butler scores with match point scores. We are *certain* that the correct > factor for 24 boards is 4.25 imps = 1%. So for 28 boards it would be > 7/6x4.25 = 1% etc. This is interesting; let me make sure I understand it. You are saying that in a 24-board game, for a particular pair to score 60% at matchpoints is just as likely as +42.5 IMPs at Butler? > The frequency correlation is amazing right up > through 75% scores (149 imps Butler over 28 boards). But 25*4.25*7/6 = 124 . Is this just a calculation error, or am I missing the point? Also, one would expect the frequency to extrapolate as the square root of the number of boards, not linearly. (A 100% game is a lot more likely in a one-board event than in a 24-board event!) > This leads to what is an appropriate imp fine in Butler. It is clear > that a 10% fine at match points is about 0.4% of your overall, which > leads to 0.4 * 4.25 or a tad less than 2 imps. The EBU standard fine is > 2 imps in Butler, so it seems right to me. > From: "Kooijman, A." > I still don't know what > to do with an artificial score in a cross-imp event with n results. What I > feel is that n*3 is too much, but we do not have enough data in the > Netherlands to analyse thoroughly. So to answer Ton's question, avg+ on a board based on this approach should be 4.25*10/24 = 1.77 IMPs ? (Or average of the rest of the boards, if greater.) This seems to conflict with L86A, but I suppose you could consider it a special scoring method under L78D. Using 2 IMPs is probably better both for simplicity and to make sure to avoid penalising the NOS. I'd have suggested an alternate approach. Calculate all the IMPs on the board in the relevant direction and then calculate the standard deviation of the IMP results. Avg+ should be mean IMPs plus 0.25 of the standard deviation. (The number 0.25 comes from the normal distribution. In cross-IMPs, the mean IMPs are always zero.) You could do the calculation either for the specific board in question, which seems fairer to me, or use a constant value based on having done the calculation for a large number of boards. A constant value will be too much on a flat board and too little on a swingy board. > In a recent discussion I became aware of an approach > followed in Australia and Poland, both different but with the same effect, > in which Steve's suggestion is more or less followed. Throw out many scores > and use the average of a minority of middle scores (which could be described > as approaching the par-score). The whole question of forming an estimate of "central tendency," as it is known in statistics, is very complicated. However, I would say that the arithmetic mean of total-point scores is probably not a good measure on which to base a datum for IMP pairs. The scores are not normally distributed, nor is the magnitude of the score proportional to the reward. Median has its problems too, but at least it is a real bridge score. (For an even number of tables, I'd define some algorithm to pick one of the two middle scores, not take an average.) For serious events, I still think cross-IMPs is the only reasonable choice. For non-serious events, whatever the players like is fine. It's interesting, though, that UK players seem to demand arrow-switching but are happy with Butler. My personal impression is that the flaws of Butler are more serious than the flaws of a non-arrow-switched, single-winner Mitchell. > From: "Marvin L. French" > Question: Would it be illogical to discard only unique scores when > using Butler? It seems odd to discard a 400 and a 460 when those > scores have the same frequency as a 430. This would be some kind of hybrid measure of central tendency, vaguely related to applying a "sigma-clipping" before averaging. It probably is as reasonable as anything else, but it doesn't address the fundamental problem of using arithmetic mean. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 08:20:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:20:45 +1000 Received: from mx2.freewwweb.com (mx2.freewwweb.com [216.70.64.28]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA00268 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:20:38 +1000 Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-111.tnt-1.hou.smartworld.net [216.214.14.111]) by mx2.freewwweb.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA2807526; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 17:24:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36E2FAC2.9B6A261C@freewwweb.com> Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 16:16:34 -0600 From: axeman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 60 pairs, 4 sessions (was: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games) References: <199903071916.LAA19406@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Now that is a neat trick Marv. My experience has been that one round to go gets posted with about one minute to play. Roger Pewick Marvin L. French wrote: > > Herman DE WAEL wrote: -s- > The custom now in the U. S. is to post "one round to go" rankings > in pair games. I don't even like that, as players should have to > estimate what they need to score on the last round of a game. Also, > this (unauthorized?) information is accessible only to those with > enough between-round time to run over and look at it. I'd be > interested in knowing whether this is done elsewhere. > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) -- It is said that a camel is a horse built by committee. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 09:07:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:07:38 +1000 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA00418 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:07:32 +1000 Received: from [195.99.46.146] (helo=david-burn) by carbon with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10Jmby-0001pI-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 23:05:30 +0000 Message-ID: <199903072306220400.160A4C3A@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.40.41.08 Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 23:06:22 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: DWS etc. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >DWS is probably directing, may be playing, this week-end (Ranked >Pairs, I think) so expect a scuttle of messages Sunday evening >and night. Not merely playing, but playing most successfully - he and his partner Ted Reveley won the EBU's Grand Masters Pairs tournament at the weekend. Well done, David. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 10:19:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:19:23 +1000 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 KAA00635 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:19:17 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n57.san.rr.com [204.210.49.87]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA26259 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:19:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903080019.QAA26259@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: 60 pairs, 4 sessions (was: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:18:36 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote, a little bit under the influence late Saturday night, although mailed on Sunday (without proofreading!): > The custom now in the U. S. is to post "one round to go" rankings > in pair games. I don't even like that, as players should have to > estimate what they need to score on the last round of a game. Also, > this (unauthorized?) information is accessible only to those with > enough between-round time to run over and look at it. I'd be > interested in knowing whether this is done elsewhere. Of course one-round-to-go is not posted until the last round is well underway, not "between-round." Players are not supposed to look at it before the last round is over, but many do so. Some TDs withhold the posting until everyone is through playing, a good idea. Thanks to Roger and others who considerately let me know privately of this goof. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 13:18:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:18:15 +1000 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (lighton@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA00957 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:18:03 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA10821 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 22:17:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 22:17:55 -0500 (EST) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: 60 pairs, 4 sessions (was: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games) In-Reply-To: <199903071916.LAA19406@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 Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Marvin L. French wrote: > > The custom now in the U. S. is to post "one round to go" rankings > in pair games. I don't even like that, as players should have to > estimate what they need to score on the last round of a game. Also, > this (unauthorized?) information is accessible only to those with > enough between-round time to run over and look at it. I'd be > interested in knowing whether this is done elsewhere. > But the information isn't available before the end of the game! In the nature of things it can't be printed until all the results have been received and entered--by which time everyone is well into the last round. Duplicate bridge is a very strange competition. It's the only competitive game/sport I can think of where you don't know how you are doing while you are playing. To me, this is undesirable. At least barometer lets you get closer to that knowledge. > -- Richard Lighton |"This particularly rapid, unintelligible patter (lighton@idt.net)| Isn't generally heard and if it is it doesn't matter!" Wood-Ridge NJ | W. S. Gilbert USA | (Ruddigore) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 13:57:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:57:22 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 NAA01018 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:57:16 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10JrA9-000BQH-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 03:57:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 03:21:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >> >#### To expand my thoughts a little. I believe >-------------- \x/ -------------- >DWS: >> However, if he does say "finesse the ten" the Laws do not appear to >> cover it. They do not give you a right to withdraw a card played out of >> turn: once declarer names a card then it is played, whether in or out of >> turn: however, the clause "except when declarer's different intention is >> incontrovertible" complicates life. He does say "the ten", and the rest >> of his designation cannot be determined, since LHO should wait till he >> sees the card played before choosing his own. So I rule the ten *is* >> played. >----------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- >++++ Ah, David, do not mislead yourself. You have ruled that under >Law 45C4(a) by saying "finesse the ten" the player has designated the >ten as "the card he proposes to play" absolutely, unconditionally. No, I haven't! I have considered an issue and made a judgement. > If >this is not the case you have no ground for declaring the ten a played >card. Oh yes? Please tell me the Law? My Law book does not seem to contain the word 'unconditionally'. > You have the right to do this and probably should if you are >in doubt as to the meaning of 'finesse', but I find a condition in the >words and consider your ruling should not stand on appeal. So? Being overturned on appeal is a fact of life, and not one to worry about. -- 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 Mar 8 13:57:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:57:36 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA01028 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:57:27 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10JrAG-000Oqf-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 03:57:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 03:27:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 60 pairs, 4 sessions (was: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games) References: <199903071916.LAA19406@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199903071916.LAA19406@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: >The custom now in the U. S. is to post "one round to go" rankings >in pair games. I don't even like that, as players should have to >estimate what they need to score on the last round of a game. Also, >this (unauthorized?) information is accessible only to those with >enough between-round time to run over and look at it. I'd be >interested in knowing whether this is done elsewhere. This custom is unknown over here. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 13:57:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:57:38 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 NAA01029 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:57:29 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10JrAJ-000BQF-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 03:57:24 +0000 Message-ID: <5K9HDNBjQ042Ewmc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 03:29:39 +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: <011e01be6805$3d9bd2e0$72b0bec2@s_foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru> In-Reply-To: <011e01be6805$3d9bd2e0$72b0bec2@s_foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvak wrote: >You can read about balance and arrow switching in pair tournaments in the book >"Bridge Movements (Fair approach)" by Hallen, Hansen and Jannersten. Oh dear! This is not my field of expertise, but I do know that the EBU view is that Hallen, Hansen and Jannersten have got it wrong! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 13:57:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:57:36 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA01027 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:57:27 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10JrAJ-000Oqg-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 03:57:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 03:55:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: DWS etc. References: <199903072306220400.160A4C3A@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199903072306220400.160A4C3A@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >>DWS is probably directing, may be playing, this week-end (Ranked >>Pairs, I think) so expect a scuttle of messages Sunday evening >>and night. >Not merely playing, but playing most successfully - he and his partner >Ted Reveley won the EBU's Grand Masters Pairs tournament at the >weekend. Well done, David. Thanks. Jeremy Dhondy was one of the pair that was most likely to take this away from us, and in the second round we defeated him in 3NT. His comment [at a later time] was "Having looked at the hands I cannot believe *anyone* would go off in 3NT!" OK, so this event is for English Grand Masters, so the TDs were surprised to get a judgement ruling [they expect none!]. I don't know the details, but there was one ruling at our table. I led a heart against 1NT. Into the AQ, typical! Declarer won, ducked a club to partner. He led a spade through declarer, so I won [jack from AJx] and knocked out the other heart winner. Declarer plays a club. I win, cash my two hearts, and now dummy is full of minor-suit tricks. So I cash my ace of spades: if partner has the king it is going off, if not then it is making. Declarer claims the rest. -- -- KQJ x K9 Qxxx -- -- xxx x Q Kx -- x Ax -- Where has declarer's small heart come from? Partner had three, dummy had two, I had four. Declarer must have revoked. So I suggest this. Dummy works it out: "Yes, you have revoked" he tells partner. It must be a revoke. Unless declarer had an unbid five-card heart suit [and the hand records prove he hadn't] he must have revoked even though no-one noticed because I have eventually played four rounds, so he should not have one left. Since this is an English event, there is no argument, and I summon the Director. We tell him the facts, there has been an established revoke, declarer did not win the revoke trick, he has now claimed [by saying "All mine"]. How do you rule? -- 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 Mar 8 14:18:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:18:15 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA01084 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:18:08 +1000 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 XAA09970 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 23:18:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 23:17:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903080417.XAA15896@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 8 Mar 1999 03:55:14 +0000) Subject: Re: DWS etc. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > -- > -- > KQJ > x K9 Qxxx > -- -- > xxx x > Q Kx -- > x > Ax > -- > It must be a revoke. Unless declarer had an unbid five-card heart > suit [and the hand records prove he hadn't] he must have revoked even > though no-one noticed because I have eventually played four rounds, so > he should not have one left. > Since this is an English event, there is no argument, and I summon the > Director. We tell him the facts, there has been an established revoke, > declarer did not win the revoke trick, he has now claimed [by saying > "All mine"]. > How do you rule? Since declarer did not state a line of play, we may assume any normal line of play, and it is normal for declarer to win the SK and cash the good heart before playing the diamonds. This line would lead to a two-trick penalty, since declarer revoked on a heart trick and is now winning a trick with a heart. -- 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 Mar 8 14:55:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:55:39 +1000 Received: from abest.com (root@mail.abest.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA01125 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:55:32 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial74.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.74]) by abest.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA09803; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 23:55:19 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199903080417.XAA15896@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 8 Mar 1999 03:55:14 +0000) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 23:55:02 -0500 To: David Grabiner From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: DWS etc. Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Since declarer did not state a line of play, we may assume any normal >line of play, and it is normal for declarer to win the SK and cash the >good heart before playing the diamonds. This line would lead to a >two-trick penalty, since declarer revoked on a heart trick and is now >winning a trick with a heart. I disagree. The claim was perfectly valid - declarer will win all the tricks on any normal line of play. The laws require us to minimize the number of tricks the declarer will take, but do not suggest that we minimize his *score*, nor, equivalently, that we maximize the penalty he will pay. I see no reason not to follow Law 70A, Contested Claims - General Objective: "In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer." I find down one perfectly equitable, with no doubtful points. Declarer must pay a penalty for the revoke he has already committed. I will not penalize him for winning a trick with a card he can no longer play, since (Law 68D) play has ceased. If his stated line won a trick with a card he could have played to the revoke trick, or if any normal line would win a trick with such a card, then I would assess a two trick penalty. AW From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 17:02:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA01326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 17:02:10 +1000 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 RAA01321 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 17:02:06 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME ([203.96.101.194]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990308070214.ZOUD682101.mta1-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:02:14 +1300 Message-ID: <36E49D1C.71FF@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 20:01:32 -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: DWS etc. References: <199903072306220400.160A4C3A@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Declarer claims the rest. > > -- > -- > KQJ > x K9 Qxxx > -- -- > xxx x > Q Kx -- > x > Ax > -- > > Where has declarer's small heart come from? Partner had three, dummy > had two, I had four. Declarer must have revoked. So I suggest this. > Dummy works it out: "Yes, you have revoked" he tells partner. > > It must be a revoke. Unless declarer had an unbid five-card heart > suit [and the hand records prove he hadn't] he must have revoked even > though no-one noticed because I have eventually played four rounds, so > he should not have one left. > > Since this is an English event, there is no argument, and I summon the > Director. We tell him the facts, there has been an established revoke, > declarer did not win the revoke trick, he has now claimed [by saying > "All mine"]. > > How do you rule? Revoke is established. Several logical lines of play. One results in two trick penalty (playing small heart) other doesn't. Presumably in this level tournament declarer will have count and should have realized he had a heart when he shouldn't therefore it is probably illogical for him to use the small heart. Mind you it could be argued that if he knew this why did he claim and show the small heart. Better to have played out keeping small heart till last and hope DWS doesn't notice !! Rule one trick penalty and await DWS's appeal. Note though that it is not the claim that is in dispute. With the current cards no line of play outside the bizarre can result in declarer taking the remaining tricks Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 17:50:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA01383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 17:50:49 +1000 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 RAA01378 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 17:50:38 +1000 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 IAA23510 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:49:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA28483 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:49:59 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:49:59 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: 60 pairs, 4 sessions (was: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >The custom now in the U. S. is to post "one round to go" rankings > >in pair games. I don't even like that, as players should have to > >estimate what they need to score on the last round of a game. Also, > >this (unauthorized?) information is accessible only to those with > >enough between-round time to run over and look at it. I'd be > >interested in knowing whether this is done elsewhere. > > This custom is unknown over here. Yes, posting "one round to go" scores doesn't happen over here either, though I have done it and people seem to like it. As a non-playing TD, I usually have people score the first rounds on travellers and use pick-up slips for the last round. If there are not too many TD calls, then I've usually entered the travellers by the time play finishes. 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 Mon Mar 8 20:24:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:24:43 +1000 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 UAA01653 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:24:35 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (q.inter.net.il [192.116.192.34]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id MAA00034; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:24:28 +0200 (IST) Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.170]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id MAA05587; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:24:25 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36E3A584.2E4DBA46@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 12:25:08 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: DWS etc. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why only this event ?????? Dany Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > > "Many a young man has followed a beautiful head > of hair to catch up with an old battleaxe of a face" > ( - the late Laura Halewood once in middle age > upon being complimented on the condition of her hair.) > > [more recently expressed: 'any woman who turns her back on you > thinks her face not the handsomest thing about her]. > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > DWS is probably directing, may be playing, this week-end (Ranked > Pairs, I think) so expect a scuttle of messages Sunday evening > and night. ~ G ~. > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 20:24:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:24:38 +1000 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 UAA01643 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:24:28 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (q.inter.net.il [192.116.192.34]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id MAA00022; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:24:20 +0200 (IST) Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.170]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id MAA05539; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:24:17 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36E3A57C.4E590F84@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 12:25:00 +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: DWS etc. References: <199903072306220400.160A4C3A@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Congratulations David. I hope your bridge improvements will not reduce your contributions for BLML , C-BLML & D-BLML......... David Stevenson wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > >>DWS is probably directing, may be playing, this week-end (Ranked > >>Pairs, I think) so expect a scuttle of messages Sunday evening > >>and night. > > >Not merely playing, but playing most successfully - he and his partner > >Ted Reveley won the EBU's Grand Masters Pairs tournament at the > >weekend. Well done, David. > > Thanks. Jeremy Dhondy was one of the pair that was most likely to > take this away from us, and in the second round we defeated him in 3NT. > His comment [at a later time] was "Having looked at the hands I cannot > believe *anyone* would go off in 3NT!" > > OK, so this event is for English Grand Masters, so the TDs were > surprised to get a judgement ruling [they expect none!]. I don't know > the details, but there was one ruling at our table. > > I led a heart against 1NT. Into the AQ, typical! Declarer won, > ducked a club to partner. He led a spade through declarer, so I won > [jack from AJx] and knocked out the other heart winner. Declarer plays > a club. I win, cash my two hearts, and now dummy is full of minor-suit > tricks. So I cash my ace of spades: if partner has the king it is going > off, if not then it is making. Declarer claims the rest. > > -- > -- > KQJ > x K9 Qxxx > -- -- > xxx x > Q Kx -- > x > Ax > -- > > Where has declarer's small heart come from? Partner had three, dummy > had two, I had four. Declarer must have revoked. So I suggest this. > Dummy works it out: "Yes, you have revoked" he tells partner. > > It must be a revoke. Unless declarer had an unbid five-card heart > suit [and the hand records prove he hadn't] he must have revoked even > though no-one noticed because I have eventually played four rounds, so > he should not have one left. > > Since this is an English event, there is no argument, and I summon the > Director. We tell him the facts, there has been an established revoke, > declarer did not win the revoke trick, he has now claimed [by saying > "All mine"]. > > How do you rule? For this one .... I think that declarer wouldn't win a trick with the "strange" small heart , because AKQ diam & K club are undoubtly high... any other play IMO is irrational. There is no foubt it was a revoke which influences the play ... one trick to your side ..! Dany > > -- > 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 Mar 8 20:24:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:24:41 +1000 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 UAA01644 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:24:29 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (q.inter.net.il [192.116.192.34]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id MAA29997; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:24:10 +0200 (IST) Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.170]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id MAA05481; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:24:06 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36E3A56F.891A27B3@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 12:24:48 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: 60 pairs, 4 sessions (was: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well friends .... maybe we live in 2 different worlds but I have two remarks : FIRST I don't know how do you manage a Barometer , but those which i manage work this way , considering the method is Swiss (or Danish) : The sitting for the second round is decided a priory - from now on the sitting - swiss/danish - is decided by the results of the [former - 1] round. During the play of round X I give people the results of round X-1 (round and overall) and the sitting for round X+1 , according to the results until round X-1 . The main occurrence which I don't like for this tournament is the boisterousness of some (very few) pairs , trying to get gorgeous results for the last round - usually they fell and it pushes up novice pairs to higher place ...... SECOND For invitational tournaments , 40 or more pairs I use "endless Howell" method which let every pair to "fight" against all the others . If each pair plays 2 or 22 boards each round , or we divide the 39 rounds (or Y-1 rounds for Y pairs) into 3 sessions or ...39 sessions it is a technical decision - but still must use my Law 0 to get a pleasant organizing decision. Cheers Dany Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >The custom now in the U. S. is to post "one round to go" rankings > > >in pair games. I don't even like that, as players should have to > > >estimate what they need to score on the last round of a game. Also, > > >this (unauthorized?) information is accessible only to those with > > >enough between-round time to run over and look at it. I'd be > > >interested in knowing whether this is done elsewhere. > > > > This custom is unknown over here. > > Yes, posting "one round to go" scores doesn't happen over here either, > though I have done it and people seem to like it. As a non-playing TD, I > usually have people score the first rounds on travellers and use pick-up > slips for the last round. If there are not too many TD calls, then I've > usually entered the travellers by the time play finishes. > > 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 Mon Mar 8 21:41:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 21:41:03 +1000 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 VAA01903 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 21:40:56 +1000 Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-014.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.206]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA20226 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:40:17 GMT Message-ID: <000901be6959$33e7fd00$ce307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: 3rd Session Prize in Teams Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:45:37 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 3 session team of four with 7 teams sitting out in each session. These sit-out teams were then awarded their average score over the 3 sessions to get their final score. However there was a 3rd session prize. Should the 7 teams who sat out in the third session have been credited with their average score in the third session in the calculation of the 3rd session prize? We decided against this approach and instead treat all sit-outs as equal regardless of session. Was this fair? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 21:54:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 21:54:12 +1000 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 VAA01940 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 21:54:06 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-88.uunet.be [194.7.13.88]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA01407 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:53:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36E3B3C5.9E03386B@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 12:25:57 +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: DWS etc. References: <199903072306220400.160A4C3A@mail.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > I led a heart against 1NT. Into the AQ, typical! Declarer won, > ducked a club to partner. He led a spade through declarer, so I won > [jack from AJx] and knocked out the other heart winner. Declarer plays > a club. I win, cash my two hearts, and now dummy is full of minor-suit > tricks. So I cash my ace of spades: if partner has the king it is going > off, if not then it is making. Declarer claims the rest. > > -- > -- > KQJ > x K9 Qxxx > -- -- > xxx x > Q Kx -- > x > Ax > -- > > Where has declarer's small heart come from? Partner had three, dummy > had two, I had four. Declarer must have revoked. So I suggest this. > Dummy works it out: "Yes, you have revoked" he tells partner. > > It must be a revoke. Unless declarer had an unbid five-card heart > suit [and the hand records prove he hadn't] he must have revoked even > though no-one noticed because I have eventually played four rounds, so > he should not have one left. > > Since this is an English event, there is no argument, and I summon the > Director. We tell him the facts, there has been an established revoke, > declarer did not win the revoke trick, he has now claimed [by saying > "All mine"]. > > How do you rule? > OK, I see the point. Declarer has indeed the last five tricks, but he could be making the small heart among them, thus giving away a second penalty trick. I let my ruling depend on what declarer says. If he has just now refound the heart, I rule that he knows this is a) high, and b) a card he could have played to a trick he revoked in. Since we tell him the full rules, he knows this is not a trick, and if I believe he knows the table is high and he can reach it - which he does, I award just the one penalty tricks. If declarer says something else, I might rule he could play the heart as well. But it depends on what I hear at the table. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 8 23:29:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:29:51 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 XAA02174 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:29:44 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10K067-00008T-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:29:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:46:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 60 pairs, 4 sessions (was: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games) In-Reply-To: <36E0FF84.F1C82734@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <36E0FF84.F1C82734@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes > > >"Marvin L. French" wrote: >> >> >> In the Caveendish 60 pairs played four sessions of 24 boards and >> one of 22 boards, all-play-all. Anyone know the movements that were >> used to accomplished this? >> > >This is easy. > >You want 5 sessions ? Then divide the field in 5 groups. > >In every session, 2 groups play another group and the 5th >play among themselves. > >So each pair has 4 12 round Mitchell sessions and 1 11 round >Howell. > >Of course not all pairs have their 11 round session at the >same time. >I am certain that boards 23-24, which will be played 24 >times each, must have some correction applied to in order to >make them comparable to boards 1-22, which have 30 results >each. > > It's almost identical to the YC Marathon. of course you should arrow switch four rounds (1-4) in one section and four rounds (4-7) in the second. I leave the interested reader to work out the details :)))))))) -- 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 Mar 8 23:29:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:29:57 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA02180 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:29:51 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10K06C-00083W-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:29:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:56:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Grattan writes snip >> ----------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- >> ++++ Ah, David, do not mislead yourself. You have ruled that under >> Law 45C4(a) by saying "finesse the ten" the player has designated the >> ten as "the card he proposes to play" absolutely, unconditionally. If >> this is not the case you have no ground for declaring the ten a played >> card. You have the right to do this and probably should if you are >> in doubt as to the meaning of 'finesse', but I find a condition in the >> words and consider your ruling should not stand on appeal. >> .. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > snip finesse to a bridge player, and even to a jaundiced TD means finesse. The concept of finesse means you *can't* play till left hand opponent has played before your play from dummy. To rule the ten is played when the guy said "finesse the ten" is *absurd*. "finesse" and "ten" have totally different meanings to a bridge player, and should be interpreted in the classic sense that a bridge player "means" "ten" means "play the ten". "finesse" means "depending on LHO's card I play the card to beat it" "finesse the ten" means primarily "finesse" not primarily "ten" I always knew we had a commumication gap with the language spoken north of Potters Bar (for non UK readers Potters Bar is a North London suburb and DWS lives a lot further North than that) -- 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 Mar 9 00:28:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 00:28:25 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA04632 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 00:28:18 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA29450 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:28:08 GMT Received: from cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.7]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA18064 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:28:06 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA20895 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:28:03 GMT Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:28:03 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199903081428.OAA20895@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: DWS etc. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I led a heart against 1NT. Into the AQ, typical! Declarer won, > ducked a club to partner. He led a spade through declarer, so I won > [jack from AJx] and knocked out the other heart winner. Declarer plays > a club. I win, cash my two hearts, and now dummy is full of minor-suit > tricks. So I cash my ace of spades: if partner has the king it is going > off, if not then it is making. Declarer claims the rest. > > -- > -- > KQJ > x K9 Qxxx > -- -- > xxx x > Q Kx -- > x > Ax > -- > > Where has declarer's small heart come from? Partner had three, dummy > had two, I had four. Declarer must have revoked. So I suggest this. > Dummy works it out: "Yes, you have revoked" he tells partner. > > It must be a revoke. Unless declarer had an unbid five-card heart > suit [and the hand records prove he hadn't] he must have revoked even > though no-one noticed because I have eventually played four rounds, so > he should not have one left. > > Since this is an English event, there is no argument, and I summon the > Director. We tell him the facts, there has been an established revoke, > declarer did not win the revoke trick, he has now claimed [by saying > "All mine"]. > > How do you rule? This is another aspect of the interaction of revokes and claims. At least this time the revoker claimed (or the claimed had revoked) so we know the revoke is established. Others have addressed the question of whether the remaining heart is deemed to have won a trick. I read the relevant laws, to see if we were missing anything. L64A talks about tricks being transferred if the offending side subsequently win tricks. We have always assumed this includes tricks awarded to a claimer as the result of adjudicating a claim. L69A says "The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play." It does not say which cards are deemed to have won the tricks claimed, e.g. for the purposes of assessing revoke penalties. Even if claimer can only cash high cards in his own hand, the laws do not explicitly say that those cards are deemed to have won tricks for the purposes of L64A. We have assumed (no doubt, correctly) that we should apply L64A in these cases, but David's hand shows that an explicit statement in the laws might be helpful. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 9 01:17:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:17:34 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 BAA04789 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:17:17 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10K1mG-00077U-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:17:09 +0000 Message-ID: <70cHvICuY+42EwEF@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:01:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: DWS etc. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip > > -- > -- > KQJ > x K9 Qxxx > -- -- > xxx x > Q Kx -- > x > Ax > -- > > Where has declarer's small heart come from? Partner had three, dummy >had two, I had four. Declarer must have revoked. So I suggest this. >Dummy works it out: "Yes, you have revoked" he tells partner. > > It must be a revoke. Unless declarer had an unbid five-card heart >suit [and the hand records prove he hadn't] he must have revoked even >though no-one noticed because I have eventually played four rounds, so >he should not have one left. > > Since this is an English event, there is no argument, and I summon the >Director. We tell him the facts, there has been an established revoke, >declarer did not win the revoke trick, he has now claimed [by saying >"All mine"]. > > How do you rule? > "Two tricks". Declare might cash the Hx DAKQ and the CK. He clearly didn't know he'd revoked when he claimed so he doesn't know it's not in his interest to win the H. (I'd rule one trick if declarer knew he'd revoked because now he wouldn't cash the H) -- 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 Mar 9 01:17:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:17:36 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 BAA04792 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:17:23 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10K1mN-00077T-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:17:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:15:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games In-Reply-To: <199903072136.QAA23846@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199903072136.QAA23846@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Grattan" >> Presumably >> with a variable i.m.p. 'top' on each board nothing you ever do >> with comparisons that switch can ever be quite 'fair' > >You can arrange to award the same number of IMPs to the EW line and the >NS line _on every board_. (Cross-IMPs does this automatically, but >other forms of scoring could be adjusted to do it too.) That seems >fair to me. > >Of course some boards are just part-scores and don't count as much as >the games and slams, but that's an inherent property of IMPs (teams >too!). All you can do about that is play more boards. I'd guess the >randomness in an IMP game is about equivalent to a matchpoint game >with 1/3 the number of boards, but I'd love to know if anybody has >real statistics. > I'm starting work on it. I think you're in the right direction. I do have access to a large volume of data. John Manning suggested that the random effect in teams games is several imps per board and the skill effect quite small - as suggested by his research and findings that a team playing 1 imp better than another still has an 18% chance of losing the 32 board match. -- 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 Mar 9 01:17:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:17:45 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 BAA04812 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:17:35 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10K1mN-0003OD-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:17:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:51:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games In-Reply-To: <199903072217.RAA23885@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199903072217.RAA23885@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> At the YC we have data going back 20 years comparing the frequency of >> butler scores with match point scores. We are *certain* that the correct >> factor for 24 boards is 4.25 imps = 1%. So for 28 boards it would be >> 7/6x4.25 = 1% etc. > >This is interesting; let me make sure I understand it. You are saying >that in a 24-board game, for a particular pair to score 60% at >matchpoints is just as likely as +42.5 IMPs at Butler? Yep, Thousands of results over 20 years at the YC, same pool of strong players in both games. It hasn't changed in that period either. It might be different in a weak field, but I have no data. > >> The frequency correlation is amazing right up >> through 75% scores (149 imps Butler over 28 boards). Sorry ^^^ should have read 124 imps > >But 25*4.25*7/6 = 124 . Yep, calculation error. Sorry. We've checked it right up to 75% and down to 30%. It is never more than 1 imp out, and sometimes plus, sometimes minus. Furthermore it doesn't seem to matter whether it's a 24, 25, 26, 27 or 28 board game. Straight-line is good enough. -- 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 Mar 9 01:17:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:17:32 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 BAA04791 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:17:18 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10K1mE-00077T-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:17:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:14:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 60 pairs, 4 sessions (was: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Marvin L. French wrote: > >>The custom now in the U. S. is to post "one round to go" rankings >>in pair games. I don't even like that, as players should have to >>estimate what they need to score on the last round of a game. Also, >>this (unauthorized?) information is accessible only to those with >>enough between-round time to run over and look at it. I'd be >>interested in knowing whether this is done elsewhere. > > This custom is unknown over here. > What is different I think is that ACBL Tournaments are scored with pick- up slips, and not with travellers. IMO the ACBL method is much better as estimating one's score becomes a significant skill. I think that travellers are a hang-over from the days of manual scoring, and there would be howls of outrage from the UK players if we went over to pick-up slips now. It would involve paying caddies and would increase entry fees too. I'd still like to try it though. The UK procedure involves having three-part travellers, with the top copies being removed, typically after 6 and eleven rounds of a 13 round movement, collected by the TDs. That being said our Swiss Pairs (highly popular here) are scored by pick-up slips, collected by caddies. The end result is that results take longer to post in the UK than in the US Tourneys. (In the US one waits for the results - in the UK one goes to the bar, and strolls back about 20 minutes later.) -- 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 Mar 9 01:17:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:17:37 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA04788 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:17:16 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10K1mE-000Lzh-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:17:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:35:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games 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 > >"Many a young man has followed a beautiful head >of hair to catch up with an old battleaxe of a face" > ( - the late Laura Halewood once in middle age > upon being complimented on the condition of her hair.) > >[more recently expressed: 'any woman who turns her back on you >thinks her face not the handsomest thing about her']. >vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv >> From: Sergei Litvak >> To: John Probst ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games >> Date: 06 March 1999 19:11 >> >> You can read about balance and arrow switching in pair tournaments in the >book "Bridge Movements (Fair approach)" by Hallen, Hansen and Jannersten. >> >++ I have left this commercial to run++ >------------------- \x/ -------------------------- >> > >It's certainly inappropriate without arrow switches. Cheers John > >++ But I just want to clarify my mind on this bit. Presumably >with a variable i.m.p. 'top' on each board nothing you ever do >with comparisons that switch can ever* be quite 'fair' but the >longer the event the less abrupt the effect. What I am asking >is whether two separate fields with no arrowswitch is not the >only absolute? This is true, but ATF scoring and a 2 winner movement is pretty reasonable. > >* Might you get somewhere with a proportioned conversion >on each board of imps to match points with a constant top? I'm sure this is the sort of start point one needs. One needs IMO to normalise scores to a datum such that the positive and negative imps balance for NS, and express that as a standard deviation. Across a large set of boards one can get a view of the average deviation. We also know the average result of the direct encounter. From there I think one can start computing the effects of arrow switches. I have a project for the next 3 months Write a series of articles on arrow switching - DWS has offered to host the web page. The first one is under way. Working title "Only One in Eight?" > ~ Grattan ~ ++ > >> -- 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 Mar 9 01:26:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:26:41 +1000 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA04868 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:26:32 +1000 Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3 [134.117.136.23]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id KAA06594 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:25:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA29569; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:25:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:25:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903081525.KAA29569@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: DWS etc. Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I led a heart against 1NT. Into the AQ, typical! Declarer won, >ducked a club to partner. He led a spade through declarer, so I won >[jack from AJx] and knocked out the other heart winner. Declarer plays >a club. I win, cash my two hearts, and now dummy is full of minor-suit >tricks. So I cash my ace of spades: if partner has the king it is going >off, if not then it is making. Declarer claims the rest. > > -- > -- > KQJ > x K9 Qxxx > -- -- > xxx x > Q Kx -- > x > Ax > -- > > Where has declarer's small heart come from? Partner had three, dummy >had two, I had four. Declarer must have revoked. So I suggest this. >Dummy works it out: "Yes, you have revoked" he tells partner. > > It must be a revoke. Unless declarer had an unbid five-card heart >suit [and the hand records prove he hadn't] he must have revoked even >though no-one noticed because I have eventually played four rounds, so >he should not have one left. > > Since this is an English event, there is no argument, and I summon the >Director. We tell him the facts, there has been an established revoke, >declarer did not win the revoke trick, he has now claimed [by saying >"All mine"]. > > How do you rule? > Too cute. :-) If he takes a heart winner, it is now a two trick revoke, whereas if we rule that taking the heart is irrational, it is but one trick. I do not think that taking the heart is irrational, especially as he seemed unaware that he had revoked. Therefore, two tricks to the opponents (even though a much more likely line of play would be to simply cash out his minors). Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 9 02:56:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 02:56:17 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 CAA05246 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 02:56:11 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10K3Jx-0006G9-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 16:56:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:47:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 3rd Session Prize in Teams References: <000901be6959$33e7fd00$ce307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <000901be6959$33e7fd00$ce307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >3 session team of four with 7 teams sitting out in each session. These >sit-out teams were then awarded their average score over the 3 sessions to >get their final score. > >However there was a 3rd session prize. Should the 7 teams who sat out in >the third session have been credited with their average score in the third >session in the calculation of the 3rd session prize? We decided against >this approach and instead treat all sit-outs as equal regardless of session. >Was this fair? I have no problem whichever way it was done *so long as* it was announced in advance. -- 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 Mar 9 02:56:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 02:56:20 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 CAA05251 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 02:56:14 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10K3K2-0006Gg-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 16:56:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:42:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 60 pairs, 4 sessions (was: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games) References: <36E3A56F.891A27B3@internet-zahav.net> In-Reply-To: <36E3A56F.891A27B3@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >Well friends .... maybe we live in 2 different worlds but I >have two remarks : > >FIRST >I don't know how do you manage a Barometer , but those which i manage >work this way , considering the method is Swiss (or Danish) : >The sitting for the second round is decided a priory - from now >on the sitting - swiss/danish - is decided by the results of >the [former - 1] round. During the play of round X I give people >the results of round X-1 (round and overall) and the sitting for >round X+1 , according to the results until round X-1 . >The main occurrence which I don't like for this tournament is the >boisterousness of some (very few) pairs , trying to get gorgeous >results for the last round - usually they fell and it pushes up novice >pairs to higher place ...... > >SECOND >For invitational tournaments , 40 or more pairs I use "endless Howell" >method which let every pair to "fight" against all the others . >If each pair plays 2 or 22 boards each round , or we divide the >39 rounds (or Y-1 rounds for Y pairs) into 3 sessions or ...39 sessions >it is a technical decision - but still must use my Law 0 to get >a pleasant organizing decision. Well, we run Swiss Pairs, many of them, but we don't call them Barometer pairs because that is a different event. Actually I had not understood Marvin to refer to Barometer pairs either. Perhaps I could clear this up. Swiss pairs [Match in Arrears]: the scores are published by slips to the players during the next round. Swiss Pairs [Current Match Assignments]: the order of the pairs is known as the next round starts, and the actual scores are published by slips to the players during the next round. Barometer pairs: the scores are published by slips to the players or on notice boards during the next round. Ordinary pairs: nothing is published until after the end of the session. -- 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 Mar 9 02:56:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 02:56:26 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 CAA05245 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 02:56:11 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10K3Jy-0006GA-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 16:56:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:52:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: DWS etc. References: <199903072306220400.160A4C3A@mail.btinternet.com> <36E49D1C.71FF@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <36E49D1C.71FF@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: >> Declarer claims the rest. >> >> -- >> -- >> KQJ >> x K9 Qxxx >> -- -- >> xxx x >> Q Kx -- >> x >> Ax >> -- >> >> Where has declarer's small heart come from? Partner had three, dummy >> had two, I had four. Declarer must have revoked. So I suggest this. >> Dummy works it out: "Yes, you have revoked" he tells partner. >> >> It must be a revoke. Unless declarer had an unbid five-card heart >> suit [and the hand records prove he hadn't] he must have revoked even >> though no-one noticed because I have eventually played four rounds, so >> he should not have one left. >> >> Since this is an English event, there is no argument, and I summon the >> Director. We tell him the facts, there has been an established revoke, >> declarer did not win the revoke trick, he has now claimed [by saying >> "All mine"]. >> >> How do you rule? >Revoke is established. Several logical lines of play. One results in two >trick penalty (playing small heart) other doesn't. Presumably in this >level tournament declarer will have count and should have realized he >had a heart when he shouldn't therefore it is probably illogical for him >to use the small heart. Mind you it could be argued that if he knew this >why did he claim and show the small heart. Better to have played out >keeping small heart till last and hope DWS doesn't notice !! Rule one >trick penalty and await DWS's appeal. This hand is only of theoretical interest. I am not attempting to win events through the Laws, and I told the Director that in my opinion declarer would discard the heart. Partner agreed with me, we took our one trick, no question of an appeal, and won the event by less than the revoke penalty! I ask the question for what the interest of what the TD should do. > Note though that it is not the >claim that is in dispute. With the current cards no line of play outside >the bizarre can result in declarer taking the remaining tricks I think that we may need a revision in the Laws as previously suggested to allow for a claim that includes establishing a revoke. Maybe not here, but when the non-claimers have revoked it gets very messy. -- 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 Mar 9 03:14:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 03:14:29 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05326 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 03:14:20 +1000 Received: from p3es14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.63] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10K3bQ-0007XJ-00; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 17:14:04 +0000 Message-ID: <000e01be6987$14f2a3e0$3f8e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 16:55:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott >Personally, I consider "finesse" (when there is only one finesse to be >taken) and "finesse the ten" as expressing the same intention, and any >ruling that treats them differently seems very strange. > >Otherwise, I agree with David S. (!) +++ I have deleted this thread now. My closing thoughts have two parts. First, if it is argued that 'finesse the ten' ( or 'finesse') means 'play the ten' I despair for the future of the English language which is such a sophisticated medium when skilfully employed. The motivation is in 'finesse' and 'the ten' is added to clarify what with. If, on the other hand, it is agreed that 'finesse' is a move that can only be made when the prior player has played a card - lower in the case than the ten - then it is clearly a conditional instruction and is substantially like the instruction 'play the ten if your RHO plays a lower card'; if a Director is going to rule in these cases that the ten is played then not only do I consider his understanding of the language is flawed but I would add that he does nothing for justice nor for commonsense. I would not say that you cannot construe the law to mean that to name any card in a conditional context is to play it- if you are sufficiently perverse in your judgement of the player's indisputable intention then just maybe you can but it is the kind of ruling that brings the exercise of law into disrepute. ~ Grattan ~ +++ so. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 9 03:14:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 03:14:34 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05332 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 03:14:27 +1000 Received: from p3es14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.63] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10K3bU-0007XJ-00; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 17:14:09 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01be6987$177fb760$3f8e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 17:13:08 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 07 March 1999 21:43 Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} >> From: "Grattan" >> Perhaps I should add that were I the on-site referee my action would be >> to note that as Director you had ruled on the effect of the relevant Law >> and that on site I would loyally adhere to your ruling. > >Would you consider ruling, as a question of fact under L45C4a, that >the player had not "named or otherwise designated" the ten? That >seems a lot simpler than appealing to the National Authority. +++ I had not overlooked this possibility. I would aim to keep the casework moving towards Olympus in the hope that there could be sinaic tablets of stone for mortals to follow from then on. +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 9 08:59:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:59:03 +1000 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA06561 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:58:55 +1000 Received: from modem71.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.71] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10K8z3-0001HO-00; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 22:58:49 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 22:55:20 -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 "Many a young man has followed a beautiful head of hair to catch up with an old battleaxe of a face" ( - the late Laura Halewood once in middle age upon being complimented on the condition of her hair.) [more recently expressed: 'any woman who turns her back on you thinks her face not the handsomest thing about her]. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > From: John (MadDog) Probst > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} > Date: 06 March 1999 17:56 > > In article 01.core.theplanet.net>, Grattan writes > > > I always knew we had a commumication gap with the language spoken north > of Potters Bar (for non UK readers Potters Bar is a North London suburb > and DWS lives a lot further North than that) ++++ In fact just across the river from me ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 9 10:13:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:13:02 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA06864 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:12:56 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10KA8c-000729-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 00:12:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 17:19:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >"ten" means "play the ten". Agreed. >"finesse" means "depending on LHO's card I play the card to beat it" Agreed. >"finesse the ten" means primarily "finesse" not primarily "ten" Why? >I always knew we had a commumication gap with the language spoken north >of Potters Bar (for non UK readers Potters Bar is a North London suburb >and DWS lives a lot further North than that) Londoners! -- 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 Mar 9 19:36:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA08028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:36:18 +1000 Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA08023 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:36:11 +1000 Received: from default ([195.89.178.104]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 6470600 ; Tue, 09 Mar 1999 09:27:21 -0000 Message-ID: <000f01be6a0f$dd46a200$68b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 09:30:47 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk cookbury@purplenet.co.uk You north and south people. Why should west of Potters Bar be any different? Finesse is the word that changes round the ten so that is the word that he changes when he wants to change his meaning about the ten, I think. It is the word that says what to do mt -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 09 March 1999 01:08 Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 10 05:05:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 05:05:16 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA11988 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 05:05:05 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10KRoI-0007hp-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:04:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:04:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>"ten" means "play the ten". > > Agreed. > >>"finesse" means "depending on LHO's card I play the card to beat it" > > Agreed. > >>"finesse the ten" means primarily "finesse" not primarily "ten" > > Why? > Because that is what is *meant* by the statement. the finesse is being taken. You can't finesse until LHO has played (by implication). I think to rule otherwise doesn't take into account the incontrovertible intent of declarer. As my English teacher would have said: '"Finesse" is the "doing" word.' The rest is subservient to that. >>I always knew we had a commumication gap with the language spoken north >>of Potters Bar (for non UK readers Potters Bar is a North London suburb >>and DWS lives a lot further North than that) > > Londoners! > DWS. Even Grattan understands this one and he lives further North than you :))))))))))))) 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 Wed Mar 10 08:09:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:09:02 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12673 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:08:55 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA05815 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:08:16 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-27.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.59) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma005756; Tue Mar 9 16:07:25 1999 Received: by har-pa1-27.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE6A4F.1B5EA260@har-pa1-27.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 17:06:00 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE6A4F.1B5EA260@har-pa1-27.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Is this a claim? { or another direction heard from) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 17:05:37 -0500 Encoding: 57 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a current thread on rgbo I have been drawing DWS out on his comment that he would rule in a claim situation involving a non-proven finesse with no statement of claim in favour of the claimant if it were "obvious" to him as TD that the claimant intended to finesse; in his view other action would then be irrational. (If my paraphrase misquotes, my apologies.) I do not concur in that setting because of the specific language barring a non-proven finesse, but am listening to my "betters" in hope of learning where I may be in error. :-) I must wonder though how DWS' expressed feeling on this thread differs. Is it not obvious that if declarer said "finesse the ten" (not in the real case but in the hypothetical one) he meant to finesse...and that the ten was to be played when and if LHO would not cover? Perhaps there is a difference according to geography, but somehow I think the quality of that Mersey is rather strained. Just a thought from one even farther west. :-) ---------- From: John (MadDog) Probst[SMTP:john@probst.demon.co.uk] > David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>"ten" means "play the ten". > > Agreed. > >>"finesse" means "depending on LHO's card I play the card to beat it" > > Agreed. > >>"finesse the ten" means primarily "finesse" not primarily "ten" > > Why? > Because that is what is *meant* by the statement. the finesse is being taken. You can't finesse until LHO has played (by implication). I think to rule otherwise doesn't take into account the incontrovertible intent of declarer. As my English teacher would have said: '"Finesse" is the "doing" word.' The rest is subservient to that. >>I always knew we had a commumication gap with the language spoken north >>of Potters Bar (for non UK readers Potters Bar is a North London suburb >>and DWS lives a lot further North than that) > > Londoners! > DWS. Even Grattan understands this one and he lives further North than you :))))))))))))) 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 Wed Mar 10 11:28:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:28:02 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA13268 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:27:53 +1000 Received: from modem30.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.30] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10KXmj-0000Rf-00; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 01:27:46 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 01:00:35 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ************************************************ he's always word-perfect, the s**, in composing the language of G**, but G** not infrequently swears it's only the meaning He hears, and though He forbears with the rod He does shed a bucket of tears. ************************************************ ---------- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} > Date: 09 March 1999 19:04 > > > >>I always knew we had a commumication gap with the language spoken north > >>of Potters Bar (for non UK readers Potters Bar is a North London suburb > >>and DWS lives a lot further North than that) > > > > Londoners! > > > DWS. Even Grattan understands this one and he lives further North than > you :))))))))))))) Cheers John > -- +++Hey, steady on, John! I'm not the eskimo kid. By the parallels on the map David actually lives about 1.5 miles (2.4 kms) further to the north than I do. ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 10 11:28:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:28:03 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA13269 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:27:54 +1000 Received: from modem30.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.30] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10KXmm-0000Rf-00; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 01:27:48 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "John Wignall" , "Phil Lloyd" , "Ton Kooijman" Subject: the late Dick Goldberg Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 01:08:42 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ************************************************ +++ I learn that Dick Goldberg died of a heart attack on Saturday. Those who knew him will agree that we have lost yet another of the good guys. ~GE~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 10 13:53:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA16031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:53:03 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 NAA16023 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:52:56 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Ka32-0007Yu-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 03:52:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 02:58:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Warsaw MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The European Open and Seniors Pairs will be in Warsaw, Poland, next week. I shall be directing, and would very much like to meet any of my BLML friends who are there. -- 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 Mar 10 14:19:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA16632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:19:33 +1000 Received: from tungsten (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA16625 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:19:26 +1000 Received: from [195.99.51.33] (helo=david-burn) by tungsten with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10KaSS-0006el-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 04:19:00 +0000 Message-ID: <199903100418000960.2174C671@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.00.00.12 Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 04:18:00 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 09/03/99 at 19:04 John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>>"ten" means "play the ten". >> >> Agreed. >> >>>"finesse" means "depending on LHO's card I play the card to beat it" >> >> Agreed. >> >>>"finesse the ten" means primarily "finesse" not primarily "ten" >> >> Why? >> > >Because that is what is *meant* by the statement. the finesse is being >taken. You can't finesse until LHO has played (by implication). I think >to rule otherwise doesn't take into account the incontrovertible intent >of declarer. As my English teacher would have said: '"Finesse" is the >"doing" word.' The rest is subservient to that. I don't know (Grattan will) who it was that said he read the obituary column in the paper each morning, and if he wasn't it it, he went to work. Reading the obits this morning, I wondered about this thread. Here is a dispute that has arisen because neither party at the table was prepared to back down, and has been perpetuated because people believe that to play in an unsporting fashion is not only legal, but in some bizarre interpretation dutiful. What's that you say, Mrs Robinson? Joltin' Joe has left and gone away... From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 10 22:04:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 22:04:56 +1000 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 WAA21517 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 22:04:48 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-78.uunet.be [194.7.13.78]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21166 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:04:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36E6560B.2628F02B@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:22:51 +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: Warsaw References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > The European Open and Seniors Pairs will be in Warsaw, Poland, next > week. I shall be directing, and would very much like to meet any of my > BLML friends who are there. > And I shall be on the appeal committee. This should prove interesting. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 10 23:12:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 23:12:51 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA21698 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 23:12:42 +1000 Received: from pads13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.174] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10Kimo-0007xy-00; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:12:34 +0000 Message-ID: <001e01be6af7$aa996ac0$ae8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Warsaw Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:52:33 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 10 March 1999 04:16 Subject: Warsaw > > The European Open and Seniors Pairs will be in Warsaw, Poland, next >week. I shall be directing, and would very much like to meet any of my >BLML friends who are there. ++++ As a player in the seniors event with my once/twice-a-year partner I welcome the opportunity to provide some testing material. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 10 23:12:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 23:12:51 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA21699 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 23:12:43 +1000 Received: from pads13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.174] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10Kimq-0007xy-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:12:36 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01be6af7$abb6c1a0$ae8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:10:19 -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: John Probst ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 10 March 1999 01:53> > > >> DWS. Even Grattan understands this one and he lives further North than >> you :))))))))))))) Cheers John >> -- >+++Hey, steady on, John! I'm not the eskimo kid. >By the parallels on the map David actually lives >about 1.5 miles (2.4 kms) further to the north than I do. > ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ +++ Measured on a larger scale map this morning. David lives two kilometres further to the north and twelve kilometres to the west of my place. But who cares, there's a river estuary between. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 11 00:26:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA24198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 00:26:21 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (wya-lfd115.hotmail.com [207.82.252.179]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA24193 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 00:26:15 +1000 Received: (qmail 9185 invoked by uid 65534); 10 Mar 1999 14:05:35 -0000 Message-ID: <19990310140535.9184.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 06:05:34 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary'sReply} Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 06:05:34 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >I don't know (Grattan will) who it was that said he read the obituary >column in the paper each morning, and if he wasn't it it, he went to >work. Reading the obits this morning, I wondered about this thread. >Here is a dispute that has arisen because neither party at the table >was prepared to back down, and has been perpetuated because people >believe that to play in an unsporting fashion is not only legal, but in >some bizarre interpretation dutiful. What's that you say, Mrs Robinson? >Joltin' Joe has left and gone away... "Talk about it, shout about it, when you come to choose, anyway you look at it you lose..." Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 11 05:16:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 05:16:14 +1000 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-001.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA25270 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 05:16:02 +1000 Received: from tntrasp20-52.abo.wanadoo.fr [164.138.24.52] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Wed, 10 Mar 1999 20:12:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <36E6C2EB.482@wanadoo.fr> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 20:07:23 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA CC: 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 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 > > It was a question of a FFB' contest in 1996.(3e level, we have 4 levels) In match for teams, S plays 3NT and he has yet losed 4 tricks.At this moment it's the South's lead and the remaining cards, all in Diamonds was: A Q 7 3 6 2 5 4 S played 4D and said " The Queen, partner ", now W played KD (of course) What is your ruling? If you would to be admitted to this contest you would have only to answer: One down in regard of Law 45B. As Director, I don't understand exactly where is the problem for ruling. Directors have to rule in respect of the wording of the Laws, not to have mood. Sed lex, dura lex. Please, Ton, if you have mood, angst or pity for offender player, write Laws in other way.Irrational play , stupid mistake are irrelevant with this Law;it is not a claim and no Directors have right to rule in other way. Of course, this is only my opinion. Kiss all people you love, Ph. Lormant From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 11 05:19:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 05:19:57 +1000 Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA25287 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 05:19:49 +1000 Received: from s_foxy (foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru [194.190.176.114]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.7/Dmiter-4.1) with SMTP id WAA05190; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 22:16:00 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <001701be6b2a$54de3600$72b0bec2@s_foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Warsaw Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 22:14:50 +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 SGVybWFuIERlIFdhZWwgPGhlcm1hbmR3QHZpbGxhZ2UudXVuZXQuYmU+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+RGF2 aWQgU3RldmVuc29uIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4gDQo+PiAgIFRoZSBFdXJvcGVhbiBPcGVuIGFuZCBTZW5p b3JzIFBhaXJzIHdpbGwgYmUgaW4gV2Fyc2F3LCBQb2xhbmQsIG5leHQNCj4+IHdlZWsuICBJIHNo YWxsIGJlIGRpcmVjdGluZywgYW5kIHdvdWxkIHZlcnkgbXVjaCBsaWtlIHRvIG1lZXQgYW55IG9m IG15DQo+PiBCTE1MIGZyaWVuZHMgd2hvIGFyZSB0aGVyZS4NCj4+IA0KPg0KPkFuZCBJIHNoYWxs IGJlIG9uIHRoZSBhcHBlYWwgY29tbWl0dGVlLg0KPlRoaXMgc2hvdWxkIHByb3ZlIGludGVyZXN0 aW5nLg0KDQpBbmQgSSB3aWxsIGJlIHRoZXJlIGFzIGEgcGxheWVyLg0KTmljZSB0byBzZWUgYWxs IG9mIHlvdSEgOikNCg0KU2VyZ2VpIExpdHZhay4NCj4tLSANCj5IZXJtYW4gREUgV0FFTA0KPkFu dHdlcnBlbiBCZWxnaXVtDQo+aHR0cDovL3d3dy5nYWxsZXJ5LnV1bmV0LmJlL2hlcm1hbmR3L2lu ZGV4Lmh0bWwNCj4NCj4NCj4NCg== From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 11 05:27:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 05:27:50 +1000 Received: from mid.minfod.com (mid.minfod.com [207.227.70.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA25323 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 05:27:44 +1000 Received: from [207.227.70.80] (helo=JNichols) by mid.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10KobO-00010o-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:25:10 -0500 Message-Id: <4.1.19990310142447.0092c100@popmid.minfod.com> X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:27:32 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} In-Reply-To: <199903100418000960.2174C671@mail.btinternet.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:18 PM 3/9/99 , David Burn wrote: ... snip ... >I don't know (Grattan will) who it was that said he read the obituary >column in the paper each morning, and if he wasn't it it, he went to >work. I have heard this quote attributed to Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) most frequently. However, there are others as well. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 11 05:31:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 05:31:38 +1000 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 FAA25339 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 05:31:30 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.171]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA26159; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 21:31:11 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36E6C8A6.C3C70B0C@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 21:31:51 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} References: <001f01be6af7$abb6c1a0$ae8d93c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Oh God was very clever , building our world ... he even built that estuary , to keep you apart .....!!!! Will you take it with you to Warsaw .... just for insurance ????? I see , ....all of you will be there , so I'll be able to work this week ,expecting for an interesting ......carnival there , and a lot of abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz when you all be back........ I wish you'll enjoy in Warsaw Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Grattan > To: John Probst ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Date: 10 March 1999 01:53> > > > > >> DWS. Even Grattan understands this one and he lives further North than > >> you :))))))))))))) Cheers John > >> -- > >+++Hey, steady on, John! I'm not the eskimo kid. > >By the parallels on the map David actually lives > >about 1.5 miles (2.4 kms) further to the north than I do. > > ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ > > +++ Measured on a larger scale map this morning. > David lives two kilometres further to the north and > twelve kilometres to the west of my place. But > who cares, there's a river estuary between. > ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 11 12:03:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:03:18 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 MAA26346 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:03:07 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10KuoN-0004eI-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 02:03:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 01:25:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this a claim? References: <36E6C2EB.482@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <36E6C2EB.482@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk LORMANT Philippe wrote: > > Kiss all people you love, The ones I want to won't let me, and I don't want to get too much fur in my mouth! -- 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 Mar 11 14:18:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA26577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:18:17 +1000 Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA26572 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:18:11 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (tc-29.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.130]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA02939 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 23:15:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36E7449C.36D2C068@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 23:20:44 -0500 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws Subject: St Patrick's Day Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi... This is a neat St. Patrick's Day message. If you enjoy some fun, have a look... If not I have a director question following tomorrow. In the meantime Happy St Patrick's Day when everyone is Irish!!! Nancy http://hometown.aol.com/chan209/irish.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 11 18:26:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA26969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 18:26:09 +1000 Received: from gatekeeper2.agro.nl (gatekeeper2.agro.nl [145.12.10.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA26964 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 18:26:02 +1000 Received: from mgate.nic.agro.nl (agro01.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.12]) by gatekeeper2.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/5Jun1998) with ESMTP id JAA12559 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 09:25:56 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01J8P6D4VIA4000WJU@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 09:24:51 +0100 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 09:28:22 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 09:04:05 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Warsaw To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C154@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 Silence, silence, but this is too tempting. Noticing we have a pair, a TD and even an AC now, I decided to come over too, with some boards and a result room. And I also heard about a kibitzer coming. It might become a real event! ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Grattan Endicott [mailto:gester@globalnet.co.uk] Verzonden: woensdag 10 maart 1999 13:53 Aan: David Stevenson; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: Warsaw Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 10 March 1999 04:16 Subject: Warsaw > > The European Open and Seniors Pairs will be in Warsaw, Poland, next >week. I shall be directing, and would very much like to meet any of my >BLML friends who are there. ++++ As a player in the seniors event with my once/twice-a-year partner I welcome the opportunity to provide some testing material. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 11 20:12:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 20:12:46 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA27232 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 20:12:40 +1000 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 KAA11560 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:12:04 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 KAA11651 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:10:41 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:12:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: UI insurance Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What do you think of the fairness and the legality of this unusual situation? Playing with screens, NS start some complex slam-bidding sequence agreeing spades as trumps. At some point, South answers to partner's BW and, before passing the tray to the other side of the screen, advises his screenmate of his intention to bid slam even if his partner happens to sign off (some kind of anticipation alert?). And what if (innocently!) he announces he will bid slam if his partner bids a slow 5S? 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 Mar 11 21:22:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 21:22:11 +1000 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 VAA27522 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 21:22:04 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-233.uunet.be [194.7.13.233]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA29348 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:21:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36E79AD3.64E8C50C@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:28:35 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} References: <4.1.19990310142447.0092c100@popmid.minfod.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John S. Nichols" wrote: > > At 11:18 PM 3/9/99 , David Burn wrote: > ... snip ... > >I don't know (Grattan will) who it was that said he read the obituary > >column in the paper each morning, and if he wasn't it it, he went to > >work. > > I have heard this quote attributed to Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) most > frequently. However, there are others as well. No, MT is the one who _did_ read his own obituary and responded "the rumours regarding my death are greatly exaggerated". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 11 23:24:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 23:24:20 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA27827 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 23:24:13 +1000 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 IAA10033 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 08:22:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990311082454.00692470@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 08:24:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:12 AM 3/11/99 +0100, Jean-Pierre wrote: > What do you think of the fairness and the legality of this unusual situation? > > Playing with screens, NS start some complex slam-bidding sequence agreeing >spades as trumps. At some point, South answers to partner's BW and, before >passing the tray to the other side of the screen, advises his screenmate of >his intention to bid slam even if his partner happens to sign off (some >kind of anticipation alert?). I wouldn't have a problem with this (other than thinking that it's sad that things have gotten to the point where someone would find this necessary). > And what if (innocently!) he announces he will bid slam if his partner >bids a slow 5S? If he means to suggest that he would pass a fast 5S, this is hardly innocent. But one would assume he means that he will bid slam no matter what. His phrasing is unfortunate, but I would expect that his screenmate would understand what he meant. 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 Mar 11 23:28:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 23:28:33 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA27854 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 23:28:27 +1000 Received: from p39s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.58] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10L5VW-00069c-00; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:28:14 +0000 Message-ID: <002601be6bc3$038fc0e0$3a8a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:27:16 -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 Date: 11 March 1999 12:01 Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} > > >"John S. Nichols" wrote: >> >> I have heard this quote attributed to Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) most >> frequently. However, there are others as well. > Herman: >No, MT is the one who _did_ read his own obituary and >responded "the rumours regarding my death are greatly >exaggerated". > ++++ Interestingly there are no 'Obituaries' anywhere in my array of reference books. Herman's quote is rightly attributed but his 'no' should maybe have a question mark; initially I thought 'Mark Twain' but now I think DB's words may be culled from a more recent passer-by. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 01:50:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 01:50:52 +1000 Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA00649 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 01:50:42 +1000 From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA146907433; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:50:33 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA166607431; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:50:31 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:50:19 -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 ---------- De : DuBreuil, Laval Date d'envoi : 11 mars, 1999 10:51 A : bridge /mime (bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk) Objet : RE: Is this a claim? =20 =20 =20 ---------- LORMANT Philippe wrote: =20 > > Kiss all people you love, =20 Is this a claim? Or a desire... =20 The ones I want to won't let me, and I don't want to get too much fur in my mouth! =20 -- =20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D= ( + =20 =20 Far away from my original posting....that generates near by 100 messages... I will be shy next time I post. =20 Thx all =20 Laval Du Breuil =20 =20 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 01:55:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 01:55:52 +1000 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 BAA00682 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 01:55:46 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-240.uunet.be [194.7.9.240]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA17676 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 16:55:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36E7AAD4.EA4361D8@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:36:52 +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 insurance References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > What do you think of the fairness and the legality of this unusual situation? > > Playing with screens, NS start some complex slam-bidding sequence agreeing > spades as trumps. At some point, South answers to partner's BW and, before > passing the tray to the other side of the screen, advises his screenmate of > his intention to bid slam even if his partner happens to sign off (some > kind of anticipation alert?). > And what if (innocently!) he announces he will bid slam if his partner > bids a slow 5S? > It would go a long way into proving there are no LA's. But sadly, all definitions of LA go "what this player would do", but rather "what his peers would do". Now of course that is only because the first type of definition is unworkable. Every single player will state that he will always bid ..., but he cannot prove it. By way of this announcement, this player can indeed prove it. So what we need to decide is whether such proof, when indeed it exists as it does here, might not outweigh the "definition" which after all, is not part of the Laws. It might make a good case to an AC. I personally might well accept it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 02:22:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 02:22:09 +1000 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 CAA00913 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 02:21:53 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA10346; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:21:15 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.33) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010294; Thu Mar 11 10:20:37 1999 Received: by har-pa1-01.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE6BB0.FB162060@har-pa1-01.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:19:08 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE6BB0.FB162060@har-pa1-01.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'John S. Nichols'" Subject: RE: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:49:19 -0500 Encoding: 21 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had thought the famous Mark Twain quote on this was "The rumors (sic) of my death have been greatly exaggerated." ---------- From: John S. Nichols[SMTP:jnichols@minfod.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 2:27 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} At 11:18 PM 3/9/99 , David Burn wrote: ... snip ... >I don't know (Grattan will) who it was that said he read the obituary >column in the paper each morning, and if he wasn't it it, he went to >work. I have heard this quote attributed to Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) most frequently. However, there are others as well. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 03:07:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 03:07:13 +1000 Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA01018 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 03:07:07 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n7d.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.125]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA12796 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:06:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990311120308.008065c0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:03:08 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:12 AM 3/11/99 +0100, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > What do you think of the fairness and the legality of this unusual situation? > > Playing with screens, NS start some complex slam-bidding sequence agreeing >spades as trumps. At some point, South answers to partner's BW and, before >passing the tray to the other side of the screen, advises his screenmate of >his intention to bid slam even if his partner happens to sign off (some >kind of anticipation alert?). > And what if (innocently!) he announces he will bid slam if his partner >bids a slow 5S? I believe Marty Bergen did something very similar many years ago while playing with Luella Slaner in the Vanderbilt. It was either a cue-bidding or Blackwood sequence. After Marty bid and the tray was passed, he told his screenmate that he was going to bid a grand no matter what, the only question was whether to play in a suit or NT. Apparently he anticipated his partner having a problem and needing extra time to work it out and he wanted to protect against the UI that may be available as the result of irregular tempo. I don't know if he stated which bids would result in him bidding 7NT and which 7S. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 03:09:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 03:09:27 +1000 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 DAA01033 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 03:09:21 +1000 Received: from default ([12.75.41.58]) by mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990311170846.FCYD25433@default> for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:08:46 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:06:49 -0600 Message-ID: <01be6be1$8d2b6e80$a02b4b0c@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 Grattan may recall, I think a very similar instance occurred at the '94 World Championships. France vs Netherlands Juniors. The committee did not allow the action. -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael Subject: Re: UI insurance >Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> >> What do you think of the fairness and the legality of this unusual situation? >> >> Playing with screens, NS start some complex slam-bidding sequence agreeing >> spades as trumps. At some point, South answers to partner's BW and, before >> passing the tray to the other side of the screen, advises his screenmate of >> his intention to bid slam even if his partner happens to sign off (some >> kind of anticipation alert?). >> And what if (innocently!) he announces he will bid slam if his partner >> bids a slow 5S? >> > >It would go a long way into proving there are no LA's. > >But sadly, all definitions of LA go "what this player would >do", but rather "what his peers would do". > >Now of course that is only because the first type of >definition is unworkable. Every single player will state >that he will always bid ..., but he cannot prove it. > >By way of this announcement, this player can indeed prove >it. > >So what we need to decide is whether such proof, when indeed >it exists as it does here, might not outweigh the >"definition" which after all, is not part of the Laws. > >It might make a good case to an AC. > >I personally might well accept it.> From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 03:57:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 03:57:12 +1000 Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA01158 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 03:55:38 +1000 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; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 16:44:29 +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 QAA22799 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 16:40:29 GMT From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 16:38:02 +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 Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > What do you think of the fairness and the legality of this unusual > situation? > > Playing with screens, NS start some complex slam-bidding sequence agreeing > spades as trumps. At some point, South answers to partner's BW and, before > passing the tray to the other side of the screen, advises his screenmate of > his intention to bid slam even if his partner happens to sign off (some > kind of anticipation alert?). If this were allowed, it should be illegal to *say* you would bid the slam and then *not* do so, even in the absence of UI. I'm not familiar with the practicalities of using screens, but maybe more experienced BLMLers could say whether it's easy to write a note to your screenmate without your partner being aware of the fact that you're doing so. If not, this could cause problems. > And what if (innocently!) he announces he will bid slam if his partner > bids a slow 5S? I presume you mean he announces "I'll bid slam" and then his partner bids a slow 5S, not that he announces "I'll bid slam if my partner bids a slow 5S". :-) Jeremy. --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 04:02:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 04:02:46 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 EAA01181 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 04:02:40 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10L9mz-000NDW-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 18:02:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 01:08:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Is this a claim? { was, now The Ancient Revolutionary's Reply} In-Reply-To: <199903100418000960.2174C671@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199903100418000960.2174C671@mail.btinternet.com>, David Burn writes >>> >>>>"ten" means "play the ten". >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>>>"finesse" means "depending on LHO's card I play the card to beat it" >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>>>"finesse the ten" means primarily "finesse" not primarily "ten" >>> >>> Why? >>> >> >>Because that is what is *meant* by the statement. > Reading the obits this morning, I wondered about this thread. >Here is a dispute that has arisen because neither party at the table >was prepared to back down, and has been perpetuated because people >believe that to play in an unsporting fashion is not only legal, but in >some bizarre interpretation dutiful. What's that you say, Mrs Robinson? >Joltin' Joe has left and gone away... I must confess if I'd said "ten" I'd have conceded the trick without even calling the director. If I'd said "finesse" or "finesse the ten" I'd be taking it to National Appeal. Bridge is a game of unforced error. When an oppo makes an unforced error you *should* (and it is appropriate to) take advantage. It's no different to not splitting honours or bidding a slam off a few aces because you didn't bother with blackwood. It *was an error*. Sportingness is not the question. The TD has been asked to rule and the Law is clear. "Line 'em up against the wall and shoot 'em" -- 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 Mar 12 04:14:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 04:14:32 +1000 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 EAA01217 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 04:14:26 +1000 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-157-238.lsan.grid.net [207.205.157.238]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA21707 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:14:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36E8082D.FF4CDD6E@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:15:09 -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: UI insurance References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > What do you think of the fairness and the legality of this unusual situation? > > Playing with screens, NS start some complex slam-bidding sequence agreeing > spades as trumps. At some point, South answers to partner's BW and, before > passing the tray to the other side of the screen, advises his screenmate of > his intention to bid slam even if his partner happens to sign off (some > kind of anticipation alert?). I think this is fine. LA is defined by the SO, but I think a rule that the incontrovertible intent by the player should be allowed is proper. Honestly, I think this is a terrific solution with screens. Of course, if he doesn't bid slam, I intend to give him the losing score of game or slam, and add a friendly 3/4 board procedural penalty. > And what if (innocently!) he announces he will bid slam if his partner > bids a slow 5S? Depends on what he means. If this is behind screens at a World Championships, I'm guessing this is a language problem, and I'm not going to punish that. If he is mistaken about the law, we'll have a discussion... --JRM > > 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 Mar 12 05:47:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 05:47:03 +1000 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 FAA01562 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 05:46:57 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n6d.san.rr.com [204.210.46.109]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA00731; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:46:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903111946.LAA00731@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Mark Twain Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:46:21 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval Dubreuil wrote: > > ---------- > De : DuBreuil, Laval > Date d'envoi : 11 mars, 1999 10:51 > A : bridge /mime (bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk) > Objet : RE: Is this a claim? > ---------- > LORMANT Philippe wrote: > > > > > Kiss all people you love, > > Is this a claim? Or a desire... > > The ones I want to won't let me, and I don't want to get too > much fur > in my mouth! > > -- > David Stevenson > + > > Far away from my original posting....that generates near by 100 > messages... > I will be shy next time I post. > > Thx all Many of us have been guilty too often of not changing the subject line when we diverge from a thread. I resolve to do better! I believe this is the right version of the *bon mot* that has been quoted recently: "The report of my death has been greatly exaggerated" -- Mark Twain, in a cable from Europe to the Associated Press, who evidently had reported his death. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 05:56:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 05:56:04 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA01584 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 05:55:56 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10LBYc-0006wH-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 19:55:50 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 19:21:10 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Warsaw Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 19:21:08 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > The European Open and Seniors Pairs will be in Warsaw, Poland, next > week. I shall be directing, and would very much like to meet any of > my > BLML friends who are there. > > ######## Ditto (except that I am playing). ####### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 05:56:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 05:56:05 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA01586 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 05:55:59 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10LBYg-0006wH-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 19:55:54 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 19:23:01 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Warsaw Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 19:22:59 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > The European Open and Seniors Pairs will be in Warsaw, Poland, > next > > week. I shall be directing, and would very much like to meet any of > my > > BLML friends who are there. > > > > And I shall be on the appeal committee. > This should prove interesting. > > ####### DWS directing & Herman on the Appeals Committee. God help > me! ######### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 06:04:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 06:04:59 +1000 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 GAA01613 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 06:04:53 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n6d.san.rr.com [204.210.46.109]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA03998 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:04:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903112004.MAA03998@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Mark Twain Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:04:19 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just looked up the quote in *The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations* and I had it wrong. Some day I'm going to learn not to quote from memory. According to the ODQ, these are the words used by Mark Twain in his cable from Europe to the Associated Press: "The report of my death was an exaggeration." Although published in the U. S., the ODQ selections come from the Oxford University Press, which is no doubt infallible. However, I see my 1980 version is the Third edition 1979 "reprinted with corrections," so who knows? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 06:57:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 06:57:05 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA01689 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 06:56:58 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10LCVe-000FY2-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 20:56:51 +0000 Message-ID: <3cg82PA2LC62Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 20:09:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > What do you think of the fairness and the legality of this unusual situation? > > Playing with screens, NS start some complex slam-bidding sequence agreeing >spades as trumps. At some point, South answers to partner's BW and, before >passing the tray to the other side of the screen, advises his screenmate of >his intention to bid slam even if his partner happens to sign off (some >kind of anticipation alert?). > And what if (innocently!) he announces he will bid slam if his partner >bids a slow 5S? Forget the screens, the talking to screenmate, and so on. Let us go back to the Laws of Bridge. Because of its coded messages between partners, UI is and will remain a problem in Bridge. There may be various solutions that help to reduce UI problems, such as screens, electronics, online bridge, postal bridge, and so on. But at the end of the day, there and must be Laws to control UI. Players are required to follow the Laws, and if they don't, TDs and ACs will rule against them. If that seems too obvious, suppose you reword Jean-Pierre's question thus: he writes on a piece of paper "I am not going to follow the Laws of bridge". Does that make it acceptable for the player not to follow the Laws of bridge? On here, on RGB, on RGBO/OKBD, in numerous UI discussions across the world there are players [and, I regret, officials] who express the view "It does not matter whether you have UI so long as you make the call/play that you would have without the UI." Such an approach is illegal. L73C requires you to not take certain actions with no reference as to whether you would have without the UI. L16A does the same. When partner makes UI available to a player certain actions become improper and illegal [not unethical unless chosen deliberately knowing they are improper]. Such actions should not be taken. The answer to Jean-Pierre's actual question is that if your opponent does that he has realised that his next action might be challenged on UI grounds. If UI is transmitted then you should *always* call the TD. By making this statement the player has realised his action id dubious if there is UI. A player who adopts this procedure is actually adopting a procedure that proves he knows he is on shaky ground ethically. In my view the TD should be called *immediately* so he can warn the player. LAs? If there were no LAs to the player's next action, he would not be bothering to invent this UI-circumventing procedure! If there is UI, you can nearly rule against him without looking at the hand! -- 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 Mar 12 08:33:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 08:33:41 +1000 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 IAA01911 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 08:33:35 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n6d.san.rr.com [204.210.46.109]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA27439 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:33:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903112233.OAA27439@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:31:59 -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 Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > What do you think of the fairness and the legality of this unusual situation? > > Playing with screens, NS start some complex slam-bidding sequence agreeing >spades as trumps. At some point, South answers to partner's BW and, before >passing the tray to the other side of the screen, advises his screenmate of >his intention to bid slam even if his partner happens to sign off (some >kind of anticipation alert?). >And what if (innocently!) he announces he will bid slam if his partner >bids a slow 5S? If a player secretly tells his screenmate that he will make a specific bid *no matter what partner does*, then doing something else is not a logical alternative. If UI happens to ensue later, receiving it is not an infraction, and is not a reason *per se* to call the TD. L16A2: "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith." Since his opponent would have no "substantial reason to believe," and moreover it would be difficult to "demonstrate" that the promised bid was suggested over another LA by the UI, calling the TD would not be in order. However, a player should not complicate things by qualifying what his future action might be in accordance with what partner might do (e.g., sign-off, break of tempo), or by not specifying the *exact* bid that will be made. That's expecting too much leeway. Also, if the promised bid isn't made, that would constitute *prima facie* evidence of MUI (misuse of unauthorized information), even if UI was not detectable. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Who is not a TD, and writes everything as "IMO" From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 09:55:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 09:55:52 +1000 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 JAA02210 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 09:55:45 +1000 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-156-166.lsan.grid.net [207.205.156.166]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA26026 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 18:55:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36E8582A.DE696867@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 15:56:26 -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: UI insurance References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3cg82PA2LC62Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > What do you think of the fairness and the legality of this unusual situation? > > > > Playing with screens, NS start some complex slam-bidding sequence agreeing > >spades as trumps. At some point, South answers to partner's BW and, before > >passing the tray to the other side of the screen, advises his screenmate of > >his intention to bid slam even if his partner happens to sign off (some > >kind of anticipation alert?). > > And what if (innocently!) he announces he will bid slam if his partner > >bids a slow 5S? > > Forget the screens, the talking to screenmate, and so on. Let us go > back to the Laws of Bridge. > > Because of its coded messages between partners, UI is and will remain > a problem in Bridge. There may be various solutions that help to reduce > UI problems, such as screens, electronics, online bridge, postal bridge, > and so on. But at the end of the day, there and must be Laws to control > UI. > > Players are required to follow the Laws, and if they don't, TDs and > ACs will rule against them. If that seems too obvious, suppose you > reword Jean-Pierre's question thus: he writes on a piece of paper "I am > not going to follow the Laws of bridge". Does that make it acceptable > for the player not to follow the Laws of bridge? > > On here, on RGB, on RGBO/OKBD, in numerous UI discussions across the > world there are players [and, I regret, officials] who express the view > "It does not matter whether you have UI so long as you make the > call/play that you would have without the UI." Such an approach is > illegal. Yes, certainly. And it must be that way because otherwise you can take advantage of UI with impunity, if you are of a dishonest or self-deluding nature. > > L73C requires you to not take certain actions with no reference as to > whether you would have without the UI. L16A does the same. When > partner makes UI available to a player certain actions become improper > and illegal [not unethical unless chosen deliberately knowing they are > improper]. Such actions should not be taken. I agree that the laws cited limit your options. And, I think that a devotion to these laws is admirable and proper -- I would rule as David does if my SO informed me that I should interpret the laws this way. I am also a proud member of the "If it hesitates, shoot it," brigade. But it clearly unjust to stop a player from making a bid he would actually make 100% of the time. I believe that by announcing prior to the problem, the player gives strong evidence that he and players like him playing identical styles and methods would make the follow-up bid each and every time -- after all, the player is committing to it even if partner makes a fast sign-off. This, to my way of thinking, makes the grand bid a 100% bid, allowable even in the ACBL. > > The answer to Jean-Pierre's actual question is that if your opponent > does that he has realised that his next action might be challenged on UI > grounds. If UI is transmitted then you should *always* call the TD. By > making this statement the player has realised his action id dubious if > there is UI. No, that isn't true. I may think my action is automatic, but maybe Rosenberg, Cohen, Girard, et. al. won't. Maybe they don't agree with my basic bidding theory. Maybe they think I should only bid the grand if I have 14 cold tricks. Maybe... who knows? I do think my action is automatic, because I said I'd bid a grand over any response by partner. > > A player who adopts this procedure is actually adopting a procedure > that proves he knows he is on shaky ground ethically. In my view the TD > should be called *immediately* so he can warn the player. Feh! I don't think it proves he's on shaky ground ethically at all. I think it shows that he wants to add evidence that his next bid is the only LA. > > LAs? If there were no LAs to the player's next action, he would not > be bothering to invent this UI-circumventing procedure! If there is UI, > you can nearly rule against him without looking at the hand! I don't buy this. Just because *I* don't think it's an LA doesn't mean a committee won't. We've seen enough split committees on similar auctions to know that it's a problem. Didn't The Bridge World have an editorial some time ago (perhaps many years; I read back issues regularly and sometimes get the time placement of articles jumbled) endorsing this sort of solution? I vaguely recall something else on this if combined with computer keyboards, figuring you could type in your plan early, but you are committed to anything typed in. Or am I suffering another hallucination? --JRM > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 10:34:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:34:35 +1000 Received: from tungsten (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA02306 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:34:28 +1000 Received: from [195.99.51.126] (helo=david-burn) by tungsten with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10LFtq-0000Ex-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:34:02 +0000 Message-ID: <199903120032350840.2AF37BA8@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199903112004.MAA03998@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> References: <199903112004.MAA03998@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.00.00.12 Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:32:35 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mark Twain Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Although published in the U. S., the ODQ selections come from the >Oxford University Press, which is no doubt infallible. However, I >see my 1980 version is the Third edition 1979 "reprinted with >corrections," so who knows? As any Oxbridge man will tell you, we are infallible. But we're modest with it. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 10:42:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:42:23 +1000 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 KAA02323 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:42:15 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.221]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id CAA17820; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 02:41:51 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36E862F9.525C60C@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 02:42:33 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Martin CC: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Warsaw References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry David, I don't believe even HE will help........... Dany p.s. God , I apologize David Martin wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > The European Open and Seniors Pairs will be in Warsaw, Poland, > > next > > > week. I shall be directing, and would very much like to meet any of > > my > > > BLML friends who are there. > > > > > > > And I shall be on the appeal committee. > > This should prove interesting. > > > > ####### DWS directing & Herman on the Appeals Committee. God help > > me! ######### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 11:01:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:01:09 +1000 Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA02353 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:00:51 +1000 Received: from salsa (salsa.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.112]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA19563 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:00:34 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990312140105.0094ba00@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:01:05 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <3cg82PA2LC62Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The heart of the original question (let's not worry about the case where South uses inappropriate language to express his intentions.) > >> What do you think of the fairness and the legality of this unusual situation? >> >> Playing with screens, NS start some complex slam-bidding sequence agreeing >>spades as trumps. At some point, South answers to partner's BW and, before >>passing the tray to the other side of the screen, advises his screenmate of >>his intention to bid slam even if his partner happens to sign off (some >>kind of anticipation alert?). We're about to debate legality, but can anyone argue that south's behaviour is not "fair"? (or even considerate.) Let me say at the outset that in general I'm very much inclined to be "hard line" on UI matters. None the less ... DWS replied: > > Forget the screens, the talking to screenmate, and so on. Let us go >back to the Laws of Bridge. > > Because of its coded messages between partners, UI is and will remain >a problem in Bridge. There may be various solutions that help to reduce >UI problems, such as screens, electronics, online bridge, postal bridge, >and so on. But at the end of the day, there and must be Laws to control >UI. > > Players are required to follow the Laws, and if they don't, TDs and >ACs will rule against them. If that seems too obvious, suppose you >reword Jean-Pierre's question thus: he writes on a piece of paper "I am >not going to follow the Laws of bridge". Does that make it acceptable >for the player not to follow the Laws of bridge? I'm afraid that this is a straw man. We are here to decide whether or not South has decided not to obey the laws of bridge, not to presuppose that he has. > > On here, on RGB, on RGBO/OKBD, in numerous UI discussions across the >world there are players [and, I regret, officials] who express the view >"It does not matter whether you have UI so long as you make the >call/play that you would have without the UI." Such an approach is >illegal. True but not relevant. At the time of South's communication of his intentions, to his screenmate he was not in possession of UI. So the (correct) resolution of the previous debate that DWS refers to is inapplicable. > > L73C requires you to not take certain actions with no reference as to >whether you would have without the UI. L16A does the same. When >partner makes UI available to a player certain actions become improper >and illegal [not unethical unless chosen deliberately knowing they are >improper]. Such actions should not be taken. > Marvin has dealt with the 16A position: >L16A2: "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an >opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that >could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the >Director forthwith." > >Since his opponent would have no "substantial reason to believe," >and moreover it would be difficult to "demonstrate" that the >promised bid was suggested over another LA by the UI, calling the >TD would not be in order. > > And I'll add: 73C. Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. (South communicates to screenmate, north subsequently hesitates thus providing UI. South follows out his intentions as communicated.) This law refers to taking an advantage gained by the possession of UI. In the situation at hand, there can be no such advantage since south's actions were predetermined. (If you don't believe this, then change the setting of the problem yet again -- south silently communicates to a director sitting next to him: "I want you to put my next bid on the tray for me -- if partner bids 5S, then 6S, if anything else then 7S") It is the act of communication of his intentions that ensures that South's subsequent actions do not take advantage. If I may be permitted to bend or perhaps break the analogy. Instead of communicating his intentions to his screenmate, South says "excuse me, I must answer an urgent call of nature" (or the okbridge equivalent -- brb.) He returns to the table 5 minutes later and sees his partner's 5S signoff on the bidding tray, and without concern bids 6S. Is anyone going to complain? > The answer to Jean-Pierre's actual question is that if your opponent >does that he has realised that his next action might be challenged on UI >grounds. If UI is transmitted then you should *always* call the TD. By >making this statement the player has realised his action id dubious if >there is UI. > I disagree, he has realized that his actions would be dubious if UI became available and he had not made his intentions clear. If we fail to allow this then we are forcing any South in this position (or at least any South who realizes that his opponents might be inclined to question his subsequent actions on UI grounds) to choose inferior bridge actions (or to acquire an undeserved reputation for having a weak bladder) as his insurance against UI. If the law says that we must do this (and I do not believe that it does), then the law is an ass. --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mar 12 12:13:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:13:57 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA02463 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:13:51 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa03244; 11 Mar 99 18:13 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: UI insurance In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 11 Mar 1999 15:56:26 PST." <36E8582A.DE696867@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 18:13:04 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9903111813.aa03244@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Mayne wrote: > > A player who adopts this procedure is actually adopting a procedure > > that proves he knows he is on shaky ground ethically. In my view the TD > > should be called *immediately* so he can warn the player. > > Feh! I don't think it proves he's on shaky ground ethically at all. I > think it shows that he wants to add evidence that his next bid is the > only LA. Hmmmmmmmmmmm . . . I don't think it adds evidence of that at all. It provides evidence that "I am planning to bid Y if partner bids X", but that isn't the same as saying "I consider Y to be the only logical alternative." For example, as dealer, I might look at my hand, and before I bid, I might think "I'll open this 1S, and if partner raises, I'll go straight to 4S." This doesn't mean that I think 4S would be the only "logical alternative" over 2S---it just means that it's the alternative I'm going to pick. To use the term LA in the way you've used it stretches it, I believe, beyond any reasonably possible meaning of the term. I agree with David that the current Laws don't let you do what Jean suggested. I tried to find something in the Laws that would give the director the discretion not to adjust in a case like this, but I couldn't. And I think this is a flaw in the Laws, although maybe a small one. The problem is that we can't write the Law we really want to write, which is "Players may not let UI influence their actions." Such a Law would be unenforceable, of course, since we can't read the contents of people's minds. And I think we should allow statements like "I was going to make that bid anyway", **IF** we had a way to verify whether the statement was true. But we have no way to do that. No one has invented a truth serum that can reliably let us tell whether someone's statement like this is honest or self-serving. And if someone did invent a truth serum, most likely it would cause cancer in laboratory rats and be banned anyway. So the Law we have seems to be the best compromise, one which avoids forcing TD's to try to read minds or to accuse people of lying. Now Jean has come up with a method where we CAN, in some cases, tell that such a statement would be honest and not self-serving. Certainly, if you tell someone what your plan is before you even know whether you're going to get UI (and if you have to pay a penalty for not following through with your plan), your statement that "you were going to make that bid regardless" has to be accepted as honest. Unfortunately, we're stuck with a Law written by people who assumed there would be no such way to tell, and who therefore didn't provide for the kind of thing Jean suggested. So that's why I think this is a flaw in the Laws. Actually, I can't even envision changing the Laws, unless the bridge community decides that having players (when playing with screens) commit themselves to plans would be a Good Thing that we'd want to encourage. Maybe this procedure should be encouraged---I don't know. It seems more feasible in on-line bridge---I like the idea of typing in plans ahead of time. (P.S. I don't remember any such BW editorial, but then again I've only been subscribing for about five years.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 12:36:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:36:02 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 MAA02498 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:35:56 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10LHnb-000Hu8-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 02:35:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 02:21:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Warsaw References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > The European Open and Seniors Pairs will be in Warsaw, Poland, next >week. I shall be directing, and would very much like to meet any of my >BLML friends who are there. Incidentally, if anyone wants to email me during the next ten days, try or . If I can get near the internet I should be able to download emails to these addresses. -- 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 Mar 12 12:36:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:36:14 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 MAA02506 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:36:08 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10LHnp-000Hum-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 02:36:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:51:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3cg82PA2LC62Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <36E8582A.DE696867@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <36E8582A.DE696867@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: >But it clearly unjust to stop a player from making a bid he would >actually make 100% of the time. It is not "unjust" to make people play to the rules 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 Fri Mar 12 12:51:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:51:30 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 MAA02557 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:51:23 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10LI2Y-0003Yi-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 02:51:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 02:49:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3cg82PA2LC62Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990312140105.0094ba00@emmy.otago.ac.nz> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990312140105.0094ba00@emmy.otago.ac.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Albert wrote: >DWS replied: >> Players are required to follow the Laws, and if they don't, TDs and >>ACs will rule against them. If that seems too obvious, suppose you >>reword Jean-Pierre's question thus: he writes on a piece of paper "I am >>not going to follow the Laws of bridge". Does that make it acceptable >>for the player not to follow the Laws of bridge? >I'm afraid that this is a straw man. We are here to decide whether or not >South has decided not to obey the laws of bridge, not to presuppose that he >has. We know he is not following the Laws of bridge: look at the other replies! What he is trying to do is to circumvent such Laws. >> On here, on RGB, on RGBO/OKBD, in numerous UI discussions across the >>world there are players [and, I regret, officials] who express the view >>"It does not matter whether you have UI so long as you make the >>call/play that you would have without the UI." Such an approach is >>illegal. >True but not relevant. At the time of South's communication of his >intentions, to his screenmate he was not in possession of UI. So the >(correct) resolution of the previous debate that DWS refers to is >inapplicable. Not at all. He is worried about future UI from partner. What do you suppose his little charade is for otherwise? >> L73C requires you to not take certain actions with no reference as to >>whether you would have without the UI. L16A does the same. When >>partner makes UI available to a player certain actions become improper >>and illegal [not unethical unless chosen deliberately knowing they are >>improper]. Such actions should not be taken. >> > >Marvin has dealt with the 16A position: >>L16A2: "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an >>opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that >>could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the >>Director forthwith." >> >>Since his opponent would have no "substantial reason to believe," >>and moreover it would be difficult to "demonstrate" that the >>promised bid was suggested over another LA by the UI, calling the >>TD would not be in order. The player is attempting to commit an infraction. I think you should call the TD! L9A1 and L9B1A give the player the right. L16 includes "a player may not choose from ..." and the player is trying to find a way to do just that. >I disagree, he has realized that his actions would be dubious if UI became >available and he had not made his intentions clear. If we fail to allow >this then we are forcing any South in this position (or at least any South >who realizes that his opponents might be inclined to question his >subsequent actions on UI grounds) to choose inferior bridge actions (or to >acquire an undeserved reputation for having a weak bladder) as his >insurance against UI. > >If the law says that we must do this (and I do not believe that it does), >then the law is an ass. Oh, come off it! It is not easy to deal with UI, and a practical method has been made by the Law-makers to deal with it. If the Law on UI is an ass, how would you improve it? And please remember that changes will affect every UI situation, and not just this one. I find it abhorrent that people are supporting a procedure to try to avoid following the Laws of the game, because those Laws may unluckily give the player a poor result. Bridge Lawyering at its worst. -- 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 Mar 12 14:52:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:52:37 +1000 Received: from smtp4.mindspring.com (smtp4.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA02686 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:52:31 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivehm1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.193]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA30729 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 23:52:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990311235224.006acef4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 23:52:24 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <36E8582A.DE696867@mindspring.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3cg82PA2LC62Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:56 PM 3/11/99 -0800, John wrote: >I agree that the laws cited limit your options. And, I think that a >devotion to these laws is admirable and proper -- I would rule as David >does if my SO informed me that I should interpret the laws this way. I >am also a proud member of the "If it hesitates, shoot it," brigade. > >But it clearly unjust to stop a player from making a bid he would >actually make 100% of the time. No, it is not. "Justice" is primarily a matter of applying the Laws in an even-handed and consistent manner. Contrary to what some have opined, the Laws are not ambiguous in this setting, and in combination with SO regulations make clear that a determination of what is or is not a legal bid is to be determined larglely without reference to the player's state of mind. Instead, we have substantially objective criteria defining LA and all the rest, and if these tests suffice to disallow the slam bid, then no amount of "pre-insurance" will (or should) rescue it. What is manifestly unjust is to bend the Laws to accommodate the wishes of one player to slither out of the legal constraints under which we all must operate. I understand the inclination to bend the rules in a case such as this, but I don't believe it's in the interest of the game to do so. I want TD's and AC's to apply the Laws, not exercise some self-conceived notion of "justice." If it turns out that the Laws in their present form are less than ideal in their expression of deeper bridge values (and I believe they are, in some instances), then let us change them according to the prescribed procedures. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 15:46:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA02765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 15:46:08 +1000 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 PAA02760 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 15:46:03 +1000 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 2.12 #1) id 10LKlE-0003iZ-00; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 06:45:28 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA172407527; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 06:45:27 +0100 Subject: Re: UI insurance To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 06:45:27 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Mar 12, 1999 12:51:11 AM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to David Stevenson: > >John R. Mayne wrote: > >>But it clearly unjust to stop a player from making a bid he would >>actually make 100% of the time. > > It is not "unjust" to make people play to the rules of the game. Oh, come on, David, you know that playing with screens is different from playing without screens, whereas the rules mainly cover playing without screens. I want to stir up a little confusion, though: Player A says to his screenmate that he'll bid a grand slam at his next turn. His partner, however, bids the small slam at normal speed. Player A then puts a pass on the tray. You are called to the table, because the screenmate wants you to force player A to bid a grand slam. What now? Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 16:14:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA02821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 16:14:50 +1000 Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (root@corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA02816 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 16:14:46 +1000 Received: from [131.217.55.82] (purcell.chem.utas.edu.au [131.217.55.82]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA10535 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:14:42 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990312140105.0094ba00@emmy.otago.ac.nz> References: <3cg82PA2LC62Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:18:18 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: UI insurance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:01 PM +1300 12/3/99, Michael Albert wrote: >If I may be permitted to bend or perhaps break the analogy. Instead of >communicating his intentions to his screenmate, South says "excuse me, I >must answer an urgent call of nature" (or the okbridge equivalent -- brb.) >He returns to the table 5 minutes later and sees his partner's 5S signoff >on the bidding tray, and without concern bids 6S. Is anyone going to complain? I would complain if his partner knew he'd gone to the bathroom. In that case his partner knew he could tank for some time without creating a potential UI situation for his partner. (Screens don't usually prevent you from observing that partner has left the table...) Any agreement to go to the bathroom in such a situation would also create a partnership understanding that would need to be disclosed. Of course when said partnership understanding is disclosed ("When either of us goes to the bathroom before our partner has called, he/she may have predetermined what action they intend to take after they see partner's call, and he/she wanted to avoid any UI problem"), it in itself creates an illegal means of communication to the partner *NOT* going to the bathroom :-) Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 20:14:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 20:14:23 +1000 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 UAA03248 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 20:14:16 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA23158 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:13:24 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 12 Mar 99 10:13 GMT From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UI insurance To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > What do you think of the fairness and the legality of this unusual > situation? > > Playing with screens, NS start some complex slam-bidding sequence > agreeing > spades as trumps. At some point, South answers to partner's BW and, > before > passing the tray to the other side of the screen, advises his > screenmate of > his intention to bid slam even if his partner happens to sign off (some > kind of anticipation alert?). South has communicated to his screenmate that South believes his peers are those who are already committed to slam by the auction to date (perhaps a subset of those whom one might, a priori, consider his peers). The director will weigh this evidence alongside other evidence when he considers his ruling. There is nothing in the laws which prevents a player from (honest) communication with the opposition. The long-winded approach is to give full disclosure at the time of the bid eg: "Partner's 4NT is asking about Aces and the K/Q of trumps we have an agreement (or my style is) that we will never show extra trump length by bidding as if we have the SQ as this could lead to partner misplacing my known points and missing a slam in NT. Therefore with extra length I will first deny the SQ and then bid at the six level on the next round." As before the director will weigh this evidence alongside other evidence when determining LAs. A good player will anticipate, and solve, his partnership's problems just as South tried to do. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 20:14:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 20:14:35 +1000 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 UAA03254 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 20:14:29 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA23252 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:13:38 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 12 Mar 99 10:13 GMT From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Mark Twain To: dburn@btinternet.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <199903120032350840.2AF37BA8@mail.btinternet.com> "David Burn" wrote: > As any Oxbridge man will tell you, we are infallible. But we're modest > with it. Oxbridge Man? My Oxford acquaintances were never wholly convinced of the worth of the People's Polytechnic of the Fens. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 12 20:14:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 20:14:52 +1000 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA03262 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 20:14:45 +1000 Received: from [195.99.45.51] (helo=david-burn) by carbon with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10LOvi-0003G3-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:12:35 +0000 Message-ID: <199903121012430930.2D06B172@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <9903111813.aa03244@flash.irvine.com> References: <9903111813.aa03244@flash.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.00.00.12 Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:12:43 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI insurance Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 11/03/99 at 18:13 Adam Beneschan wrote: >I agree with David that the current Laws don't let you do what Jean >suggested. I tried to find something in the Laws that would give the >director the discretion not to adjust in a case like this, but I >couldn't. And I think this is a flaw in the Laws, although maybe a >small one. Let me see if I can provide one - since I do not agree that the current Laws do not permit a player to, in effect, declare in advance what he will bid. The difficulty that I often encounter with L16A is that people (players, TDs, AC members and BLML correspondents) have a tendency to start reading it from the middle. That is, they immediately concentrate on whether a player had any LAs to his chosen action, without considering whether the player was actually in receipt of any UI. If the partner has not made available any extraneous information, then the player is a free agent, and can act as he wishes. In the situation suggested by Jean-Pierre, it may very well be that the player who has made his mind up about what he will do on the next round considers that he has all the information he needs to make that decision from legal calls by his partner. He may, in effect, decide that his partner's next call and the manner of it will be "information-free", that it will convey nothing that will make him change his mind about his next action. In that case, the player has (in effect) announced that "whatever happens, my partner cannot communicate any more information to me than I have already, and my next call will be..." I agree that to consider the matter from the point of view of a declaration by the player that he will have no LAs to his next call is unhelpful; the question is not whether he has any, but whether there are any. However, I see no difficulty with the notion that a player may declare himself not able to receive UI since he already has all the information he requires to make his next call. Of course, such a declaration would require considerable reinforcement from the player's system material, and a sceptic might well ask: "If you knew what your next call would be, why did you not make that call instead of your current one?". But in principle, it seems to me a legal way to proceed. David Burn dburn@btinternet.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 13 02:22:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 02:22:57 +1000 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 CAA06591 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 02:22:49 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-176.uunet.be [194.7.13.176]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA15922 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:22:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36E90463.B92764A0@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:11:15 +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: UI insurance References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3cg82PA2LC62Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990312140105.0094ba00@emmy.otago.ac.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > I find it abhorrent that people are supporting a procedure to try to > avoid following the Laws of the game, because those Laws may unluckily > give the player a poor result. Bridge Lawyering at its worst. > I find it abhorrant that people are supporting a procedure that puts the Laws of the game ahead of the good of bridge. Bridge Lawyering at its worst. A player who does this is not trying to be a bridge lawyer. He is trying to show to his opponent that his intentions are ethical. It is the opponent who is the bridge lawyer, in asking a TD and AC to change an honest decision by an honest player. Sometimes David, you have a little too MUCH respect for the letter of the law. The Law talks of LA's. A TD and AC is allowed to define LA's as it sees fit. Obviously the laws and recommendations have not envisaged this "proof" of the non-existence of LA's. That does not mean an AC should disregard this evidence when it is available. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 13 02:23:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 02:23:01 +1000 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 CAA06597 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 02:22:52 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-176.uunet.be [194.7.13.176]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA15936 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:22:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36E905D6.35376CA9@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:17:26 +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: Warsaw References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Incidentally, if anyone wants to email me during the next ten days, > try or . If I can get near > the internet I should be able to download emails to these addresses. > Ditto at hermandw@hotmail.com -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 13 02:22:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 02:22:59 +1000 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 CAA06593 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 02:22:51 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-176.uunet.be [194.7.13.176]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA15929 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:22:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36E904D7.F61AE73C@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:13:11 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: UI insurance References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote: > > According to David Stevenson: > > > >John R. Mayne wrote: > > > >>But it clearly unjust to stop a player from making a bid he would > >>actually make 100% of the time. > > > > It is not "unjust" to make people play to the rules of the game. > > Oh, come on, David, you know that playing with screens > is different from playing without screens, whereas > the rules mainly cover playing without screens. > > I want to stir up a little confusion, though: > > Player A says to his screenmate that he'll > bid a grand slam at his next turn. > His partner, however, bids the small slam > at normal speed. Player A then puts a pass > on the tray. > > You are called to the table, because the screenmate > wants you to force player A to bid a grand slam. > What now? > Well, if you want, you can take the statement as proof that the grand was a LA, and the "normal speed" as UI (since player obviously expected it to take a long time), and adjust accordingly. > Thomas -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 13 05:04:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 05:04:34 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA07127 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 05:04:23 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA17936; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:03:45 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-20.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.84) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma017851; Fri Mar 12 13:03:29 1999 Received: by har-pa2-20.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE6C90.E32202E0@har-pa2-20.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:01:55 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE6C90.E32202E0@har-pa2-20.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Mark Abraham'" Subject: RE: UI insurance Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:01:20 -0500 Encoding: 30 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How about they agree to MEET in the bathroom? (Oops...that's been done, hasn't it!) :-))) ---------- From: Mark Abraham[SMTP:mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au] At 2:01 PM +1300 12/3/99, Michael Albert wrote: >If I may be permitted to bend or perhaps break the analogy. Instead of >communicating his intentions to his screenmate, South says "excuse me, I >must answer an urgent call of nature" (or the okbridge equivalent -- brb.) >He returns to the table 5 minutes later and sees his partner's 5S signoff >on the bidding tray, and without concern bids 6S. Is anyone going to complain? I would complain if his partner knew he'd gone to the bathroom. In that case his partner knew he could tank for some time without creating a potential UI situation for his partner. (Screens don't usually prevent you from observing that partner has left the table...) Any agreement to go to the bathroom in such a situation would also create a partnership understanding that would need to be disclosed. Of course when said partnership understanding is disclosed ("When either of us goes to the bathroom before our partner has called, he/she may have predetermined what action they intend to take after they see partner's call, and he/she wanted to avoid any UI problem"), it in itself creates an illegal means of communication to the partner *NOT* going to the bathroom :-) Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 13 09:02:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 09:02:28 +1000 Received: from smtp4.mindspring.com (smtp4.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07608 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 09:02:22 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveh4k.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.148]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA17410 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:02:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990312180214.006bb468@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:02:14 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <36E90463.B92764A0@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3cg82PA2LC62Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990312140105.0094ba00@emmy.otago.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:11 PM 3/12/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> I find it abhorrent that people are supporting a procedure to try to >> avoid following the Laws of the game, because those Laws may unluckily >> give the player a poor result. Bridge Lawyering at its worst. >> > >I find it abhorrant that people are supporting a procedure >that puts the Laws of the game ahead of the good of bridge. >Bridge Lawyering at its worst. > What is manifestly contrary to "the good of bridge" is for players, TD's, or AC members to arrogate to themselves the right to ignore or subvert the Laws for "the good of bridge." Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 13 10:06:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 10:06:17 +1000 Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [207.172.3.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA07732 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 10:06:11 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-35-41.s41.tnt9.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.35.41]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA04031 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:10:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903130010.TAA04031@smtp2.erols.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: UI insurance Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:06:03 -0500 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990312180214.006bb468@pop.mindspring.com> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Michael S. > Dennis > Sent: Friday, March 12, 1999 6:02 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI insurance > > [snip] > > > What is manifestly contrary to "the good of bridge" is for players, TD's, > or AC members to arrogate to themselves the right to ignore or subvert the > Laws for "the good of bridge." > > Mike Dennis > Assuming that partner is not aware you are doing this, what Law is being broken by making an opponent aware of your intended actions after partner's likely responses to your call? Before one can ignore or subvert a Law, one has to apply to the situation. Law 16 will not come into play until *after* there is UI from partner, so that cannot be the Law you are referring to, can it? To recap what is going on, as I see it: 1) A player realizes his next call is going to present a problem for his partner. For some reason, he cannot make a preemptive call that bypasses the problem, perhaps needing critical information from partner, and knowing that partner will need time to decipher what is happening. 2) A player has formulated a bidding plan that covers partner's likely responses. 3) The player is also aware that the likely hesitation from partner will be UI that will not allow him to bid as intended, unless he can show that the UI did not suggest one LA over another. 4) The player is aware that the "I was always going to bid this" defense will never be allowed after the UI, as self-serving. 5) So, the player seeks to establish his LA's *before* there is UI, while he is under no bidding restrictions. Partner is not aware he is doing this because of the screens in place. So, where's the violation? All I see is a clever way for a player to definitively establish that he has *not* used UI in delecting a call, in a situation where he can see UI might be a forthcoming problem. Hirsch Mike, sorry you are getting this twice. This post was yet another victim of the "reply to poster" setup of the list. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 13 10:44:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 10:44:42 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA07783 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 10:44:35 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa00560; 12 Mar 99 16:44 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: UI insurance In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:06:03 PST." <199903130010.TAA04031@smtp2.erols.com> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 16:43:58 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9903121644.aa00560@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > Assuming that partner is not aware you are doing this, what Law is being > broken by making an opponent aware of your intended actions after partner's > likely responses to your call? Before one can ignore or subvert a Law, one > has to apply to the situation. Law 16 will not come into play until *after* > there is UI from partner, so that cannot be the Law you are referring to, > can it? > > To recap what is going on, as I see it: > > 1) A player realizes his next call is going to present a problem for his > partner. For some reason, he cannot make a preemptive call that bypasses > the problem, perhaps needing critical information from partner, and knowing > that partner will need time to decipher what is happening. > > 2) A player has formulated a bidding plan that covers partner's likely > responses. > > 3) The player is also aware that the likely hesitation from partner will be > UI that will not allow him to bid as intended, unless he can show that the > UI did not suggest one LA over another. > > 4) The player is aware that the "I was always going to bid this" defense > will never be allowed after the UI, as self-serving. > > 5) So, the player seeks to establish his LA's *before* there is UI, while > he is under no bidding restrictions. Partner is not aware he is doing this > because of the screens in place. > > So, where's the violation? I don't believe that LA's are something you can "establish". An alternative call is either an LA or it isn't; you can't make a logical alternative illogical simply by telling your screenmate what you're planning to do. You can make it "an alternative that you're demonstrably not planning to consider", but this carries no weight when applying L16. So it's still a violation to make a bid that could demonstrably have been suggested by UI over other LA's. > All I see is a clever way for a player to > definitively establish that he has *not* used UI in [s]electing a call, in a > situation where he can see UI might be a forthcoming problem. Unfortunately, the Laws don't care whether you've used UI or not. Although the ultimate goal of the Laws is to make sure people don't use UI, the Laws are worded in such a way that whether you've used UI isn't the most important thing. I think the Lawmakers did the best they could to write an enforceable Law that came as close as possible to the ultimate goal. But can we get closer? What if we added Law 16A3 (or 73F1(a)?): "The Director may let the score stand if, in his judgment, there is substantial evidence that the player was planning, before the UI was received, to choose the alternative he actually chose. No statement or action made by the player after the UI was received shall be considered as evidence." Under a Law like this, something like a statement to one's screenmate could be considered substantial evidence (unless it could be used as a hedge; to prevent this, there would have to be some sort of policy that someone who makes a statement and then doesn't followed through gets a severe PP or shot or defenestrated or something.) I'm sure the Law I proposed has disadvantages. Besides, I don't think it could be used at all in F2F bridge without screens. So I'm not suggesting that we actually add the above Law as I've written it---just throwing it out as fuel for discussion. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 13 20:57:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:57:49 +1000 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 UAA08561 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:57:43 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-156.uunet.be [194.7.14.156]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA09042 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:57:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36EA4432.2E154351@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:55:46 +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: UI insurance References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3cg82PA2LC62Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990312140105.0094ba00@emmy.otago.ac.nz> <3.0.1.32.19990312180214.006bb468@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > At 01:11 PM 3/12/99 +0100, Herman wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> > >> I find it abhorrent that people are supporting a procedure to try to > >> avoid following the Laws of the game, because those Laws may unluckily > >> give the player a poor result. Bridge Lawyering at its worst. > >> > > > >I find it abhorrant that people are supporting a procedure > >that puts the Laws of the game ahead of the good of bridge. > >Bridge Lawyering at its worst. > > > What is manifestly contrary to "the good of bridge" is for players, TD's, > or AC members to arrogate to themselves the right to ignore or subvert the > Laws for "the good of bridge." > > Mike Dennis Mike, you fall into a common trap here. We are having a discussion of what the Laws mean. You have your opinion, I have mine. I use the "good of bridge" to try and prove my point. I am not subverting the Law, just your opinion of it. This is a common occurence on this list. The Laws are deliberately unclear about some points. Common usage has seen the development of certain principles. Now many of you equate these principles with the Law itself. Now sometimes the principle, however well established, does not apply completely on some cases. Then the Law shall prevail over the principle. To illustrate on this case in point : The Law says the player shall not choose among LA's ... The Law does not define Logical Alternative. Common practice has resulted in our finding that a LA shall be defined by means of peer action. Which is quite correct. However, the reason for this is that in 99.9% of the cases, we shall not be able to prove the players' intent but by his own statement, which shall be deemed self-serving. So in 99.9% of the cases, the principle equates the Law. But not in this case. Here we have some sort of proof, usually unavailable. The AC may decide to accept that proof. That acceptance goes against the common principle, but it does NOT subvert the Law. The same thing has happened in many other cases that have been discussed on blml. The most striking example is in fact the De Wael school. But that's for after Warszawa. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 13 20:57:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:57:48 +1000 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 UAA08560 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:57:41 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-156.uunet.be [194.7.14.156]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA09037 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:57:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36EA4231.44BE8C78@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:47:13 +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 insurance References: <9903121644.aa00560@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > [snip] > > > > So, where's the violation? > > I don't believe that LA's are something you can "establish". An > alternative call is either an LA or it isn't; you can't make a logical > alternative illogical simply by telling your screenmate what you're > planning to do. You can make it "an alternative that you're > demonstrably not planning to consider", but this carries no weight > when applying L16. So it's still a violation to make a bid that could > demonstrably have been suggested by UI over other LA's. > OK, so what do you suggest you do ? You are in this situation, and you have planned this action. Partner does give the UI. You do the correct action. You end up before the AC. You tell them you were always considering the action. In fact your screenmate confirms that you magde your call instantaneously. Your reasoning is believed by the AC, but they do not accept that you had worked it all out even before passing the tray yourself, and you did not use the time your partner gave you to come up with the argument. So in fact, the AC is just lacking proof. Now you have a completely accurate method of providing that proof. You tell your screenmate before it happens. What is the problem with that ? You are using L16 to tell you that it is not allowed. Read it again. "alternative suggested over another". In this case, the UI did not suggest one call, since the player had already established he would make the call regardless of the UI. > > But can we get closer? What if we added Law 16A3 (or 73F1(a)?): "The > Director may let the score stand if, in his judgment, there is > substantial evidence that the player was planning, before the UI was > received, to choose the alternative he actually chose. No statement > or action made by the player after the UI was received shall be > considered as evidence." Under a Law like this, something like a > statement to one's screenmate could be considered substantial evidence > (unless it could be used as a hedge; to prevent this, there would have > to be some sort of policy that someone who makes a statement and then > doesn't followed through gets a severe PP or shot or defenestrated or > something.) > Now you are proposing a Law to solve a problem which does not exist. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 14 00:20:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 00:20:38 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA11211 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 00:20:31 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10LpH7-0000Vh-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:20:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:42:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Mark Abraham writes >At 2:01 PM +1300 12/3/99, Michael Albert wrote: >>If I may be permitted to bend or perhaps break the analogy. Instead of >>communicating his intentions to his screenmate, South says "excuse me, I >>must answer an urgent call of nature" (or the okbridge equivalent -- brb.) >>He returns to the table 5 minutes later and sees his partner's 5S signoff >>on the bidding tray, and without concern bids 6S. Is anyone going to complain? > >I would complain if his partner knew he'd gone to the bathroom. In that >case his partner knew he could tank for some time without creating a >potential UI situation for his partner. (Screens don't usually prevent you >from observing that partner has left the table...) > >Any agreement to go to the bathroom in such a situation would also create a >partnership understanding that would need to be disclosed. Of course when >said partnership understanding is disclosed ("When either of us goes to the >bathroom before our partner has called, he/she may have predetermined what >action they intend to take after they see partner's call, and he/she wanted >to avoid any UI problem"), it in itself creates an illegal means of >communication to the partner *NOT* going to the bathroom :-) > subject of course to an adequate supply of diuretics and orange juice. -- 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 Sun Mar 14 01:52:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 01:52:16 +1000 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA11418 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 01:52:08 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveig8.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.8]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA23954 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 10:52:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990313105200.006bf4d8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 10:52:00 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <199903130006.TAA02399@smtp2.erols.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990312180214.006bb468@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:02 PM 3/12/99 -0500, Hirsch wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Michael S. >> Dennis >> Sent: Friday, March 12, 1999 6:02 PM >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: UI insurance >> >> >[snip] >> > >> What is manifestly contrary to "the good of bridge" is for players, TD's, >> or AC members to arrogate to themselves the right to ignore or subvert the >> Laws for "the good of bridge." >> >> Mike Dennis >> > >Assuming that partner is not aware you are doing this, what Law is being >broken by making an opponent aware of your intended actions after partner's >likely responses to your call? Before one can ignore or subvert a Law, one >has to apply to the situation. Law 16 will not come into play until *after* >there is UI from partner, so that cannot be the Law you are referring to, >can it? > Of course there is nothing obviously wrong with the action per se. The problem only arises when the player attempts to invoke his actions as "insurance" (hence the name of the thread) against the constraints of L16. My real beef, however, is not with a player who tries this maneuver, perhaps in good faith, so much as with TD's and/or AC members who let him get away with it, in contravention of clear legal requirements. >To recap what is going on, as I see it: > >1) A player realizes his next call is going to present a problem for his >partner. For some reason, he cannot make a preemptive call that bypasses >the problem, perhaps needing critical information from partner, and knowing >that partner will need time to decipher what is happening. > >2) A player has formulated a bidding plan that covers partner's likely >responses. > >3) The player is also aware that the likely hesitation from partner will be >UI that will not allow him to bid as intended, unless he can show that the >UI did not suggest one LA over another. > >4) The player is aware that the "I was always going to bid this" defense >will never be allowed after the UI, as self-serving. > >5) So, the player seeks to establish his LA's *before* there is UI, while >he is under no bidding restrictions. Partner is not aware he is doing this >because of the screens in place. > >So, where's the violation? All I see is a clever way for a player to >definitively establish that he has *not* used UI in delecting a call, in a >situation where he can see UI might be a forthcoming problem. No violation, up to the point where he violates L16 by "choosing an action", etc. The critical point is not whether there are LA's in that player's mind, nor whether his choice is _subjectively_ suggested by the UI, but only whether an objective bridge analysis makes the choice an illegal one. What is absolutely critical to the integrity of the UI enforcement process is that we do our best to adhere to these rigorous objective standards. When we attempt to substitute our judgement of a player's intentions for these standards, we weaken that process, even when our judgement is correct. You may be completely convinced that player XYZ is 100% ethical and righteous, but if you allow that conviction to color your judgement, you have committed an injustice. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 14 06:35:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 06:35:59 +1000 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 GAA12277 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 06:35:53 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990313203547.PARP27238.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 12:35:47 -0800 Message-ID: <36EACD22.8C18ADF6@home.com> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 12:40:02 -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: UI insurance References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3cg82PA2LC62Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <36E8582A.DE696867@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > John R. Mayne wrote: > > >But it clearly unjust to stop a player from making a bid he would > >actually make 100% of the time. > > It is not "unjust" to make people play to the rules of the game. But David - when something happens that is not covered by the laws (maybe because the situation was not foreseen when the laws were written) don't we normally try to go after the *intent* of the law, and then rule accordingly? As you've seen by now I'm normally in the camp that strictly enforces the laws as written, but here I'm pretty convinced that L16 would have been written differently if we could enter a player's mind, record what went on there and replay it in slow motion. With such a mechanism in place, I'm convinced L16 would read "...... you must make the same bid you'd have made absent the UI ...". From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 14 07:00:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 07:00:52 +1000 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 HAA12324 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 07:00:45 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990313210039.PENE27238.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 13:00:39 -0800 Message-ID: <36EAD2F7.69BEAF0D@home.com> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 13:04:55 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <3.0.1.32.19990312180214.006bb468@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990313105200.006bf4d8@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > My real beef, however, is not with a player who tries this maneuver, > perhaps in good faith, so much as with TD's and/or AC members who let > him get away with it, in contravention of clear legal requirements. Please - show us where in the laws it states that you cannot apply this maneuver. It is an insult to the rest of us to pretend the laws are clear on this, since if they were then surely the thread would be very short. You *interpret* the laws to mean this, others interpret them differently. Any situation which requires an *interpretation* of the laws seems to me a priori not "clear". > No violation, up to the point where he violates L16 by "choosing an > action", etc. The critical point is not whether there are LA's in that > player's mind, nor whether his choice is _subjectively_ suggested by > the > UI, but only whether an objective bridge analysis makes the choice an > illegal one. No - not an "objective bridge analysis" - rather a *subjective* (since performed by humans who are not always unanimous) analysis of what that player's peers (may even not be the peers of the TD/AC!) might do. Big difference. > What is absolutely critical to the integrity of the UI enforcement > process > is that we do our best to adhere to these rigorous objective > standards. Assumes facts not in evidence. I'd agree with you *if* there were indeed "rigorous objective standards". > When we attempt to substitute our judgement of a player's intentions > for these standards, we weaken that process, even when our judgement > is correct. Maybe you misunderstood the situation? It was not a question of *judging* those intentions and *accidentally* getting it right. We knew *for a fact* what the intentions were, just as if we had a Camcorder in the players head. Just because when the US Constitution was written there existed no computers doesn't mean one should disregard their existence when interpreting it today. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 14 08:23:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:23:38 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12588 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:23:32 +1000 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 RAA17215 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 17:23:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id RAA28267 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 17:23:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 17:23:45 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199903132223.RAA28267@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI insurance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan [and others similarly...] > I agree with David that the current Laws don't let you do what Jean > suggested. I tried to find something in the Laws that would give the > director the discretion not to adjust in a case like this, but I > couldn't. And I think this is a flaw in the Laws, although maybe a > small one. Let's look a little more carefully, shall we? First of all, Jean asked _literally_ whether it was permitted to pass a note to one's screenmate. I trust none of us sees any prohibition against that, at least in general. I suppose the contents of the note could be deemed misleading or to violate some other law, but that's not relevant here. Of course Jean's _real_ question was: if one passes a note stating what one plans to do next, does that relieve the usual UI obligations? And there is an implied question: if one passes a note and then does not follow the intentions stated, is there a penalty? Let's deal with Jean's question first. I trust we all -- except for David S. -- agree that there is no problem with L73C. That law says the player must avoid taking advantage after UI, but if a player does what he was always intending to do, how can he have taken advantage of UI? What about L16A? David B. had it right. We need to read the beginning and ending of the law, in spite of the middle being the part we usually deal with. "_After_ a player makes available ... the partner may not choose...." Here, however, the partner has chosen _before_ the UI was made available, so L16A does not apply. Or at least that's how I read it. Even if you don't like this reading -- and I cannot imagine why not -- I can see no room for doubt an SO could use its L80E authority to mandate a procedure along the lines Jean suggests. Regardless of whether you read the law this way or not, all the talk of LA's is irrelevant. Those are judged on the objective situation, not on the player's intentions. What if the player writes his note and then does something different? I don't think there would be any problem in adjusting the score. Clearly something has happened after the note was written to make the player change his mind. Unless there is clear evidence it was AI (perhaps the opponent took an unexpected sacrifice), we can deem it to have been UI. Again, the SO can spell out rules if it chooses to do so. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 14 08:30:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:30:05 +1000 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12611 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:29:57 +1000 Received: from modem71.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.199] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Lwuk-0001bC-00; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 22:29:50 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Mark Twain Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 22:22:06 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ************************************************ he's always word-perfect, the s**, in composing the language of G**, but G** not infrequently swears it's only the meaning He hears, and though He forbears with the rod He does shed a bucket of tears. *********************************************** > From: David Burn > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Mark Twain > Date: 12 March 1999 00:32 > > >Although published in the U. S., the ODQ selections come from the > >Oxford University Press, which is no doubt infallible. However, I > >see my 1980 version is the Third edition 1979 "reprinted with > >corrections," so who knows? > > As any Oxbridge man will tell you, we are infallible. But we're modest > with it. > ++ Unfailingly so. ++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 14 08:30:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:30:06 +1000 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12612 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:29:59 +1000 Received: from modem71.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.199] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Lwul-0001bC-00; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 22:29:52 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 22:46:52 -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's always word-perfect, the s**, in composing the language of G**, but G** not infrequently swears it's only the meaning He hears, and though He forbears with the rod He does shed a bucket of tears. ************************************************ > From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI insurance > Date: 12 March 1999 05:45 > > According to David Stevenson: > > > >John R. Mayne wrote: > > > >>But it clearly unjust to stop a player from making a bid he would > >>actually make 100% of the time. > > > > It is not "unjust" to make people play to the rules of the game. > > Oh, come on, David, you know that playing with screens > is different from playing without screens, whereas > the rules mainly cover playing without screens. > +++ There is provision in the laws for regulations to be made where needed when playing with screens. In general my point of view is close to that of Michael Dennis. For me the game is to be played according to a set of rules (laws) and what they lay down is by definition "fair" - we agree to play by the rules when we enter the tournament. +++ > I want to stir up a little confusion, though: > > Player A says to his screenmate that he'll > bid a grand slam at his next turn. > His partner, however, bids the small slam > at normal speed. Player A then puts a pass > on the tray. > > You are called to the table, because the screenmate > wants you to force player A to bid a grand slam. > What now? > ++ Law 73F2 may apply if there is damage; and a PP may be awarded for breach of Law 74A (see 74B2 defining the action as discourteous). But there is no power to make him bid Seven - when the players have done what they will do there are provisions for redress, score adjustment, penalty, should their actions be found to breach the laws of the game. ++ ~~ Grattan ~~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 14 11:31:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:31:29 +1000 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 LAA13006 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:31:22 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveh01.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.1]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA08250 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:31:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990313202411.00695bd8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:24:11 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) In-Reply-To: <36EA4432.2E154351@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3cg82PA2LC62Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990312140105.0094ba00@emmy.otago.ac.nz> <3.0.1.32.19990312180214.006bb468@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:55 AM 3/13/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >We are having a discussion of what the Laws mean. You have >your opinion, I have mine. I use the "good of bridge" to >try and prove my point. I am not subverting the Law, just >your opinion of it. > This time of year in the US is what we call "March Madness", when the top 64 collegiate basketball teams compete in a single-elimination tournament to crown a champion. In that spirit, "let's go to the replay." In response to David, you wrote: "I find it abhorrant that people are supporting a procedure that puts the Laws of the game ahead of the good of bridge. Bridge Lawyering at its worst." Your point here is entirely consistent with much else that you have posted to this list. It suggests a view of the Laws which is highly pragmatic and utilitarian, with a heavy reliance on the ability of TD's and AC's to fashion decisions which are "good for bridge", without excessive deference to the niceties of legal nitpicking. It is not an unusual philosophical approach, and I have little doubt that your own judgement in most actual situations reflects a wise and carefully considered evaluation. But the approach is fundamentally wrong, IMO. If all bridge jurists were as experienced and capable as you, it could work well. But they are not. Not even close, in my experience. We would be much better served, in the long run, by consistent and conscientious application of the Laws as they are written than by giving carte blanche to individuals to rule "for the good of bridge", in whatever way they choose to define that phrase. The most disturbing interchange on this list in my experience involved the diatribes from Bobby Wolff in defense of his extra-legal rulings at Lille. Mr. Wolff is on a mission, as he makes quite clear, to clean up certain classes of behavior at the bridge table. Those who would oppose his policies as contra-legal are dismissed with that most perjorative term, "Bridge Lawyers". HE knows what's good for bridge, by God, and he's not about to let some pointy-headed bridge lawyers stand in his way. Well I'll do my best, in my own modest way, to resist his ideas of reform, however well-intentioned. What he proposes is the bridge equivalent of fascism, where those in power run roughshod over the laws in the name of a "greater good." The surest antidote is reliance on the rule of law, and resistance against the common impulse to bend the law to our own interpretation of "the good of the game." As to the specific issue at hand, there has been a fairly general consensus that a player may not, in general, "bid what he would have bid anyway" when to do so would be a violation of L16. Why not? Because to do so is illegal! It is sophomoric to argue that this is not the case (and as far as I know, you have not done so) based on the notion that if a player truly knows what he would bid anyway, he can have no LA's, or that if he was already mentally committed to a certain course of action, the UI could not have suggested it. Both broadly accepted principles of legal analysis and specific regulations imposed by SO's have established relatively objective standards for determining how these questions should be evaluated. Lord knows it is not always a simple process, as the volume of contintious postings on UI issues in our group demonstrates. But you are simply incorrect if you are suggesting that the _approach_ to evaluating these legal questions is fundamentally unsettled. We do know how this should be done in principle, even if we often disagree about the outcome of specific cases. It is illegal for a player to "bid what he would have bid anyway" in contravention of L16, and there is no legal basis for allowing an exception for a UI Insurance claim. To accept such a claim is to adopt an extra-legal, ad hoc approach. It may be that such a principle should be established as a part of the Laws, as some have proposed, though I have my doubts about whether the proponents have carefully considered all of the ramifications. I wonder as well about the significance of the "problem" this is supposed to solve. But until such a change is made, let's stick to applying the laws. That is hard enough. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 14 11:49:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:49:04 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA13087 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:48:58 +1000 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 UAA18434 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:47:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990313204959.006f537c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:49:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <36EA4231.44BE8C78@village.uunet.be> References: <9903121644.aa00560@flash.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:47 AM 3/13/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> I don't believe that LA's are something you can "establish". An >> alternative call is either an LA or it isn't; you can't make a logical >> alternative illogical simply by telling your screenmate what you're >> planning to do. You can make it "an alternative that you're >> demonstrably not planning to consider", but this carries no weight >> when applying L16. So it's still a violation to make a bid that could >> demonstrably have been suggested by UI over other LA's. > >You are using L16 to tell you that it is not allowed. Read >it again. "alternative suggested over another". In this >case, the UI did not suggest one call, since the player had >already established he would make the call regardless of the >UI. I think Herman has this one just right. The question of LAs is a red herring. L16A2: "...an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information..." When the player has committed himself to a particular action before the information became available, we know that the action was not suggested to him by the information. Whether or not it "could have been suggested", we know that the UI was redundant to the AI already in the player's possession. 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 Mar 14 12:05:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 12:05:26 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA13149 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 12:05:20 +1000 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 VAA18622 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 21:04:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990313210622.006f9b54@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 21:06:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <36EAD2F7.69BEAF0D@home.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990312180214.006bb468@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990313105200.006bf4d8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:04 PM 3/13/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >No - not an "objective bridge analysis" - rather a *subjective* (since >performed by humans who are not always unanimous) analysis of what that >player's peers (may even not be the peers of the TD/AC!) might do. Big >difference. In the spirit of Edgar's admonition to decide what's right and then find the law that justifies it, I earlier said, in praising Herman's analysis based on whether UI "could suggest" an action to which the player was already committed, that the issue of LAs was a red herring. But I now I like the implicit suggestion in Jan's comment, which brings LAs back into the picture, even better. An LA is an action that would be seriously considered (or, elsewhere, taken) by some percentage of the player's peers. In the case at hand, we can find that this player's peers consist solely of others who have previously committed themselves to that action, and thus easily determine that none of them would have considered doing anything else! So the pre-declared action can readily be said to have no LAs. 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 Mar 14 13:00:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 13:00:59 +1000 Received: from abest.com (root@mail.abest.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA13278 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 13:00:53 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial40.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.40]) by abest.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA19111; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 22:00:44 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990311120308.008065c0@maine.rr.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 22:00:40 -0500 To: Tim Goodwin From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: UI insurance Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:03 PM -0500 3/11/99, Tim Goodwin wrote: >I believe Marty Bergen did something very similar many years ago while >playing with Luella Slaner in the Vanderbilt. I was watching on ViewGraph. He was playing opposite Larry Cohen in the Vanderbilt in Ft. Worth. I think it was '91. >It was either a cue-bidding >or Blackwood sequence. After Marty bid and the tray was passed, he told >his screenmate that he was going to bid a grand no matter what, the only >question was whether to play in a suit or NT. As I recall his note read only "I'm going" and was written after Larry had already tanked for a bit. Given his hand I couldn't figure out why Marty thought that he should bid a grand. The auction had started something like 1S (4H) 5H. It was written up in The Bridge World so it shouldn't be hard to track down. I do remember that the grand was not a good one. It could have been made but Larry didn't make it. I expect that, as usual, Larry took the best percentage line! By going down he surely saved a committee some time, but denied us an interesting ruling. As to my opininon on the matter in hand, I agree (for once?) with DWS. The law is what it is. One cannot circumvent it by passing notes. While there is no automatic penalty for bidding out of tempo, the particular penalty prescribed by the Laws is described in Law 16A. A player who can sign off in tempo has made a better bridge action than a player who signs off out of tempo, even though he's made the same call, and the Laws specify that the differing actions may have different consequences. AW From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 14 14:14:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA13491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 14:14:42 +1000 Received: from tungsten (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA13486 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 14:14:34 +1000 Received: from [195.99.45.93] (helo=david-burn) by tungsten with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10M2Hv-0005Y4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 04:14:07 +0000 Message-ID: <199903140412050100.360993D2@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.00.00.12 Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 04:12:05 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI insurance Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 13/03/99 at 22:00 Adam Wildavsky wrote: [snip of fascinating anecdote] >As to my opininon on the matter in hand, I agree (for once?) with DWS. The >law is what it is. One cannot circumvent it by passing notes. While there >is no automatic penalty for bidding out of tempo, the particular penalty >prescribed by the Laws is described in Law 16A. A player who can sign off >in tempo has made a better bridge action than a player who signs off out of >tempo, even though he's made the same call, and the Laws specify that the >differing actions may have different consequences. No, they do not. The Laws specify only that "after a player has made available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play... the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could *demonstrably* have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". This means that "the partner" may not make his choice after extraneous information has been made available to him. If, as is *demonstrably* the case in the position under discussion, the partner has made his choice before there was any possibility of any information being made available to him at all - extraneous or otherwise - there is not, nor can there conceivably be, any infraction of Law. I find this case most curious: those who wish to disallow the action because they support "the Law as it is written" do not seem to have read it. Instead, they seem to rely on the principle of "he who hesitates is shot", whereas formerly they were among the most vehement opponents of that admirable precept. "Consistency", said Tom Stoppard, "is all I ask..." It was for this that he won the bridge players' "Optimist of the Millennium" award. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 14 23:04:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 23:04:04 +1000 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 XAA14496 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 23:03:57 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveib4.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.100]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA04381 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:03:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990314001050.006b12c8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 00:10:50 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <36EAD2F7.69BEAF0D@home.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990312180214.006bb468@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990313105200.006bf4d8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:04 PM 3/13/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> No violation, up to the point where he violates L16 by "choosing an >> action", etc. The critical point is not whether there are LA's in that >> player's mind, nor whether his choice is _subjectively_ suggested by > the >> UI, but only whether an objective bridge analysis makes the choice an >> illegal one. > >No - not an "objective bridge analysis" - rather a *subjective* (since >performed by humans who are not always unanimous) analysis of what that >player's peers (may even not be the peers of the TD/AC!) might do. Big >difference. > My differentiation between "objective" and "subjective" in this context is not meant to suggest that the determination of LA's and so forth is simple or judgement-free, but is merely intended to restate the generally accepted principle that we should make the judgement as an abstract bridge judgement, substantially divorced from any assessment of the player's motive. >> What is absolutely critical to the integrity of the UI enforcement > process >> is that we do our best to adhere to these rigorous objective > standards. > >Assumes facts not in evidence. I'd agree with you *if* there were indeed >"rigorous objective standards". > But of course there are. Does that mean that we will always agree on their application to a particular fact set? Certainly not. >> When we attempt to substitute our judgement of a player's intentions >> for these standards, we weaken that process, even when our judgement >> is correct. > >Maybe you misunderstood the situation? It was not a question of >*judging* those intentions and *accidentally* getting it right. We knew >*for a fact* what the intentions were, just as if we had a Camcorder in >the players head. > No, we "know" only what a particular player stated about his intentions at one point in time. Whether that statement was truthful or not, or whether subsequent information (AI or UI) may have influenced his inclinination to follow through on his stated intentions, is not completely clear, and may not be so even if he acts as advertised. But this misses the point. I can see some merit in this procedure, and would be willing to engage in a discussion about the plusses and minuses of amending the Laws to allow it. And there ARE both plusses and minuses. One obvious difficulty has been raised by others: what if he reneges on his stated intention, without any concrete UI. Some have proposed an automatic score adjustment, or maybe a PP. But perhaps he had a good reason for changing his mind? Maybe he remembered, immediately after passing the note, that with this partner, he's playing 3014 RKC instead of 1430. Is there some legal basis for holding him to a declared intention which in and of itself has no legal significance? Should it be legitimate to pass such notes in competitive situations? How about using this kind of thing to bluff or intimidate the opponents? Maybe these questions can be resolved. But the proper forum for discussing and implementing such changes is not the bridge table or an AC. The best that can be achieved in that setting, at least for those unwilling to stick to the Laws, is a poorly considered, ad hoc decision that is about equally likely to reflect or contradict the "intent" of the Laws. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 14 23:16:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 23:16:08 +1000 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 XAA14538 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 23:16:02 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveib4.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.100]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA21381 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:15:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990314081551.006bad30@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:15:51 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <199903140412050100.360993D2@mail.btinternet.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:12 AM 3/14/99 +0000, David B wrote: >No, they do not. The Laws specify only that "after a player has made >available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call >or play... the partner may not choose from among logical alternative >actions one that could *demonstrably* have been suggested over another >by the extraneous information". > >This means that "the partner" may not make his choice after extraneous >information has been made available to him. If, as is *demonstrably* >the case in the position under discussion, the partner has made his >choice before there was any possibility of any information being made >available to him at all - extraneous or otherwise - there is not, nor >can there conceivably be, any infraction of Law. > This is certainly a clever argument, but it is wrong. The "choice" to take one particular action over another only occurs, in law and in fact, when it is executed. An announcement of an intent to act in a certain way is just that: a statement. It has no legal significance and as such is not binding. A player who has made such a statement is free to "choose" a different course of action, until and unless we amend the laws to include procedures for recognizing and enforcing such commitments. Whether that would be a good idea is a different question entirely. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 15 04:39:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 04:39:42 +1000 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 EAA17852 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 04:39:34 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.199]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA17922; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 20:39:21 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36EC0283.D32EF9D2@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 20:40:03 +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: UI insurance References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John is right , but I suggest to update L16 adding a new paragraph: "......any player going to the place where the King or the Queen goes "per pedes " must get a written license from theTD , who should consult the highest medical authority in the hall , before signs it ......including resonance , telepathic and infra-red communication possibilities between the partners , through lead screens , cloth screens or invisible screens ..." I could go on to emphasize this paragraph , but I agree with Herman that no Law can be stronger than Law 0 ....!!!!! Dany John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In article , Mark Abraham > writes > >At 2:01 PM +1300 12/3/99, Michael Albert wrote: > >>If I may be permitted to bend or perhaps break the analogy. Instead of > >>communicating his intentions to his screenmate, South says "excuse me, I > >>must answer an urgent call of nature" (or the okbridge equivalent -- brb.) > >>He returns to the table 5 minutes later and sees his partner's 5S signoff > >>on the bidding tray, and without concern bids 6S. Is anyone going to complain? > > > >I would complain if his partner knew he'd gone to the bathroom. In that > >case his partner knew he could tank for some time without creating a > >potential UI situation for his partner. (Screens don't usually prevent you > >from observing that partner has left the table...) > > > >Any agreement to go to the bathroom in such a situation would also create a > >partnership understanding that would need to be disclosed. Of course when > >said partnership understanding is disclosed ("When either of us goes to the > >bathroom before our partner has called, he/she may have predetermined what > >action they intend to take after they see partner's call, and he/she wanted > >to avoid any UI problem"), it in itself creates an illegal means of > >communication to the partner *NOT* going to the bathroom :-) > > > > subject of course to an adequate supply of diuretics and orange juice. > -- > 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 Mar 15 07:55:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 07:55:41 +1000 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 HAA18312 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 07:55:34 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990314215528.XIWB27238.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 13:55:28 -0800 Message-ID: <36EC314F.160DB597@home.com> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 13:59:43 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3cg82PA2LC62Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990312140105.0094ba00@emmy.otago.ac.nz> <3.0.1.32.19990312180214.006bb468@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990313202411.00695bd8@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree with most, but not all, of the general thoughts expressed by Mike below, and I've often found myself on the opposite side of HdW's (and sometimes DB's) positions. This time however I lean towards their position. I sincerely hope this means there is a difference in the situations, not that I am inconsistant!! I beleive the difference here is that the LA laws can easily be interpreted to mean (and SOs anyway can define LAs as they wish) that there were no LAs *to this player* in the given situation and/or that non were *demonstrably* suggested (in fact quite to the contrary) over the pre-stated and actually chosen one. Mike - can you at least agree that L16 is written as it is on the assumption that we can *not* enter a particular players mind, and that there is reason to beleive that if we could it would be written differently? Finally on how to handle a player not following the pre-stated action. Could one not essentially handle it like a "claim", ie the "stated bid" will be enforced if leading to a worse result than the table-result? Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > At 11:55 AM 3/13/99 +0100, Herman wrote: > >We are having a discussion of what the Laws mean. You have > >your opinion, I have mine. I use the "good of bridge" to > >try and prove my point. I am not subverting the Law, just > >your opinion of it. > > > This time of year in the US is what we call "March Madness", when the top > 64 collegiate basketball teams compete in a single-elimination tournament > to crown a champion. In that spirit, "let's go to the replay." > > In response to David, you wrote: > "I find it abhorrant that people are supporting a procedure that puts the > Laws of the game ahead of the good of bridge. Bridge Lawyering at its worst." > > Your point here is entirely consistent with much else that you have posted > to this list. It suggests a view of the Laws which is highly pragmatic and > utilitarian, with a heavy reliance on the ability of TD's and AC's to > fashion decisions which are "good for bridge", without excessive deference > to the niceties of legal nitpicking. It is not an unusual philosophical > approach, and I have little doubt that your own judgement in most actual > situations reflects a wise and carefully considered evaluation. > > But the approach is fundamentally wrong, IMO. If all bridge jurists were as > experienced and capable as you, it could work well. But they are not. Not > even close, in my experience. We would be much better served, in the long > run, by consistent and conscientious application of the Laws as they are > written than by giving carte blanche to individuals to rule "for the good > of bridge", in whatever way they choose to define that phrase. > > The most disturbing interchange on this list in my experience involved the > diatribes from Bobby Wolff in defense of his extra-legal rulings at Lille. > Mr. Wolff is on a mission, as he makes quite clear, to clean up certain > classes of behavior at the bridge table. Those who would oppose his > policies as contra-legal are dismissed with that most perjorative term, > "Bridge Lawyers". HE knows what's good for bridge, by God, and he's not > about to let some pointy-headed bridge lawyers stand in his way. > > Well I'll do my best, in my own modest way, to resist his ideas of reform, > however well-intentioned. What he proposes is the bridge equivalent of > fascism, where those in power run roughshod over the laws in the name of a > "greater good." The surest antidote is reliance on the rule of law, and > resistance against the common impulse to bend the law to our own > interpretation of "the good of the game." > > As to the specific issue at hand, there has been a fairly general consensus > that a player may not, in general, "bid what he would have bid anyway" when > to do so would be a violation of L16. Why not? Because to do so is illegal! > It is sophomoric to argue that this is not the case (and as far as I know, > you have not done so) based on the notion that if a player truly knows what > he would bid anyway, he can have no LA's, or that if he was already > mentally committed to a certain course of action, the UI could not have > suggested it. Both broadly accepted principles of legal analysis and > specific regulations imposed by SO's have established relatively objective > standards for determining how these questions should be evaluated. > > Lord knows it is not always a simple process, as the volume of contintious > postings on UI issues in our group demonstrates. But you are simply > incorrect if you are suggesting that the _approach_ to evaluating these > legal questions is fundamentally unsettled. We do know how this should be > done in principle, even if we often disagree about the outcome of specific > cases. > > It is illegal for a player to "bid what he would have bid anyway" in > contravention of L16, and there is no legal basis for allowing an exception > for a UI Insurance claim. To accept such a claim is to adopt an > extra-legal, ad hoc approach. It may be that such a principle should be > established as a part of the Laws, as some have proposed, though I have my > doubts about whether the proponents have carefully considered all of the > ramifications. I wonder as well about the significance of the "problem" > this is supposed to solve. But until such a change is made, let's stick to > applying the laws. That is hard enough. > > Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 15 08:59:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 08:59:14 +1000 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 IAA18464 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 08:59:08 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveirr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.75.123]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA17848 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 17:59:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990314175851.006b5a9c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 17:58:51 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) In-Reply-To: <36EC314F.160DB597@home.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> <3cg82PA2LC62Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19990312140105.0094ba00@emmy.otago.ac.nz> <3.0.1.32.19990312180214.006bb468@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990313202411.00695bd8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:59 PM 3/14/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >I agree with most, but not all, of the general thoughts expressed by >Mike below, and I've often found myself on the opposite side of HdW's >(and sometimes DB's) positions. This time however I lean towards their >position. I sincerely hope this means there is a difference in the >situations, not that I am inconsistant!! >I beleive the difference here is that the LA laws can easily be >interpreted to mean (and SOs anyway can define LAs as they wish) that >there were no LAs *to this player* in the given situation and/or that >non were *demonstrably* suggested (in fact quite to the contrary) over >the pre-stated and actually chosen one. > >Mike - can you at least agree that L16 is written as it is on the >assumption that we can *not* enter a particular players mind, and that >there is reason to beleive that if we could it would be written >differently? > Certainly, I agree that the procedure spelled out in L16 is in lieu of reliable techniques of mind-reading. You are right: the underlying intention is not to create an arbitrary formal mechanism for ruling out certain actions, but to create a practical and enforceable procedure for the prevention and redress of damage from UI. I also accept that this procedure will on occasion have the undesirable effect of placing constraints on players which, in some broader sense, should not apply. But this is inherent in the nature of any set of rules. My point is that to refuse to apply the rules when the result would "feel" wrong is to invite chaos. Can the procedure be improved? I am sure that it can. Among other possibilities which have been mentioned in the past are 1) a narrower (or at least more precise) definition of LA's within the ACBL and 2) a return to the pre-1987 standard which differentiated between "benign" UI (derived from legal and appropriate behavior) and "malignant" UI (resulting from violations of correct procedure). Perhaps the pre-UI statement of intent, along with appropriate hedges and procedural safeguards, would be an improvement. But while I endorse the first two and have my doubts about the third, I am completely convinced that none of them should be applied at the whim of an individual TD or AC. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 15 13:49:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:49:20 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 NAA19011 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:49:08 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10MON2-0004AV-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 03:48:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 03:41:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) In-Reply-To: <36EC314F.160DB597@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <36EC314F.160DB597@home.com>, Jan Kamras writes >I agree with most, but not all, of the general thoughts expressed by >Mike below, and I've often found myself on the opposite side of HdW's >(and sometimes DB's) positions. This time however I lean towards their >position. I sincerely hope this means there is a difference in the >situations, not that I am inconsistant!! I find myself drawn to the same view. No more than that. I'm sticking to the DWS camp for the time being. Mike Dennis says >> >> It is illegal for a player to "bid what he would have bid anyway" in >> contravention of L16, and there is no legal basis for allowing an exception >> for a UI Insurance claim. To accept such a claim is to adopt an >> extra-legal, ad hoc approach. It may be that such a principle should be >> established as a part of the Laws, as some have proposed, though I have my >> doubts about whether the proponents have carefully considered all of the >> ramifications. I wonder as well about the significance of the "problem" >> this is supposed to solve. But until such a change is made, let's stick to >> applying the laws. That is hard enough. This feels better to me. The laws themselves are hard enough without taking an advance save against an AC. 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 Mar 15 14:58:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 14:58:05 +1000 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 OAA19170 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 14:57:55 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n6d.san.rr.com [204.210.46.109]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA04361 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 20:57:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903150457.UAA04361@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 20:55:53 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: John (MadDog) Probst > Jan Kamras writes > >I agree with most, but not all, of the general thoughts expressed by > >Mike below, and I've often found myself on the opposite side of HdW's > >(and sometimes DB's) positions. This time however I lean towards their > >position. I sincerely hope this means there is a difference in the > >situations, not that I am inconsistant!! > > I find myself drawn to the same view. No more than that. I'm sticking > to the DWS camp for the time being. > > Mike Dennis says > >> > >> It is illegal for a player to "bid what he would have bid anyway" in > >> contravention of L16, and there is no legal basis for allowing an exception > >> for a UI Insurance claim. To accept such a claim is to adopt an > >> extra-legal, ad hoc approach. It may be that such a principle should be > >> established as a part of the Laws, as some have proposed, though I have my > >> doubts about whether the proponents have carefully considered all of the > >> ramifications. I wonder as well about the significance of the "problem" > >> this is supposed to solve. But until such a change is made, let's stick to > >> applying the laws. That is hard enough. > > This feels better to me. The laws themselves are hard enough without > taking an advance save against an AC. John > Please tell us, Jan and John, when does the culprit's screenmate call the TD? Surely not in accordance with L16A2? How exactly does your opinion get implemented? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 15 19:09:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:09:49 +1000 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 TAA19637 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:09:44 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME ([203.96.101.207]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990315091035.TCHR3226200.mta2-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 22:10:35 +1300 Message-ID: <36EDF590.720A@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 22:09:20 -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: Equity in Teams event. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All Just had a weekend of bridge (playing). Second day was a teams event and had an interesting situation which cost us a few VPs ( I think). Situation: Partner (south)opened 1D out of turn (east was dealer). Director called. Bid not condoned, cancelled and bidding reverts to east who passes. Directer informs partner that she may make any legal call. Told that if she repeats her original bid her partner would be barred for one round. She opens 1D-P-P-P and she plays in 1D making 0ne for +70. My hand AKJxxxx, QJxx, x ,x. She holds x, 109xx, AKxx, KQJx. At the other table N/S got into 5H going four off for +200 for us. (I gather declarer decided to cross ruff and got lost). Net result is +270. Before I knew this result I informed the director that I felt his decision was wrong and I wished to appeal. On the lie of the cards and with no interference our auction will go 1D-1S-1NT-3H-4H. We play precision and several other teams bid similar. When I informed director he checked Laws and decided I was right that his decision was wrong but did not wish to change scores. He was prepared to let table scores stand. We lost the match 13-17. As the cards lie and with me playing in 4H we get a diamond lead and on most lines of play I will make 4 for +420 and a team gain of +620 brings us back to a 15-15 draw. At appeal the committee agreed the director made a bad call but felt it was now impossible to compare scores so neutralised the board and gave each team 3imps. We now have a 12-18 loss. All agreed that director was wrong. In hind sight perhaps I should have questioned the director at the time but I was in play mode and expected my partner who is a better director than I to question if she felt he was wrong. Result wasn't going to change overall standings however I feel somewhat aggrieved that what little we had was take and in fact we were penalised for going to appeal. What should have happened? Did the AC get it right? Comments please Bruce. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 15 19:34:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:34:19 +1000 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA19679 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:34:13 +1000 Received: from [195.99.47.77] (helo=[195.99.47.77]) by carbon with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10MTiw-0003I5-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:31:53 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 10:35:04 +0100 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 Mike Dennis says >> It is illegal for a player to "bid what he would have bid anyway" in contravention of L16, and there is no legal basis for allowing an = exception for a UI Insurance claim. To accept such a claim is to adopt an extra-legal, ad hoc approach.=20 What UI claim? What UI? Indeed, what I? Suppose a player has such as: AKxx xx xx AQxxx and sees 1S from partner on the bidding tray. He plans the sequence 1S-2C- anything at all - 4S, because that is his system. So, he bids 2C and turns to his screenmate. "I need to go to the bathroom", he says. "When the tray comes back, would you mind bidding 4S for me?" The player goes to the bathroom, and the tray takes some time to come back with a 3C rebid by opener. Should the screenmate now refuse to bid 4S because UI has been transmitted? Just as the player can't receive any information while he is in the bathroom, so he can't receive any information while waiting for the tray to come back even if he isn't in the bathroom. He already has all the information he needs to make his next call. To say that he has "chosen" his call only when he places it on the tray, and that his "intent" to make the call is different from his "choice" to make the call, is... well, it is very much too deep for me. I am not sure how many subscribers to this list have actually played with screens, or watched an international event played with screens. But this type of occurrence is not uncommon: North opens 1H, East bids 1S, South 4H and West 4S. Before South passes the tray under the screen, he removes the "double" card ready for the next round, and shows it to West. I do not believe that there is a West player alive who would query South's double, however long the tray took to come back. There may be several West lawyers who would, but (fortunately) the game is not yet run exclusively for their benefit. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 15 23:35:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 23:35:22 +1000 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 XAA20394 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 23:35:14 +1000 Message-Id: <199903151335.XAA20394@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from kansas.isode.com by woozle.isode.com (local) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:34:29 +0000 Received: from isode.com (actually brian.isode.com.) by kansa.isode.com with Internet with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:36:41 +0000 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, I.Reissmann@isode.com Subject: Revoke and concession Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:35:19 +0000 From: Ian Reissmann Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This happened to me yesterday. Playing in 3NT, with the lead in hand, declarer at trick 12 states "I'll give you the last 2 tricks". Each defender has two winners. If declarer plays one card, one defender wins the last 2, if she plays the other, the other defender wins the last 2 tricks. One of the defender's winners could have been played to a trick on which that defender revoked. This winner is the same suit as one of the losers in declarer's hand - ie declarer can play this card knowing that the defender will win the trick with card which could have been played to the revoke trick. What's the ruling ? Does it make any difference if declarer says "I concede the last 2, but you have revoked" ? The TD ruled that 1 trick only was transferred, on the basis that a concession could not be withdrawn. 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 Tue Mar 16 01:39:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 01:39:37 +1000 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 BAA22929 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 01:39:30 +1000 Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-005.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.197]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA21522 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:38:53 GMT Message-ID: <000501be6efa$c077ab20$c5307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:44:42 -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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the early days of this thread I was sure the player had done nothing wrong in telling his opponent what he intended to do on the next round and I was also sure that no opponent would claim this was a UI situation. Then DWS said 'No Way' and I sat back to reconsider. I must say I like the approach adopted by this player but I couldn't see where any Law was being broken until... ...When I tell my opponent that I intend to bid 4S on the next round - this is my intention at this point agreed but I cannot be forced to bid 4S when the tray come back! Ergo - 4S is not the only LA available to me when the tray comes back! Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 02:36:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 02:36:20 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23225 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 02:36:13 +1000 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 LAA17126 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:36:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id LAA29358 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:36:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:36:05 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199903151636.LAA29358@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > But while I endorse the first two and have my doubts about the third, I am > completely convinced that none of them should be applied at the whim of an > individual TD or AC. I hope we all agree with the above. The question, of course, is what L16A actually says. In particular, we disagree over the time at which the act of choosing should be deemed to take place. In the absence of official instructions from the SO or perhaps a cognizant NA/LC, I don't see any alternative but for a TD or AC to rule by "whim." This is, alas, not a unique situation, as David B. has pointed out more than once. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 03:01:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 03:01:26 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA23304 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 03:01:20 +1000 Received: from bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.69]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA28003 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:01:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:01:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903151701.MAA15599@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199903151335.XAA20394@octavia.anu.edu.au> (message from Ian Reissmann on Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:35:19 +0000) Subject: Re: Revoke and concession Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > This happened to me yesterday. > Playing in 3NT, with the lead in hand, declarer at trick 12 states > "I'll give you the last 2 tricks". Each defender has two winners. If > declarer plays one card, one defender wins the last 2, if she plays > the other, the other defender wins the last 2 tricks. > One of the defender's winners could have been played to a trick on > which that defender revoked. This winner is the same suit as one of > the losers in declarer's hand - ie declarer can play this card knowing > that the defender will win the trick with card which could have been > played to the revoke trick. > What's the ruling ? > Does it make any difference if declarer says "I concede the last 2, but you > have revoked" ? > The TD ruled that 1 trick only was transferred, on the basis that a > concession could not be withdrawn. A concession cannot be withdrawn unless the conceded trick could not be lost on any normal line of play. In the situation as stated, it is normal for the declarer to concede to either defender, unless she states explicitly that she will concede in the revoke suit and knows that the revoker will be forced to win the trick. (For example, "I'll play a heard, which will be won by whoever revoked on the last round of hearts, and then you get the last trick.") -- 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 Mar 16 03:15:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 03:15:04 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA23337 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 03:14:57 +1000 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 MAA19384 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:14:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id MAA29389 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:14:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:14:51 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199903151714.MAA29389@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Equity in Teams event. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: B A Small > Situation: Partner (south)opened 1D out of turn (east was dealer). > Director called. Bid not condoned, cancelled and bidding reverts to east > who passes. Directer informs partner that she may make any legal call. > Told that if she repeats her original bid her partner would be barred > for one round. Clearly wrong, L31A1. The 1D bid may be repeated with no penalty. Of course the TD should have advised East of this before East chose to pass. > On the lie of the cards and > with no interference our auction will go 1D-1S-1NT-3H-4H. We play > precision and several other teams bid similar. When I informed director > he checked Laws and decided I was right that his decision was wrong but > did not wish to change scores. Good grief! Now L82C (Director's Error) should be automatic. I'd have been willing to bet this case came from the ACBL :-(, but I see your email is New Zealand. > As the cards lie and with me playing in > 4H we get a diamond lead and on most lines of play I will make 4 for > +420 and a team gain of +620 brings us back to a 15-15 draw. At appeal > the committee agreed the director made a bad call but felt it was now > impossible to compare scores so neutralised the board and gave each team > 3imps. It's a close question whether this or the TD's ruling was worse. Both are awful. L82C says that both teams should be considered non-offending. L12C2 scores should be assigned accordingly. (No doubt DWS would have some strong words to say about giving L12C1 artificial scores when the hand has been played.) On the facts you state, it sounds as though you should get +420 and your opponents should get +50, but of course the AC would need to analyze the entire hand. With your +200 at the other table, your team wins 12 IMPs and the opponents lose 4, and VP's are calculated separately for each team. The ruling is more complicated if East has a hand that might consider anything other than an initial pass. In that case, you have to give EW the benefit (if any) of opening the bidding and barring you from the auction (L31A2b) and having lead penalties (L26). Analysis might be difficult, but the AC has to find for EW the most favorable result that is "likely." In principle, they have to do the same for you, but it sounds as though +420 is straightforward, even if not automatic, and nothing more favorable is likely. If this were a knockout match instead of a VP event, L86B would apply. Then (on the facts assumed above) you would win 8 IMPs net. Are you sure this wasn't a visiting ACBL TD and AC? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 03:30:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 03:30:46 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA23385 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 03:30:38 +1000 Received: from bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.69]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA29059 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:30:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:30:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903151730.MAA16797@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <36EDF590.720A@xtra.co.nz> (message from B A Small on Mon, 15 Mar 1999 22:09:20 -0800) Subject: Re: Equity in Teams event. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B A Small writes: > Just had a weekend of bridge (playing). Second day was a teams event and > had an interesting situation which cost us a few VPs ( I think). > Situation: Partner (south)opened 1D out of turn (east was dealer). > Director called. Bid not condoned, cancelled and bidding reverts to east > who passes. Directer informs partner that she may make any legal call. > Told that if she repeats her original bid her partner would be barred > for one round. She opens 1D-P-P-P and she plays in 1D making 0ne for > +70. My hand AKJxxxx, QJxx, x ,x. She holds x, 109xx, AKxx, KQJx. At > the other table N/S got into 5H going four off for +200 for us. (I > gather declarer decided to cross ruff and got lost). Net result is +270. > Before I knew this result I informed the director that I felt his > decision was wrong and I wished to appeal. On the lie of the cards and > with no interference our auction will go 1D-1S-1NT-3H-4H. We play > precision and several other teams bid similar. When I informed director > he checked Laws and decided I was right that his decision was wrong but > did not wish to change scores. He was prepared to let table scores > stand. This director is in violation of Law 82A: It is the duty of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws. He was responmsible for this error of procedure, and should have corrected it (unless he believes that it was your responsibility to point out the error immediately). > We lost the match 13-17. As the cards lie and with me playing in > 4H we get a diamond lead and on most lines of play I will make 4 for > +420 and a team gain of +620 brings us back to a 15-15 draw. At appeal > the committee agreed the director made a bad call but felt it was now > impossible to compare scores so neutralised the board and gave each team > 3imps. We now have a 12-18 loss. This appears to be a misguided attempt to apply Law 82C. Both sides should be considered non-offending for purposes of assigning an adjusted score; however, A+ shoudl not be assigned when there is a reasonable result on the board. Instead, if the AC believes it is likely that 4H will either make or go down one, then the split score should be +420/+50, which is 11 IMPs to your side and -4 for the opponents. The AC could also have applied Law 12C3 (I assume that yours has that right in New Zealand); if it had no idea what the correct result was, it could vary A+/A+ in order to acheive equity. There was no likely line on which the opponents would have earned +3. In addition, a damaged non-offending side should not get worse than the table result, so you are entitled to at least +7. (Once the penalty was paid, you become a non-offender for purposes of further adjustments not based on UI from the infraction.) > I feel somewhat aggrieved that what little we had was take and in fact > we were penalised for going to appeal. You are correct here, because you are the damaged non-offenders. Average-pluses seem to cause a lot of trouble. Usually it shouldn't be awarded because the committee should try to assign a score, but since committees do give up, a set of guidelines for awarding an average plus (and average minus) should be given. For example: If the board was not played at all, or was played fouled, average-plus must be awarded, because there is no basis for comparison. If the board was played, and the TD/AC cannot determine a score, average-plus may be awarded to the non-offenders. However, average-plus may only be awarded if it is within the range of reasonable scores and does not damage the non-offenders. Thus, if the table result is better than average-plus, the non-offenders may keep it; if no reasonable result is as good as average-plus, the non-offenders get the best reasonable result. Following these guidelines, if the committee could not determine a reasonable score, then average-plus for your side is the table result of +7 (since the committee has not ruled that +420 was likely), and average-plus for the opponents is the best reasonable score of -4. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 05:09:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 05:09:57 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 FAA23637 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 05:09:50 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10MckB-0005ry-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:09:44 +0000 Message-ID: <1ocMWLAsnV72EwMi@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:05:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) In-Reply-To: <199903150457.UAA04361@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199903150457.UAA04361@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >> From: John (MadDog) Probst > >> Jan Kamras writes > >> >I agree with most, but not all, of the general thoughts >expressed by >> >Mike below, and I've often found myself on the opposite side of >HdW's >> >(and sometimes DB's) positions. This time however I lean towards >their >> >position. I sincerely hope this means there is a difference in >the >> >situations, not that I am inconsistant!! >> >> I find myself drawn to the same view. No more than that. I'm >sticking >> to the DWS camp for the time being. >> >> Mike Dennis says >> >> >> >> It is illegal for a player to "bid what he would have bid >anyway" in >> >> contravention of L16, and there is no legal basis for allowing >an exception >> >> for a UI Insurance claim. To accept such a claim is to adopt >an >> >> extra-legal, ad hoc approach. It may be that such a principle >should be >> >> established as a part of the Laws, as some have proposed, >though I have my >> >> doubts about whether the proponents have carefully considered >all of the >> >> ramifications. I wonder as well about the significance of the >"problem" >> >> this is supposed to solve. But until such a change is made, >let's stick to >> >> applying the laws. That is hard enough. >> >> This feels better to me. The laws themselves are hard enough >without >> taking an advance save against an AC. John >> >Please tell us, Jan and John, when does the culprit's screenmate >call the TD? Surely not in accordance with L16A2? How exactly does >your opinion get implemented? > when the tray gets back after the huddle >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > > -- 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 Mar 16 05:15:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 05:15:11 +1000 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 FAA23674 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 05:15:03 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n6d.san.rr.com [204.210.46.109]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA19824; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:14:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903151914.LAA19824@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Burn" , Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:14:12 -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 David Burn wrote: > Mike Dennis says > > >> It is illegal for a player to "bid what he would have bid anyway" in > contravention of L16, and there is no legal basis for allowing an exception > for a UI Insurance claim. To accept such a claim is to adopt an > extra-legal, ad hoc approach. > > What UI claim? What UI? Indeed, what I? Suppose a player has such as: > > AKxx xx xx AQxxx > > and sees 1S from partner on the bidding tray. He plans the sequence > 1S-2C- anything at all - 4S, because that is his system. So, he bids 2C > and turns to his screenmate. "I need to go to the bathroom", he says. > "When the tray comes back, would you mind bidding 4S for me?" > > The player goes to the bathroom, and the tray takes some time to come > back with a 3C rebid by opener. Should the screenmate now refuse to > bid 4S because UI has been transmitted? > It is not illegal for a player to "bid what he would have bid anyway" if *he* has no logical alternative, even though others in the same situation might have one. We use the "peer" criterion because we can't read minds, but there is no need to read a player's mind if he puts a bid card on the table immediately after pushing the tray (better than an oral commitment, by the way). Evidently Mike wants an "advance call" to be declared illegal. Do we really want to *force* someone to go to the bathroom in order to avoid receiving UI when he knows what his next call will be? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 05:27:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 05:27:14 +1000 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 FAA23732 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 05:27:08 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n6d.san.rr.com [204.210.46.109]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA21419; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:27:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903151927.LAA21419@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:26:38 -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 > From: Fearghal O'Boyle > > In the early days of this thread I was sure the player had done nothing > wrong in telling his opponent what he intended to do on the next round and I > was also sure that no opponent would claim this was a UI situation. > > Then DWS said 'No Way' and I sat back to reconsider. > > I must say I like the approach adopted by this player but I couldn't see > where any Law was being broken until... > > ...When I tell my opponent that I intend to bid 4S on the next round - this > is my intention at this point agreed but I cannot be forced to bid 4S when > the tray come back! > > Ergo - 4S is not the only LA available to me when the tray comes back! > But if you change your call, that is *prima facie* evidence that some (perhaps undetectable) UI must have changed your mind. We cannot accept your claim to have had an innocent change of mind, just as we can't accept statements (true or not) from those who say "I would always have bid..." unless there is some sort of proof (e.g., system notes). Ergo, you *can* change your bid, but if 4S would have had a worse outcome, back it goes. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 06:33:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 06:33:35 +1000 Received: from mid.minfod.com (mid.minfod.com [207.227.70.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA23907 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 06:33:28 +1000 Received: from [207.227.70.80] (helo=JNichols) by mid.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10Me0G-0000WQ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:30:24 -0500 Message-Id: <4.1.19990315151305.00927160@popmid.minfod.com> X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:32:47 -0500 To: From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Revoke and concession In-Reply-To: <199903151335.XAA20394@octavia.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:35 AM 3/15/99 , Ian Reissmann wrote: > >This happened to me yesterday. > >Playing in 3NT, with the lead in hand, declarer at trick 12 states "I'll give >you the last 2 tricks". Each defender has two winners. If declarer plays one >card, one defender wins the last 2, if she plays the other, the other defender >wins the last 2 tricks. > >One of the defender's winners could have been played to a trick on which that >defender revoked. This winner is the same suit as one of the losers in >declarer's hand - ie declarer can play this card knowing that the defender >will win the trick with card which could have been played to the revoke trick. > >What's the ruling ? One trick is transferred as the revoke penalty--once he concedes declarer can not go back and say "Well, maybe not." He may only regain a trick that could not have been lost by any rational line of play. That is not the case here. > >Does it make any difference if declarer says "I concede the last 2, but you >have revoked" ? This is now less clear. "... but you have revoked" shows declarer was aware of the revoke before claiming, but it still doesn't specify what line of play declarer is using. As TD I would ask declarer to repeat the clarification statement if one was made. I would lean a bit in favor of the defenders here just to encourage clearer play by the declarer. It is so much better if declarer is aware of the revoke and expects to have two tricks transferred to simply lead the revoke suit and keep everything clear. > >The TD ruled that 1 trick only was transferred, on the basis that a concession >could not be withdrawn. > > > 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 Tue Mar 16 07:29:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 07:29:13 +1000 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 HAA24124 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 07:29:05 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n6d.san.rr.com [204.210.46.109]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA07659 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:29:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903152129.NAA07659@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: New Members? Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:28:22 -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 I have recently sent a message to every ACBL TD whose e-mail address I could find, attaching to it my recap of the ACBL Alert Procedure. I used the opportunity to recommend BLML to them, and provided the instructions for joining BLML. For those TDs who have joined, please be informed that many of the BLML Laws gurus are currently involved in some bridge shindig in Warsaw, which is mainly the reason for the relative paucity of "articles" currently published on BLML. Patience, they'll be back! And welcome! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 10:09:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:09:45 +1000 Received: from mail.dynamite.com.au (mail.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA24554 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:09:26 +1000 Received: from bridge.dynamite.com.au (isp266.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.37.27.26]) by mail.dynamite.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA18139 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 11:09:48 +1100 Message-ID: <005e01be6f4a$a594ad80$1a1b25cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Bridge Laws Group" Subject: An appeal - Butler Pairs major selection event Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 11:16:39 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005B_01BE6F9E.76A9ADA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005B_01BE6F9E.76A9ADA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is Sean Mullamphy in Canberra, Australia. I would like your comments on the following appeal submitted last night = during a session of a Butler Pairs event used to select our state = representative team. Board 21 Dlr North Vul N-S xxxx 10xxx xx A10x J10x x Qx AKJxxx AKQxxx Jxxx Kx xx AKQxx x x QJxxxx Auction W N E S 2H* 3H+ p# 3NT p 4S dbl p p 5C dbl 5S dbl all pass *weak 2 + alerted # enquired before bidding about 3H. Described as a stopper ask. When play completed West called for the director. It was ascertained = that North-South had no such agreement about 3H. West suggested that = South had possibly acted on unauthorised information in bidding 4S = rather than 4C as South may have bid with 6 clubs and 5 spades. West also contended that=20 1)had South's bid not been described as a stopper ask then West would = have bid 4D immediately ( 3NT is a possibility with solid spades and club Ace if north has a = heart stopper). 2) if South was a 2 suiter with spades then west could bid 4D over = South's almost certain 4C rebid. This would lead to a certain cheap = diamond save by East-West. West contended that there was no danger in passing the 3H bid whether = the explanation was correct or not. The director adjusted the score from NS +850 to NS +650. Both sides appealed. North-South contended that West's actions had lead to the poor result = and that the table result should stand. East-West contended that given the correct explanation West would make = the normal bid of 4D which would always lead to a Diamond save. Comments please. ------=_NextPart_000_005B_01BE6F9E.76A9ADA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is Sean = Mullamphy in=20 Canberra, Australia.
 
I would like your comments on the following appeal = submitted=20 last night during a session of a Butler Pairs event used to select our = state=20 representative team.
 
Board 21
Dlr North
Vul = N-S
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 xxxx
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 10xxx
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 xx
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 A10x
J10x          =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;=20 x
Qx          &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;  =20 AKJxxx
AKQxxx         &nbs= p;            = ;       =20 Jxxx
Kx          &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;  =20 xx
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 AKQxx
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 x
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 x
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 QJxxxx
 
Auction
W       =20 N       =20 E        S
          &nbs= p;         =20 2H*     3H+
p#       =20 3NT    p       =20 4S
dbl      =20 p       =20 p        5C
dbl      =20 5S      dbl    all = pass
*weak 2
+ alerted
# enquired before bidding about 3H. Described as a = stopper=20 ask.
 
When play completed West called for the director. It = was=20 ascertained that North-South had no such agreement about 3H. West = suggested that=20 South had possibly acted on unauthorised information in bidding 4S = rather than=20 4C as South may have bid with 6 clubs and 5 spades.
 
West also contended that
1)had South's bid not been described as a stopper = ask then=20 West would have bid 4D immediately
( 3NT is a possibility with solid spades and club = Ace if north=20 has a heart stopper).
2) if South was a 2 suiter with spades then west = could bid 4D=20 over South's almost certain 4C rebid. This would lead to a certain cheap = diamond=20 save by East-West.
West contended that there was no danger in passing = the 3H bid=20 whether the explanation was correct or not.
 
The director adjusted the score from NS +850 to NS=20 +650.
 
Both sides appealed.
 
North-South contended that West's actions had lead = to the poor=20 result and that the table result should stand.
East-West contended that given the correct = explanation West=20 would make the normal bid of 4D which would always lead to a Diamond=20 save.
 
Comments please.
------=_NextPart_000_005B_01BE6F9E.76A9ADA0-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 10:42:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:42:27 +1000 Received: from corp.affiliation.COM (node-129-247.imagine-inc.com [205.218.129.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA24716 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:42:20 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA25213 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:42:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:42:04 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199903160042.QAA25213@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: An appeal - Butler Pairs major selection event Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sean Mullamphy in Canberra, Australia writes: |Board 21 |Dlr North |Vul N-S | xxxx | 10xxx | xx | A10x |J10x x |Qx AKJxxx |AKQxxx Jxxx |Kx xx | AKQxx | x | x | QJxxxx | |Auction |W N E S | 2H* 3H+ |p# 3NT p 4S |dbl p p 5C |dbl 5S dbl all pass |*weak 2 |+ alerted |# enquired before bidding about 3H. Described as a stopper ask. | |When play completed West called for the director. It was ascertained |that North-South had no such agreement about 3H. South had unauthorized information; he knew that his partner thought that he was asking for a heart stop. Without that UI, might South seriously consider passing 3NT? Partner's an unpassed hand; 3NT could be the right spot vs, say: xx KQJx QJ10xx Kx. It took me some effort to construct that hand, so it is probably wrong to pass 3NT, but our definition of an LA is pretty open. I don't know Australia's definition of LA, but by the ACBL's, passing probably is one. West might pass, leaving N/S in 3NT. If he acts, he'll be acting based on misinformation, so it'd seem normal to let him pass in the hypothetical situation. Normal defense should get 3NT 4 or 5, depending on E/W's signalling methods. It seems quite unlikely that East would lead a diamond; he's almost certain to lead a high heart, particularly after finding out about the mixup. (He'll want to see dummy to shift to its other shortness.) I think the most favorable probable result for E/W is +500. It's also the best result at all probable, so I'd award -500/+500 on the hand. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 13:39:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 12:21:39 +1000 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 MAA25318 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 12:21:04 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveim5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.197]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA09743 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 21:20:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990315212035.006b5cf0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 21:20:35 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:35 AM 3/15/99 +0100, David B wrote: >Mike Dennis says > >>> It is illegal for a player to "bid what he would have bid anyway" in > contravention of L16, and there is no legal basis for allowing an exception >for a UI Insurance claim. To accept such a claim is to adopt an >extra-legal, ad hoc approach. > >What UI claim? What UI? Indeed, what I? Suppose a player has such as: > >AKxx xx xx AQxxx > >and sees 1S from partner on the bidding tray. He plans the sequence >1S-2C- anything at all - 4S, because that is his system. So, he bids 2C >and turns to his screenmate. "I need to go to the bathroom", he says. >"When the tray comes back, would you mind bidding 4S for me?" > >The player goes to the bathroom, and the tray takes some time to come >back with a 3C rebid by opener. Should the screenmate now refuse to >bid 4S because UI has been transmitted? > >Just as the player can't receive any information while he is in the >bathroom, so he can't receive any information while waiting for the >tray to come back even if he isn't in the bathroom. He already has all >the information he needs to make his next call. To say that he has >"chosen" his call only when he places it on the tray, and that his >"intent" to make the call is different from his "choice" to make the call, >is... well, it is very much too deep for me. The bathroom example is interesting but irrelevant. It is only one among many artificial situations that may delay play, extraneous to any bridge-related information. If during the course of our auction the director asks players to be quiet so he can explain the details of the movement, or if there is a fire alarm, or the lights go out, the player whose turn it is to call is obviously not charged with a hesitation for the resulting delay. Likewise if one player goes to the bathroom, any of the other players might choose to defer his turn to call or play until the absentee returns, without any inference to anybody. Moreover, the constraints placed on a player under L16 are predicated on the receipt of UI by the player in question: "After a player makes available to his partner... " (L16A) and "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information ..." (L16B). Since the player in the bathroom cannot have known about the hesitation, he is not bound by L16 considerations. A more apt example is this: you are directing a game in which someone whom you know to adhere to the highest ethical and legal standards is a participant (Grattan, let us say). A L16 situation arises with Grattan as the subject. Your analysis is as follows: 1. Grattan did have one or more LA's to the (successful) action he actually took, at least by the standards defined in your jurisdiction. You certainly agree that his choice was the best, without reference to his partner's slow pass, and you are quite sure you would have bid the same way yourself. But you must admit that some other world class players would have acted otherwise. 2. It is obvious that his partner's slow pass made the actual choice more attractive, at least for any player who might have taken the losing option (not Grattan). 3. You are convinced beyond any doubt, based on your knowledge of his character and your assessment of the bridge facts, that Grattan did not take advantage of the UI, but acted faithfully to the Laws as he judged them to apply to this situation. What do you decide? On the one hand, the "just" decision, i.e., the one most truly in accord with the "intent" underlying L16 and (especially) L73, is to let the result stand. Grattan did not take advantage of the UI; he certainly would have found the winning action without partner's slow pass to show the way. What is to be gained by applying an arbitrary formal procedure which is really in place simply because we are not usually presented with defendants of such unassailable reputation? On the other hand, the Laws, for better or worse, are clear, at least in this situation. For me, and I have no doubt for Grattan, the correct answer is obvious. It is not up to a TD or AC to substitute ad hoc legal standards which they judge to be more in synch with the intent of the Laws for the procedures, however inadequate, actually spelled out in the Laws. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 14:22:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA26835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:22:54 +1000 Received: from bonfire.hpcl.co.in ([202.54.21.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA26830 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:22:45 +1000 Received: from hpcl.co.in ([192.9.200.20]) by bonfire.hpcl.co.in (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA155 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:00:09 +0530 Received: from HPSUNPH-DOM-Message_Server by hpcl.co.in with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:49:07 +0530 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:48:27 +0530 From: "Vinay Desai" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Indian Selection Trials-1999 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This was Deal =23 125 of the 128 Board Final to represent the Indian Team = for the BFAAME (Zonal) Championships: Dealer: North=20 Vul: Both North: KJT87 XX AX JTXX East: QXXXX X QTXX 9XX South: AX ATXXX K AKQXX West: 9 KQJ9X J9XXXX X Bidding: North East South West P P 1H P 1S P 3C P 4C P 4D P 4S Dbl P P 5C*** P 6C P P *** =3D a very very long pause (5 minutes) The Director was called and EW protected their rights. S-9 was led and S quickly wrapped up 12 tricks. Director ruled the score stands. Your verdict? Thanking you, Vinay Desai From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 15:02:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA26933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:02:14 +1000 Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (root@corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA26928 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:02:10 +1000 Received: from [131.217.55.82] (purcell.chem.utas.edu.au [131.217.55.82]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA17726 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:02:06 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:05:45 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:35 AM +0100 15/3/99, David Burn wrote: >Suppose a player has such as: > >AKxx xx xx AQxxx > >and sees 1S from partner on the bidding tray. He plans the sequence >1S-2C- anything at all - 4S, because that is his system. So, he bids 2C >and turns to his screenmate. "I need to go to the bathroom", he says. >"When the tray comes back, would you mind bidding 4S for me?" I would want some evidence that 4S is the systemic bid opposite any rebid by opener... In particular, what if 4D is a splinter agreeing clubs? Have they an agreement about 4S (cue for clubs, or showing delayed S fit)? Surely opposite a 3-level rebid by opener this hand has to consider slam possibilities, where a hand such as QJxx Qx KQx QJxx might not opposite a 3H rebid? I contend that in the absence of hard evidence that the player has all the information necessary to decide his call after partner's next call, and that no call by his partner, nor one by an opponent, could demonstrably suggest an alternate call, then this kind of "UI Insurance" tactic is flawed. Some alternate cases: South asks West (his screenmate) to bid 7H after his partner's next bid while he goes to the bathroom. a) If West knows that South must always bid 7H, he can insert a lead-directional call with impunity, since he bids before South. This information cannot be considered unauthorised (a mannerism of an opponent). b) If West knows that South must always bid 7H, he may be able to make a bid (say 6S) to suggest a sacrifice to partner. This too, is based on AI. c) If West knows that South must always bid 7H, and South has not returned from the bathroom when it is his call, West may make some call quickly and then bid for South in very quick tempo, returning the tray such that it is obvious to the other screenmates that both players acted quickly and out of tempo. The partner not in the bathroom either has the information (unauthorised?) that partner had predetermined his bid since he has not returned from the bathroom; or the information that he returned very quietly and bid out of tempo. This can certainly affect his willingness to play in 7S or 7NT. If said partner has also now gone to a different bathroom leaving instructions.... Because of this ill-definition in subsequent procedure I dislike the "UI Insurance" method as currently proposed. Coupled with a) the vary limited number of circumstances in which I think UI Insurance might be feasible (above) and b) the even smaller number of times a player would recognise these circumstances, I think the subject as currently promulgated does not warrant much more consideration. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 15:38:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA27015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:38:08 +1000 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 PAA27010 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:38:03 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn39p55.ozemail.com.au [203.108.100.56]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA23701 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:35:42 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:35:42 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199903160535.QAA23701@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: Dummy's Limitations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk East West are playing 6D. At trick 7 I am summoned by West (dummy): "South has just established a revoke" I find that dummy is the only person who has noticed the revoke (S2 played instead of C2). I read riot act to dummy - must not call attention till after hand is finished, may jeopardise right to penalise etc. Play proceeds and declarer loses 1 trick after revoke, for 1 down. I would like to rule - score stands, EW forfeit right to penalty, but it seems that according to L90, I may only give a suitably hefty PP, while ruling the contract back to 6D making (assuming that drawing attention to the revoke did not materially alter the play). Any opinions welcome, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 16:00:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:00:09 +1000 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 QAA27035 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:00:02 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn39p55.ozemail.com.au [203.108.100.56]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA05911 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:57:38 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:57:38 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199903160557.QAA05911@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: Hesitation (no damage) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dealer W, Nil Vul 9 6 4 2 10 8 Q 3 A 10 7 4 2 K 8 7 10 K J 9 3 Q 7 6 5 4 A 10 6 2 K 9 8 5 4 J 5 8 3 A Q J 5 3 A 2 J 7 K Q 9 6 The bidding West North East South 1D Pass 1H 1S 2H 2S 3D 4S ...Pass Pass 5D 5S X All pass West made an out of tempo pass after 4S, and I was called immediately 5D was bid by East. I explained to South that East would have to have a bid found by 75% of his peers in the absence of the UI provided by the slow pass of 4S. I further advised South that he would need to continue to play bridge. At the end of the hand when 5Sx had been dispatched for 2 down, I determined that both 4S and 5D were failing. So South was not damaged by the 5D bid, quite the reverse. I ruled for the table result to stand. South was unhappy because he felt the 5D bid was not permissible, and he felt that my instruction for him to "keep playing bridge" was a licence to bid on. Any comments? Tony From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 16:26:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:26:47 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA27103 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:26:43 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA16814 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:26:40 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:26:39 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: An appeal - Butler Pairs major selection event In-Reply-To: <005e01be6f4a$a594ad80$1a1b25cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 Sean Mullamphy wrote: > I would like your comments on the following appeal submitted last night during a session of a Butler Pairs event used to select our state representative team. > > Board 21 > Dlr North > Vul N-S > xxxx > 10xxx > xx > A10x > J10x x > Qx AKJxxx > AKQxxx Jxxx > Kx xx > AKQxx > x > x > QJxxxx > > Auction > W N E S > 2H* 3H+ > p# 3NT p 4S > dbl p p 5C > dbl 5S dbl all pass > *weak 2 > + alerted > # enquired before bidding about 3H. Described as a stopper ask. > > When play completed West called for the director. It was ascertained > that North-South had no such agreement about 3H. West suggested that > South had possibly acted on unauthorised information in bidding 4S > rather than 4C as South may have bid with 6 clubs and 5 spades. > > West also contended that > 1) had South's bid not been described as a stopper ask then West would have bid 4D immediately > (3NT is a possibility with solid spades and club Ace if north has a heart stopper). > 2) if South was a 2 suiter with spades then west could bid 4D over South's almost certain 4C rebid. This would lead to a certain cheap diamond save by East-West. > West contended that there was no danger in passing the 3H bid whether the explanation was correct or not. > > The director adjusted the score from NS +850 to NS +650. > > Both sides appealed. > > North-South contended that West's actions had lead to the poor result > and that the table result should stand. > East-West contended that given the correct explanation West would make > the normal bid of 4D which would always lead to a Diamond save. > > Comments please. What was the Director's basis in removing the double? I believe that the UI from North's explanation does make 4S a more favourable action. I don't think that 3NT is a LA under Australian guidlines, but 4C is certainly one! I will accept West's contention that he will bid 4D and award NS +300/EW -300 (a likely result in 6DX). I agree that West's doubles might be poor bridge, but they aren't bad enough to break any nexus. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 17:18:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:18:54 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA27183 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:18:49 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA32486 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:18:47 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:18:46 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy's Limitations In-Reply-To: <199903160535.QAA23701@oznet11.ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Tony Musgrove wrote: > East West are playing 6D. At trick 7 I am summoned by West (dummy): > "South has just established a revoke" > > I find that dummy is the only person who has noticed the revoke (S2 played > instead of C2). I read riot act to dummy - must not call attention till > after hand is finished, may jeopardise right to penalise etc. Play proceeds > and declarer loses 1 trick after revoke, for 1 down. > > I would like to rule - score stands, EW forfeit right to penalty, but it > seems that according to L90, I may only give a suitably hefty PP, while > ruling the contract back to 6D making (assuming that drawing attention to > the revoke did not materially alter the play). > > Any opinions welcome, Yes, I agree, the revoke penalty should still be paid by NS. Just make sure the PP is of an appropriate size! Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 17:39:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:39:16 +1000 Received: from mail.dynamite.com.au (mail.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA27256 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:39:11 +1000 Received: from bridge.dynamite.com.au (isp82.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.37.26.86]) by mail.dynamite.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA28202 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:39:30 +1100 Message-ID: <002901be6f89$7b66f420$561a25cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Bridge Laws Group" Subject: Re: An appeal - Butler Pairs major selection event Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:46:27 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0026_01BE6FDD.4C7BF440" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BE6FDD.4C7BF440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alert! There is a major adjustment to my submission below. North was = dealer and passed. Sean Mullamphy. -----Original Message----- From: Canberra Bridge Club To: Bridge Laws Group Date: 16 March 1999 12:17 Subject: An appeal - Butler Pairs major selection event =20 =20 This is Sean Mullamphy in Canberra, Australia. =20 I would like your comments on the following appeal submitted last = night during a session of a Butler Pairs event used to select our state = representative team. =20 Board 21 Dlr North Vul N-S xxxx 10xxx xx A10x J10x x Qx AKJxxx AKQxxx Jxxx Kx xx AKQxx x x QJxxxx =20 Auction W N E S p 2H* 3H+ p# 3NT p 4S dbl p p 5C dbl 5S dbl all pass *weak 2 + alerted # enquired before bidding about 3H. Described as a stopper ask. =20 When play completed West called for the director. It was ascertained = that North-South had no such agreement about 3H. West suggested that = South had possibly acted on unauthorised information in bidding 4S = rather than 4C as South may have bid with 6 clubs and 5 spades. =20 West also contended that=20 1)had South's bid not been described as a stopper ask then West = would have bid 4D immediately ( 3NT is a possibility with solid spades and club Ace if north has a = heart stopper). 2) if South was a 2 suiter with spades then west could bid 4D over = South's almost certain 4C rebid. This would lead to a certain cheap = diamond save by East-West. West contended that there was no danger in passing the 3H bid = whether the explanation was correct or not. =20 The director adjusted the score from NS +850 to NS +650. =20 Both sides appealed. =20 North-South contended that West's actions had lead to the poor = result and that the table result should stand. East-West contended that given the correct explanation West would = make the normal bid of 4D which would always lead to a Diamond save. =20 Comments please. ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BE6FDD.4C7BF440 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Alert! There is a major adjustment = to my=20 submission below.  North was dealer and passed.
 
Sean Mullamphy.
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Canberra Bridge Club <bridge@dynamite.com.au>
= To:=20 Bridge Laws Group <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 16 March 1999 12:17
Subject: An appeal - Butler Pairs = major=20 selection event

This is = Sean Mullamphy=20 in Canberra, Australia.
 
I would like your comments on the following = appeal=20 submitted last night during a session of a Butler Pairs event used = to select=20 our state representative team.
 
Board 21
Dlr North
Vul = N-S
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 xxxx
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 10xxx
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 xx
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 A10x
J10x          =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;=20 x
Qx          &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;  =20 AKJxxx
AKQxxx         &nbs= p;            = ;       =20 Jxxx
Kx          &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;  =20 xx
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 AKQxx
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 x
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 x
          &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 QJxxxx
 
Auction
W       =20 N       =20 E        S
          &nbs= p;=20 p       2H*    =20 3H+
p#       =20 3NT    p       =20 4S
dbl      =20 p       =20 p        5C
dbl      =20 5S      dbl    all = pass
*weak 2
+ alerted
# enquired before bidding about 3H. Described as = a stopper=20 ask.
 
When play completed West called for the = director. It was=20 ascertained that North-South had no such agreement about 3H. West = suggested=20 that South had possibly acted on unauthorised information in bidding = 4S=20 rather than 4C as South may have bid with 6 clubs and 5 = spades.
 
West also contended that
1)had South's bid not been described as a = stopper ask then=20 West would have bid 4D immediately
( 3NT is a possibility with solid spades and = club Ace if=20 north has a heart stopper).
2) if South was a 2 suiter with spades then west = could bid=20 4D over South's almost certain 4C rebid. This would lead to a = certain cheap=20 diamond save by East-West.
West contended that there was no danger in = passing the 3H=20 bid whether the explanation was correct or not.
 
The director adjusted the score from NS +850 to = NS=20 +650.
 
Both sides appealed.
 
North-South contended that West's actions had = lead to the=20 poor result and that the table result should stand.
East-West contended that given the correct = explanation=20 West would make the normal bid of 4D which would always lead to a = Diamond=20 save.
 
Comments = please.
------=_NextPart_000_0026_01BE6FDD.4C7BF440-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 18:06:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA27296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:06:05 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA27291 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:05:58 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA11731 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:05:54 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:05:53 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitation (no damage) In-Reply-To: <199903160557.QAA05911@oznet11.ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Dealer W, Nil Vul > 9 6 4 2 > 10 8 > Q 3 > A 10 7 4 2 > > K 8 7 10 > K J 9 3 Q 7 6 5 4 > A 10 6 2 K 9 8 5 4 > J 5 8 3 > > A Q J 5 3 > A 2 > J 7 > K Q 9 6 > > > The bidding West North East South > 1D Pass 1H 1S > 2H 2S 3D 4S > ...Pass Pass 5D 5S > X All pass > > West made an out of tempo pass after 4S, and I was called immediately 5D was > bid by East. I explained to South that East would have to have a bid found > by 75% of his peers in the absence of the UI provided by the slow pass of > 4S. I further advised South that he would need to continue to play bridge. > At the end of the hand when 5Sx had been dispatched for 2 down, I determined > that both 4S and 5D were failing. So South was not damaged by the 5D bid, > quite the reverse. I ruled for the table result to stand. Just because 5D was failing doesn't mean that NS weren't damaged. Without the 5D bid, NS would be going quietly off in 4S undoubled. -50 is much better than -300! > South was unhappy because he felt the 5D bid was not permissible, and he > felt that my instruction for him to "keep playing bridge" was a licence to > bid on. If you wish to argue that the UI doesn't demonstrably suggest 5D or that 5S is a wild or gambling action than that is another matter. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 18:47:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA27384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:47:12 +1000 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 SAA27379 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:47:06 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n6d.san.rr.com [204.210.46.109]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA09253; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:46:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903160846.AAA09253@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Tony Musgrove" Subject: Re: Dummy's Limitations Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:45:52 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote:> > > East West are playing 6D. At trick 7 I am summoned by West (dummy): > "South has just established a revoke" > > I find that dummy is the only person who has noticed the revoke (S2 played > instead of C2). I read riot act to dummy - must not call attention till > after hand is finished, may jeopardise right to penalise etc. Play proceeds > and declarer loses 1 trick after revoke, for 1 down. > > I would like to rule - score stands, EW forfeit right to penalty, but it > seems that according to L90, I may only give a suitably hefty PP, while > ruling the contract back to 6D making (assuming that drawing attention to > the revoke did not materially alter the play). > I don't see where it is written in L9, L43, or (especially) L64B that the revoke penalty is not paid if dummy was the first to call attention to the revoke. "Jeopardize right to penalize" is therefore not appropriate language, unless dummy has "lost rights" as described in L43A2. Hefty PP? Legal, but I would think it depends on the level of player involved. A lecture might be more appropriate for an inexperienced player. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Who is not a director) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 19:03:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA27415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:03:18 +1000 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 TAA27410 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:03:12 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n6d.san.rr.com [204.210.46.109]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA11217; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 01:03:06 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903160903.BAA11217@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Tony Musgrove" Subject: Re: Hesitation (no damage) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 01:02:34 -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 Tony Musgrove > > Dealer W, Nil Vul > 9 6 4 2 > 10 8 > Q 3 > A 10 7 4 2 > > K 8 7 10 > K J 9 3 Q 7 6 5 4 > A 10 6 2 K 9 8 5 4 > J 5 8 3 > > A Q J 5 3 > A 2 > J 7 > K Q 9 6 > > > The bidding West North East South > 1D Pass 1H 1S > 2H 2S 3D 4S > ...Pass Pass 5D 5S > X All pass > > West made an out of tempo pass after 4S, and I was called immediately 5D was > bid by East. I explained to South that East would have to have a bid found > by 75% of his peers in the absence of the UI provided by the slow pass of > 4S. I further advised South that he would need to continue to play bridge. > At the end of the hand when 5Sx had been dispatched for 2 down, I determined > that both 4S and 5D were failing. So South was not damaged by the 5D bid, > quite the reverse. I ruled for the table result to stand. > > South was unhappy because he felt the 5D bid was not permissible, and he > felt that my instruction for him to "keep playing bridge" was a licence to > bid on. > The 5D bid is permissible if there is no logical alternative (LA). I have no opinion as to whether this was so, and I leave that to others. It would have been better to say nothing except something like "Please continue and I'll rule later." Just because 5D would have been defeated does not mean that N/S were undamaged. They were pushed into an unmakeable contract by an illegal bid (if it is indeed deemed illegal). Isn't that damage? It is only when the non-offenders do something irrational, wild, or gambling that redress may be denied. The 5S bid doesn't fall into that category. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 20:41:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:41:57 +1000 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 UAA27649 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:41:51 +1000 Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-014.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.206]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA00520 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:41:14 GMT Message-ID: <006901be6f9a$4e93ac20$ce307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Happy St. Patrick's Day Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:46:51 -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 Wishing all my friends on BLML a 'Happy St. Patrick's Day'! Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 16 23:28:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:28:49 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA28150 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:28:41 +1000 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 IAA09695 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 08:27:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990316083003.0069f914@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 08:30:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Hesitation (no damage) In-Reply-To: <199903160557.QAA05911@oznet11.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:57 PM 3/16/99 +1100, Tony wrote: >Dealer W, Nil Vul > 9 6 4 2 > 10 8 > Q 3 > A 10 7 4 2 > > K 8 7 10 > K J 9 3 Q 7 6 5 4 > A 10 6 2 K 9 8 5 4 > J 5 8 3 > > A Q J 5 3 > A 2 > J 7 > K Q 9 6 > > The bidding West North East South > 1D Pass 1H 1S > 2H 2S 3D 4S > ...Pass Pass 5D 5S > X All pass > >West made an out of tempo pass after 4S, and I was called immediately 5D was >bid by East. I explained to South that East would have to have a bid found >by 75% of his peers in the absence of the UI provided by the slow pass of >4S. I further advised South that he would need to continue to play bridge. >At the end of the hand when 5Sx had been dispatched for 2 down, I determined >that both 4S and 5D were failing. So South was not damaged by the 5D bid, >quite the reverse. I ruled for the table result to stand. > >South was unhappy because he felt the 5D bid was not permissible, and he >felt that my instruction for him to "keep playing bridge" was a licence to >bid on. > >Any comments? Even in the ACBL, where the Kaplan doctrine is (IMO) very much over-applied, I think an AC would find damage. In order to rule that South wasn't damaged, you must find that bidding 5S over 5D was an "egregious error". I would not support such a finding. I would adjust the result to 4S -1. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 00:51:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 00:51:19 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA00839 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 00:51:12 +1000 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 JAA25635 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:51:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id JAA00089 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:51:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:51:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199903161451.JAA00089@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > On the other hand, the Laws, for better or worse, are clear, at least in > this situation. Meaning the standard UI situation? Yes, I think we all understand the Laws and agree with you. The problem is that the Laws are _not_ clear in the situation with a pre-chosen action. Or rather, everyone thinks the laws _are_ clear, but there are two contradictory schools of thought on what the laws "clearly" say. False analogies do not help our understanding. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 01:36:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 01:36:47 +1000 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 BAA01064 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 01:36:40 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA22290 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:35:49 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 16 Mar 99 15:35 GMT From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Dummy's Limitations 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: <199903160535.QAA23701@oznet11.ozemail.com.au> Tony Musgrove wrote: > East West are playing 6D. At trick 7 I am summoned by West (dummy): > "South has just established a revoke" > > I find that dummy is the only person who has noticed the revoke (S2 > played > instead of C2). I read riot act to dummy - must not call attention till > after hand is finished, may jeopardise right to penalise etc. Play > proceeds > and declarer loses 1 trick after revoke, for 1 down. > > I would like to rule - score stands, EW forfeit right to penalty, but it > seems that according to L90, I may only give a suitably hefty PP, while > ruling the contract back to 6D making (assuming that drawing attention > to > the revoke did not materially alter the play). > > Any opinions welcome, The timing of dummy's call (on establishment rather than end of hand) seems to have made no difference to the final outcome. It sounds to me as if dummy called TD in ignorance of the exact law. Assuming dummy genuinely believed he ought to call the director when he did then a friendly explanation of the rules would prevent him doing so again. A PP (other than a warning) seems incredibly harsh for dealing with a harmless and unintentional breach of generally little understood law. We are (or should be) drumming into players heads "If there is an infraction call the TD" and now you want to give a player a PP for doing just that. Note: IMO a player who knew the law would never call the TD as it could only work to his disadvantage. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 02:24:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 02:24:37 +1000 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 CAA01406 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 02:24:29 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id QAA12226 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:23:40 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 16 Mar 99 16:23 GMT From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Hesitation (no damage) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990316083003.0069f914@pop.cais.com> Eric Landau wrote > > The bidding West North East South > > 1D Pass 1H 1S > > 2H 2S 3D 4S > > ...Pass Pass 5D 5S > > X All pass > Even in the ACBL, where the Kaplan doctrine is (IMO) very much > over-applied, I think an AC would find damage. In order to rule that > South > wasn't damaged, you must find that bidding 5S over 5D was an "egregious > error". I would not support such a finding. Agreed > > I would adjust the result to 4S -1. On the auction ..the hesitation suggests bidding if partner was considering bidding ..the hesitation suggests passing if partner was considering a double Since I personally can very seldom tell which type of hesitation is which I lean towards barring a double (two-way) in this situation but not ruling against a bid or pass. If I was able to tell which hesitation partner had on the actual hand (near a double) I would feel obliged to bid 5D. So, awful ruling - right result! Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 02:33:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 02:33:51 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 CAA01455 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 02:33:44 +1000 Received: from [158.152.129.79] (helo=mamos.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Mwma-0003oo-0A; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:33:33 +0000 Message-ID: <6jVYHAAvdo72Ewd3@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:31:43 +0000 To: Laurie Kelso Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: An appeal - Butler Pairs major selection event References: <005e01be6f4a$a594ad80$1a1b25cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Laurie Kelso writes > >On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 Sean Mullamphy wrote: > >> I would like your comments on the following appeal submitted last night >during a session of a Butler Pairs event used to select our state >representative team. >> >> Board 21 >> Dlr North >> Vul N-S >> xxxx >> 10xxx >> xx >> A10x >> J10x x >> Qx AKJxxx >> AKQxxx Jxxx >> Kx xx >> AKQxx >> x >> x >> QJxxxx >> >> Auction >> W N E S >> 2H* 3H+ >> p# 3NT p 4S >> dbl p p 5C >> dbl 5S dbl all pass >> *weak 2 >> + alerted >> # enquired before bidding about 3H. Described as a stopper ask. >> >> When play completed West called for the director. It was ascertained >> that North-South had no such agreement about 3H. West suggested that >> South had possibly acted on unauthorised information in bidding 4S >> rather than 4C as South may have bid with 6 clubs and 5 spades. >> >> West also contended that >> 1) had South's bid not been described as a stopper ask then West would > have bid 4D immediately >> (3NT is a possibility with solid spades and club Ace if north has a > heart stopper). >> 2) if South was a 2 suiter with spades then west could bid 4D over > South's almost certain 4C rebid. This would lead to a certain cheap > diamond save by East-West. >> West contended that there was no danger in passing the 3H bid whether > the explanation was correct or not. >> >> The director adjusted the score from NS +850 to NS +650. >> >> Both sides appealed. >> >> North-South contended that West's actions had lead to the poor result >> and that the table result should stand. >> East-West contended that given the correct explanation West would make >> the normal bid of 4D which would always lead to a Diamond save. >> >> Comments please. > >What was the Director's basis in removing the double? > >I believe that the UI from North's explanation does make 4S a more >favourable action. I don't think that 3NT is a LA under Australian >guidlines, but 4C is certainly one! > >I will accept West's contention that he will bid 4D and award NS +300/EW >-300 (a likely result in 6DX). I agree that West's doubles might be poor >bridge, but they aren't bad enough to break any nexus. > >Laurie > > > mmmm If I've shown Spades and a Minor which I guess is what South thought then pass of 3NT seems certainly a LA. I have shown my hand - Partner has spoken why should I shift? 3NT off a lot seems a fair directorial shot - I certainly don't understand +650 and if I'd been given that score I wouldn't dream of appealing - lost deposit NS sacked TD???? :) (only JOKING) (about the TD I mean) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 03:47:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 03:47:48 +1000 Received: from carno.brus.online.be (carno.brus.online.be [194.88.127.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA01633 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 03:47:41 +1000 Received: from norbertf (a00-060.antw.online.be [62.112.1.60]) by carno.brus.online.be (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id SAA08342 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:47:34 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199903161747.SAA08342@carno.brus.online.be> From: "Norbert Fornoville" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: EBU Easter Festival of Bridge Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:48:21 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Can someone give me information about the EBU Easter Festival of Bridge in London ? The information on Internet doesn't mention when the different discplines are held. Thanks. Norbert Fornoville Frankrijklei 160 bus 2 B 2000 ANTWERPEN 32-3-2319853 nf@glo.be From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 03:50:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 03:50:40 +1000 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 DAA01660 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 03:50:33 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.168]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA21363; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:50:08 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36EE99FC.41D6FBC5@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:50:52 +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: New Members? References: <199903152129.NAA07659@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings Marv... clever action I suggest to warn them not only for this silent period but beware of the deluge or an avalanche of messages ........ Dany Marvin L. French wrote: > > I have recently sent a message to every ACBL TD whose e-mail address I > could find, attaching to it my recap of the ACBL Alert Procedure. I > used the opportunity to recommend BLML to them, and provided the > instructions for joining BLML. > > For those TDs who have joined, please be informed that many of the BLML > Laws gurus are currently involved in some bridge shindig in Warsaw, > which is mainly the reason for the relative paucity of "articles" > currently published on BLML. > > Patience, they'll be back! > > And welcome! > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 03:53:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 03:53:18 +1000 Received: from corp.affiliation.COM (node-129-247.imagine-inc.com [205.218.129.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA01695 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 03:53:11 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA26964 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:52:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:52:56 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199903161752.JAA26964@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Sean M's updated hand Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (Sorry, I lost the original subject.) |Sean Mullamphy wrote: | |Alert! There is a major adjustment to my submission below. North was |dealer and passed. | | | Board 21 | Dlr North | Vul N-S | xxxx | 10xxx | xx | A10x | J10x x | Qx AKJxxx | AKQxxx Jxxx | Kx xx | AKQxx | x | x | QJxxxx | | Auction | W N E S | p 2H* 3H+ | p# 3NT p 4S | dbl p p 5C | dbl 5S dbl all pass | *weak 2 | + alerted | # enquired before bidding about 3H. Described as a stopper ask. | | When play completed West called for the director. It was ascertained |that North-South had no such agreement about 3H. West suggested that |South had possibly acted on unauthorised information in bidding 4S |rather than 4C as South may have bid with 6 clubs and 5 spades. Given that North is a passed hand, I don't see how it can be right for South to pass 3NT. I'd judge that nothing is a logical alternative except for 4C. In fact, no other action is even slightly close. North now has a pretty good idea of what has happened. He has a marginal raise to 5C, but it's a pretty good shot to try 4S on the way, guessing what partner has. It's very likely that partner has a two-suiter, so if the two suits are spades and clubs, he wants to play 4S; if the two suits are clubs and diamonds, partner will bid 4NT or 5C depending on the relative minor suit length. A passed hand does not have good enough spades to insist on them at the four level opposite known shortness, so South knows what's happening, too. It's possible that South has a mammoth 1-suiter in clubs; most double with such a hand; I think most would pass 3NT or bid 4NT with that, too. North ought to know what has really occurred. Passing 4C isn't sensible; not only does bidding 4S have a really huge upside, South isn't expecting a pass. Compare to a common approach in which (2H)-4C shows clubs and spades. Partner is expected to bid with a fit or a cover card. If South had bid 4C, *West* would also have known what's going on. Frankly, he knows anyway; his double was a clear error. South either has a two-suiter and forgot his methods or a *huge* one- or two-suiter and is making a slam try. West should be worried about beating slam, not game. This time, however, the misinformation will have damaged West earlier in the auction. If he'd known that 3H was a two-suiter, he'd've bid 4D right away, guessing that there might be a big double fit. North would pass and East would raise. South is stuck; bidding 5S isn't impossible, but it's definitely a very risky action. He might pass. Who knows what North would lead? Enough possibilities arise that an assigned score seems impossible. I'd adjust to Ave+/Ave- in favor of E/W. After all, not everyone would take all the actions I've imagined. I'd give South a stern warning about taking advantage of UI. He probably didn't even realize it; most offenders don't. Few, however, think about actively avoiding using UI. I'd consider giving him a 1/4 board procedural penalty, but probably wouldn't as this situation is complicated enough that many good players would not be sure what to do. Finally, were West's foolish doubles enough to break the chain of consequence between the misinformation and the bad result? No, he'd not have been in the position without the misinformation and misuse of UI. Or at least we can charitably allow that he might not have doubled if he'd really known what was going on. Should we ding West for failing to bid 4D (which I think is dead obvious) over 3H? No, his plan to double 3NT for a diamond (?) lead isn't a total blunder, but it is quite questionable. That's not enough for him to lose any amount of redress. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 05:19:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 05:19:12 +1000 Received: from callisto.net.voyager.co.nz (root@callisto.net.voyager.co.nz [203.21.30.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA02020 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 05:19:07 +1000 Received: from bucksvoyager (ts1p10.net.ashburton.voyager.co.nz [203.21.25.174]) by callisto.net.voyager.co.nz (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA23845 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:19:00 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <002801be6fe1$57da4680$ae1915cb@bucksvoyager.co.nz> From: "Chris & Mary Buckland" To: "BridgeLaws" Subject: Re: Equity in Teams event. Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:14:27 +1300 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 Chris and Mary Buckland Ashburton, New Zealand -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, 16 March 1999 07:06 Subject: Re: Equity in Teams event. >> From: B A Small snip >> As the cards lie and with me playing in >> 4H we get a diamond lead and on most lines of play I will make 4 for >> +420 and a team gain of +620 brings us back to a 15-15 draw. At appeal >> the committee agreed the director made a bad call but felt it was now >> impossible to compare scores so neutralised the board and gave each team >> 3imps. > more snip Analysis might be >difficult, but the AC has to find for EW the most favorable result that >is "likely." In principle, they have to do the same for you, but it >sounds as though +420 is straightforward, even if not automatic, and >nothing more favorable is likely. The AC (which included me) decided that 4H was a difficult contract - east, the hand sitting over dummy, had AKxx in hearts and declarerer is in difficulty if east plays a diamond each time he/she is in with trumps. Making 70 looked like a good score. E/W were *deprived* of taking Bruce light because of the directors error and were thus deprived of a matching good score. Happy to read people's comments, and happy to concede an error on our part, if in fact we did make an error. After all that's why most of us belong to (usually lurk, for me) BLML - to improve our directing. It was the first time I had come across "director's error" in a team event, and we applied L82C as we thought it was written. >Are you sure this wasn't a visiting ACBL TD and AC? Not it wasn't :) Cheers, Mary From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 05:25:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 05:25:47 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA02079 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 05:25:41 +1000 Received: from bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.69]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA06605 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:25:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:25:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903161925.OAA01154@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199903160535.QAA23701@oznet11.ozemail.com.au> (message from Tony Musgrove on Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:35:42 +1100 (EST)) Subject: Re: Dummy's Limitations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove writes: > East West are playing 6D. At trick 7 I am summoned by West (dummy): > "South has just established a revoke" > I find that dummy is the only person who has noticed the revoke (S2 played > instead of C2). I read riot act to dummy - must not call attention till > after hand is finished, may jeopardise right to penalise etc. Play proceeds > and declarer loses 1 trick after revoke, for 1 down. > I would like to rule - score stands, EW forfeit right to penalty, but it > seems that according to L90, I may only give a suitably hefty PP, while > ruling the contract back to 6D making (assuming that drawing attention to > the revoke did not materially alter the play). This is correct. Dummy violated procedure, and should be given a procedural penalty or warning (depending on experience). However, if dummy had followed proper procedure, he would have called attention to the revoke at the end of play, and the penalty would have been the same. The right to penalize can only be forfeited when the rules explictly indicate this, such as if dummy has forfeited his rights, or if the non-offenders have taken actions after the director should have been 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 Wed Mar 17 06:28:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA02262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 06:28:52 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA02256 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 06:28:46 +1000 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 PAA06407 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:28:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id PAA00484 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:28:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:28:42 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199903162028.PAA00484@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Equity in Teams event. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Chris & Mary Buckland" > The AC (which included me) decided that 4H was a difficult contract - east, > the hand sitting over dummy, > had AKxx in hearts and declarerer is in difficulty if east plays a diamond > each time he/she is in with trumps. > Making 70 looked like a good score. There's a really interesting question lurking here, and I don't think I've ever seen it addressed. To recap, a TD's error has forced NS to play in 1D. The AC is obliged to correct under L82C, considering both sides non-offending. Under L12C2, the AC should award the best score that is likely, _had the irregularity not occurred_. In this case, the irregularity is the wrong TD ruling. Suppose the AC is convinced that the only likely outcome of the deal, given a correct ruling, is for NS to reach 4H and go down one on bad breaks. Should they assign -50/+50 _even though this is a worse result for NS than the "at the table" score_? I believe the answer is "yes" because the "at the table" score was one in conflict with the Laws and therefore not to be allowed. In effect, it never could have existed but for an erroneous ruling by the TD. But I am not at all sure of this opinion (uncharacteristically for me!), and I'd like someone to confirm or refute it. Any takers? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 06:56:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA02356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 06:56:53 +1000 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 GAA02349 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 06:56:46 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.195]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA06982; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 22:56:32 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36EEC5AC.325EEC69@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 22:57:16 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy's Limitations References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim's remarks are the right ruling. Any case I'd be a little bit more carefully and : a. check the dummy's level and seniority. b. would explain him the rules (L42&43) in a friendly way but tough enough Dany Tim West-meads wrote: > > In-Reply-To: <199903160535.QAA23701@oznet11.ozemail.com.au> > Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > East West are playing 6D. At trick 7 I am summoned by West (dummy): > > "South has just established a revoke" > > > > I find that dummy is the only person who has noticed the revoke (S2 > > played > > instead of C2). I read riot act to dummy - must not call attention till > > after hand is finished, may jeopardise right to penalise etc. Play > > proceeds > > and declarer loses 1 trick after revoke, for 1 down. > > > > I would like to rule - score stands, EW forfeit right to penalty, but it > > seems that according to L90, I may only give a suitably hefty PP, while > > ruling the contract back to 6D making (assuming that drawing attention > > to > > the revoke did not materially alter the play). > > > > Any opinions welcome, > > The timing of dummy's call (on establishment rather than end of hand) > seems to have made no difference to the final outcome. It sounds to me as > if dummy called TD in ignorance of the exact law. Assuming dummy > genuinely believed he ought to call the director when he did then a > friendly explanation of the rules would prevent him doing so again. A PP > (other than a warning) seems incredibly harsh for dealing with a harmless > and unintentional breach of generally little understood law. > > We are (or should be) drumming into players heads "If there is an > infraction call the TD" and now you want to give a player a PP for doing > just that. > > Note: IMO a player who knew the law would never call the TD as it could > only work to his disadvantage. > > Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 07:39:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 07:39:04 +1000 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 HAA02467 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 07:38:57 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n6d.san.rr.com [204.210.46.109]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA07161 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 13:38:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903162138.NAA07161@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Equity in Teams event. Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 13:36:43 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Steve Willner > > From: "Chris & Mary Buckland" > > The AC (which included me) decided that 4H was a difficult contract - east, > > the hand sitting over dummy, > > had AKxx in hearts and declarerer is in difficulty if east plays a diamond > > each time he/she is in with trumps. > > Making 70 looked like a good score. > > There's a really interesting question lurking here, and I don't think > I've ever seen it addressed. > > To recap, a TD's error has forced NS to play in 1D. The AC is obliged > to correct under L82C, considering both sides non-offending. > > Under L12C2, the AC should award the best score that is likely, _had > the irregularity not occurred_. In this case, the irregularity is the > wrong TD ruling. Suppose the AC is convinced that the only likely > outcome of the deal, given a correct ruling, is for NS to reach 4H and > go down one on bad breaks. Should they assign -50/+50 _even though > this is a worse result for NS than the "at the table" score_? > > I believe the answer is "yes" because the "at the table" score was one > in conflict with the Laws and therefore not to be allowed. In effect, > it never could have existed but for an erroneous ruling by the TD. But > I am not at all sure of this opinion (uncharacteristically for me!), > and I'd like someone to confirm or refute it. > > Any takers? I agree with Steve 100%. L82C doesn't say the adjusted score has to be an artificial one. It is even possible that one side will be assigned a score that is below average! (It's a cold board, except for one highly unlikely result). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 07:50:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 07:50:07 +1000 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 HAA02507 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 07:50:00 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivehi3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.67]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA14604 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:49:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990316164953.006bb14c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:49:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) In-Reply-To: <199903161451.JAA00089@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:51 AM 3/16/99 -0500, Steve wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> On the other hand, the Laws, for better or worse, are clear, at least in >> this situation. > >Meaning the standard UI situation? Yes, I think we all understand the >Laws and agree with you. > >The problem is that the Laws are _not_ clear in the situation with a >pre-chosen action. Or rather, everyone thinks the laws _are_ clear, >but there are two contradictory schools of thought on what the laws >"clearly" say. > >False analogies do not help our understanding. > OK, I apologize if the purpose of the analogy is unclear. Let me try and spell it out more precisely. In the original situation we were (or, to be more accurate, assumed that we were about to be) faced with a situation in which a player who had pre-announced his intention to take a certain action subsequently received UI which demonstrably made his announced choice more attractive relative to one or more LA's. He then takes the action, and the opponents cry foul. The majority wishes to accept his action and let him keep his good result. Although the rationales vary, the predominant argument is along these lines: whether or not he had LA's or whether or not the UI demonstrably suggested his choice is normally assessed against a hypothetical population of comparably talented players using the same methods, i.e., as a relatively abstract bridge judgement. But that approach is really only utilized because we usually have no reliable gage of the player's real thought processes. Given that he has pre-announced his action, we can confidently judge that the losing option was not a LA _for him_, and/or that the UI could not have demonstrably suggested _to him_ that his action would be more successful, however it might have been seen by others. Implicit in this argument is the notion that if we do have some reliable external measure of a player's good faith in a UI case, then we are free to waive the normal procedural requirements and make a straightforward judgement about whether the player did or did not use UI, which is really at the heart of the matter. In this case, it is obvious that he did not. My analogy was intended to point up the flaw in this thinking. Whether we judge that a player did or did not utilize UI should be largely immaterial, unless we find his behavior so egregious that it warrants a C&E action. Even if we are completely convinced of his innocence (in the sense of taking advantage), we should be prepared to find against him if his actions meet the usual tests. To make exceptions, either because he took a legally meaningless precaution of pre-announcing his bid or because he's Grattan Endicott, undermines the integrity of the Laws and the very concept of justice. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 08:01:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:01:11 +1000 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 IAA02541 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:01:05 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n6d.san.rr.com [204.210.46.109]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA15449 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:01:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903162201.OAA15449@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Vancouver NABC Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:00:20 -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 I will be attending the spring NABC in Vancouver, B.C., returning on March 27. While there, I intend to take a look at the movements and scoring methods used in various events, especially the big ones. I have learned that arrow-switches are rarely, if ever, used at NABCs. I want to see whether (as I suspect) that qualifiers in multi-section straight Mitchell fields, N/S and E/W, will remain in the same field throughout the four and six-session events. I don't see how overall rankings can be based on such a game, so I hope I'm wrong. I will also look to see whether across-the-field matchpointing is routinely employed. I know the answer is negative, but I want to see who gets ATF and who doesn't. Hope to have a full report when I get back. Maybe I can get involved in an appeal that is adjudicated by a TD panel (a new idea that applies to lesser events only) instead of by the NABC AC. That should be interesting. Going by the casebooks, I had believed until now that the quality of decisions would be about the same, since TDs and ACs seem to perform with approximately the same degree of skill on average. However, thinking about it, I presume that only very competent TDs like Brian Moran will be doing the appeals cases. If so, there could be a significant improvement in the decisions. Still don't like the idea, and would prefer that tougher screening be used if the workload of the NABC AC must be reduced. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 08:13:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:13:27 +1000 Received: from corp.affiliation.COM (node-129-247.imagine-inc.com [205.218.129.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA02603 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:13:20 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA27859 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:13:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:13:12 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199903162213.OAA27859@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Vancouver NABC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: |I will be attending the spring NABC in Vancouver, B.C., returning on |March 27. You don't need to; I can tell you the answers to your questions. |While there, I intend to take a look at the movements and scoring |methods used in various events, especially the big ones. I have learned |that arrow-switches are rarely, if ever, used at NABCs. I want to see |whether (as I suspect) that qualifiers in multi-section straight |Mitchell fields, N/S and E/W, will remain in the same field throughout |the four and six-session events. I don't see how overall rankings can |be based on such a game, so I hope I'm wrong. Arrow switching is not used. Pairs stay within a single section for an entire day. There are rare exceptions to this. Between days, the field is reseeded and mixed in order to achieve the seeding. I don't know if the fields are intentionally mixed well; the effect is close enough in any case. |I will also look to see whether across-the-field matchpointing is |routinely employed. I know the answer is negative, but I want to see |who gets ATF and who doesn't. It's used in national events and Flight A pairs only. The reason is that the vast majority of Flight B and lower players seem to prefer in-section scoring only. The extra fairness achieved by ATF scoring is not critical in those events, after all, as fun and social aspects of the game are stressed in those events. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 09:03:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:03:45 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA02973 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:03:38 +1000 Received: from default (pm30-2-30.ac.net [205.138.47.89]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id SAA26623 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:03:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903162303.SAA26623@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:06:29 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Vancouver NABC In-Reply-To: <199903162213.OAA27859@corp.affiliation.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:13 PM 3/16/99 -0800, Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > >I don't know if the fields are intentionally mixed well; the effect >is close enough in any case. > Sure they are :-) (My husband has been National Seeding Co-Chairman for several years, along with Nadine Wood) His most recent helpers (as best as I can recall) for re-seeding the last several National Events are Danny Sprung and Steve Weinstein... Once they hit 13 of of top 14 pair 3's in the overalls... Linda Then there was the time they decided to make table 9 the one-seed and table 3 the two-seed. A lot of folks thought they finally got the table they deserved :-) The only complaint was from Larry Cohen who had to rip up scads of score tickets because he has never had to write pair '9' before and just couldn't get the hang of it :-) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 09:27:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:27:30 +1000 Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA03075 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:27:23 +1000 Received: from salsa (salsa.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.112]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA01085 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:26:25 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990317122721.00979960@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:27:21 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990316164953.006bb14c@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199903161451.JAA00089@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:49 PM 3/16/99 -0500, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Implicit in this argument is the notion that if we do have some reliable >external measure of a player's good faith in a UI case, then we are free to >waive the normal procedural requirements and make a straightforward >judgement about whether the player did or did not use UI, which is really >at the heart of the matter. In this case, it is obvious that he did not. > >My analogy was intended to point up the flaw in this thinking. Whether we >judge that a player did or did not utilize UI should be largely immaterial, >unless we find his behavior so egregious that it warrants a C&E action. >Even if we are completely convinced of his innocence (in the sense of >taking advantage), we should be prepared to find against him if his actions >meet the usual tests. To make exceptions, either because he took a legally >meaningless precaution of pre-announcing his bid or because he's Grattan >Endicott, undermines the integrity of the Laws and the very concept of >justice. > But don't we do this all the time? (Or at least occasionally) Namely when the player has documentary evidence that systemically no LA exist? (Granted, this is unlikely to be the case in a "slow sign off" auction at the slam level, but it certainly comes up in forcing pass/slow pass/slow double cases often enough.) If so, then as far as I can see, we admit that the "tests" to determine whether or not there exist LA's are not intrinsically connected to UI cases per se but rather are intended to be used when other methods fail to establish this (which again, granted, is most of the time.) To me it seems that the fact that different SO's have established different tests as to what constitutes an LA provides significant implicit support for this view. To further proliferate the hypotheticals, consider a case on the other side of the coin (and without screens for reasons which will become clear.) (Board 17) N E S W 1n x* p 2h * Penalties, but slow. Director is called at an appropriate time, 2h score +110 for EW, and director rules +380 for NS. EW appeal. The AC are inclined (exceptionally) to decide that on west's hand no LA existed (on the basis of the usual "peers" etc criteria) until NS point out that by a remarkable coincidence, on board 1 (same dealer, same vul) west held an identical hand in an identical auction (except for the UI of the slow double) and passed. What do we expect will/should happen now? 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 Wed Mar 17 09:46:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:46:14 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA03168 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:46:06 +1000 Received: from bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.69]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA14463 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:45:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:45:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903162345.SAA13044@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199903162028.PAA00484@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:28:42 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: Equity in Teams event. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> From: "Chris & Mary Buckland" >> The AC (which included me) decided that 4H was a difficult contract - east, >> the hand sitting over dummy, >> had AKxx in hearts and declarerer is in difficulty if east plays a diamond >> each time he/she is in with trumps. >> Making 70 looked like a good score. > There's a really interesting question lurking here, and I don't think > I've ever seen it addressed. > To recap, a TD's error has forced NS to play in 1D. The AC is obliged > to correct under L82C, considering both sides non-offending. > Under L12C2, the AC should award the best score that is likely, _had > the irregularity not occurred_. In this case, the irregularity is the > wrong TD ruling. Suppose the AC is convinced that the only likely > outcome of the deal, given a correct ruling, is for NS to reach 4H and > go down one on bad breaks. Should they assign -50/+50 _even though > this is a worse result for NS than the "at the table" score_? > I believe the answer is "yes" because the "at the table" score was one > in conflict with the Laws and therefore not to be allowed. In effect, > it never could have existed but for an erroneous ruling by the TD. But > I am not at all sure of this opinion (uncharacteristically for me!), > and I'd like someone to confirm or refute it. I did mention this, but came to the opposite conclusion, suggesting that the non-offenders should not get worse than the table result. However, I believe you are correct. Normally, the non-offenders cannot score worse than the table result because an adjustment is only made if an infraction resulted in damage. If the offenders use UI to reach a slam whcih goes down, there is no need to adjust the score to the making game, However, Law 82 does not require damage; the score must be adjusted whenever there was a director's error, and both sides are considered non-offending only for purposes of awarding an adjusted score. It could be +420/-420, or -50/+50 (each worse than the table result for one side), or +420/+50. However, I do not believe it should be A+/A+ without adjustment. A+ is better than any likely score for EW, and worse than any likely score for NS, because there is a result at the other table of -200/+200. -- 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 Mar 17 10:30:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:30:26 +1000 Received: from praseodumium (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA03301 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:30:20 +1000 Received: from [195.99.46.243] (helo=[195.99.46.243]) by praseodumium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10N4BH-0002xa-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 00:27:34 +0000 From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 01:31:16 +0100 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 For what it's worth, I had breakfast with Ton Kooijman this morning in Warsaw. He told me about a deal in which the Dutch international player Elly Schippers found herself in the middle of a long auction where spades was the agreed suit. She produced a cue bid at the six level, then realised (as the tray went across the screen) that this was pointless, for she already had enough information to bid 7S. So, she took the 7S card out of the bidding box and showed it to her screenmate. When the tray came back after a little while without 7S from her partner, she made her contribution to the tray. It was accepted without demur. In the Venice Cup iin Tunisia eighteen months ago, Liz McGowan of Great Britain found herself in a similar position. She had made what became known as a "getting up steam" bid of 5NT in a position where she ought to have bid 7H anyway. When the tray came back slowly with 6H from partner, she raised to seven with an apologetic shrug in the direction of her screenmate. The contract made, but there were rumblings in the Vugraph audience. The American opponents, however, made no protest (and later went on to win the Cup, to show that good sports can also come out on top). Whatever the theoretical rights and wrongs of the situation, I do not think that international players are ever going to be persuaded that a player who was obviously going to make call X whatever happened should be compelled not to make it by some legal fiction. Nor do I think that the arguments for such a position will ever be understood by the rank and file. When all is said and done, what would be the point of having a Law that nobody understands and nobody would ever enforce? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 11:47:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:47:08 +1000 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 LAA03562 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:46:59 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n6d.san.rr.com [204.210.46.109]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA02813 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:46:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903170146.RAA02813@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Vancouver NABC Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:46:34 -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 Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > Marvin French wrote: > > |I will be attending the spring NABC in Vancouver, B.C., returning on > |March 27. > > You don't need to; I can tell you the answers to your questions. I had other reasons for going. Like seeing the Butchart Gardens on Vancouver Island. > > |While there, I intend to take a look at the movements and scoring > |methods used in various events, especially the big ones. I have learned > |that arrow-switches are rarely, if ever, used at NABCs. I want to see > |whether (as I suspect) that qualifiers in multi-section straight > |Mitchell fields, N/S and E/W, will remain in the same field throughout > |the four and six-session events. I don't see how overall rankings can > |be based on such a game, so I hope I'm wrong. > > Arrow switching is not used. Pairs stay within a single section > for an entire day. I predict that E/W will change sections and sit N/S. Maybe we play in different events. Butch Campbell of ACBL HQ in Memphis gave me the movement for three sections, in which after one session E/W's change section and sit N/S, N/S's stay in the same section and sit E/W. I imagine you are referring to four or six-session qualifying events, and no doubt the N/S and E/W fields don't change, resulting in each field having qualifiers for the day. Surely, however, you don't meet the same pairs in the evening that you met in the afternoon? That would be crazy. Perhaps you meant "within the same field," not within the "same section." ?? > There are rare exceptions to this. Between > days, the field is reseeded and mixed in order to achieve the seeding. > I don't know if the fields are intentionally mixed well; the effect > is close enough in any case. As I understand it (from Butch Campbell), the surviving seeds and maybe some additional seeds to replace those not qualifying, are assigned to tables 3, 9, (and maybe 6, 12 also). The remainder of the qualifiers are sprinkled evenly according to their scores. There is some attention made to the desire that pairs not meet a pair that they have played already, when that is feasible. Close enough, right. However: When two Mitchell fields are mixed in a succeeding session, it is not technically correct to have carryover scores unless the scores of each original field could somehow be made equivalent. The original Mitchell is really two different events, one for the N/S pairs and one for the E/W pairs. They have played different hands and have compared with different pairs, making two different games. It's like letting a baseball team carry over some runs scored in the playoffs into the World Series. Carryover scores are only legitimate when fields are unchanged. Shrunk maybe, but no cross-overs. > > |I will also look to see whether across-the-field matchpointing is > |routinely employed. I know the answer is negative, but I want to see > |who gets ATF and who doesn't. > > It's used in national events and Flight A pairs only. > The reason is that the vast majority of Flight B and > lower players seem to prefer in-section scoring only. The reason for that is: Scorers for some reason do not rank by sections in addition to overall ranking when doing ATF matchpointing. This results in fewer masterpoints being awarded, which of course is disliked by B and lower players (and some A's!). Our unit uses ATF matchpointing, with section ranking for non-overall awards, and the B & C players have zero complaints. Maybe it helped that I explained the policy in our La Jolla and Beach Unit publication, *Table Talk*. The title of the column was "Fairness + Masterpoints." > The extra fairness achieved by ATF scoring is not > critical in those events, after all, as fun and social > aspects of the game are stressed in those events. Someone else respond to this. I can't find the words, and I have to pack for Vancouver. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 13:40:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:40:32 +1000 Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA03814 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:40:26 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv19.3) id pPXNa12463 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 22:26:53 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 22:26:53 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Vancouver NABC 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, << I want to see whether (as I suspect) that qualifiers in multi-section straight Mitchell fields, N/S and E/W, will remain in the same field throughout the four and six-session events >> The fields are reseeded after each day of the multiple day events and the pairs do not all stay in the same direction. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 15:19:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA04009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:19:37 +1000 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 PAA04004 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:19:23 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveiaj.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.83]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA31528 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 00:19:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990317001913.006bbe24@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 00:19:13 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:31 AM 3/17/99 +0100, David B wrote: >Whatever the theoretical rights and wrongs of the situation, I >do not think that international players are ever going to be >persuaded that a player who was obviously going to make call >X whatever happened should be compelled not to make it by >some legal fiction. Nor do I think that the arguments for such >a position will ever be understood by the rank and file. When >all is said and done, what would be the point of having a Law >that nobody understands and nobody would ever enforce? > At my local club last week, we had the following auction: P RHO Me LHO 1nt P P 2D* P 2S Dbl 3D All P Result: making 3. 2D was alerted and explained (incorrectly) as showing the majors. LHO held KJx of spades and Axxxxx in diamonds. When the director was called, he had to be nudged a bit to tumble to the problem this represented ("what would you have bid differently?"). Although he agreed that this easily met the tests of L16, he ruled that the score should stand, because LHO, a mediocre player of long but undistinguished experience, shouldn't be expected to understand such subtleties as UI. Indeed, LHO protested vigorously that it would be ridiculous to let his partner go down in 2S when it was obvious from his explanation that this rated to be a poor spot. What's the point of this depressing little story? In this club, which is the strongest weekly game in the Baltimore area, fewer than one player in three even has a clue about why this is a problem. The director is barely competent to push the boards around, and noticeably uneasy about the prospect of offending the paying clientele. Many players believe they are entitled to use every clue from partner's mannerisms in evaluating their prospects, and are quite indignant at the suggestion that they should deny themselves this information. You are quite right, David. Players are abysmally ignorant about the Laws, even at the top levels of the game, and will often react with shock and outrage when called to account by "bridge lawyers". Does that mean we should take the path blazed by my local club director, and just let it all slide? Maybe so, but we can at least have fun arguing about the issues here on BLML. Thanks for your input, which I always enjoy, even when I disagree. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 15:45:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA04093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:45:04 +1000 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 PAA04088 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:44:55 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n6d.san.rr.com [204.210.46.109]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA20037; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:44:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903170544.VAA20037@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: Vancouver NABC Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:44:09 -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 Karen Allison wrote: -> << I want to see > whether (as I suspect) that qualifiers in multi-section straight > Mitchell fields, N/S and E/W, will remain in the same field throughout > the four and six-session events >> > > The fields are reseeded after each day of the multiple day events and the > pairs do not all stay in the same direction. > I said the same field, not the same direction. If everyone changes direction, then the fields don't change. However, I presume you mean that the fields get mixed after every two sessions, when non-qualifiers drop out and reseeding occurs. That's good. As I wrote elsewhere, if fields are split up then carryover scores are not appropriate, since the original N/S and E/W fields have played in two different games: They have held different cards and have compared results with different pairs. Carryovers would be appropriate only if the two fields remained separate throughout the event, producing a N/S winner and an E/W winner. Anyway, it appears that preserving the same fields only happens for multi-section *two-session* events when no qualifying is involved and everybody switches direction for the second session. Very interesting. One would think they would have 50% of the pairs switch direction in such games, as is done when there is just one section. Otherwise you have a clear-cut two-winner game, not a quasi one-winner game, making overall ranking illogical. And then there's the two-session final of a four or six-session event: straight Mitchell movement, no arrow-switch. Another two-winner game, with scores that include matchpoints carried over from different games, yet producing a single overall winner. Or do 50% of the pairs switch direction in the last session in order to give the false impression of a proper one-winner game? I'll be interested in seeing how all this is done in Vancouver. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 19:57:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 19:57:40 +1000 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 TAA04402 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 19:57:33 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990317095727.NGCG11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 01:57:27 -0800 Message-ID: <36EF7D86.91F1E31E@home.com> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 02:01:42 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Whatever the theoretical rights and wrongs of the situation, I > do not think that international players are ever going to be > persuaded that a player who was obviously going to make call > X whatever happened should be compelled not to make it by > some legal fiction. Nor do I think that the arguments for such > a position will ever be understood by the rank and file. When > all is said and done, what would be the point of having a Law > that nobody understands and nobody would ever enforce? I think this sums it up pretty well. Maybe the "insurance" strategy can find support in the laws, maybe not, or maybe (as I beleive) it's not clear - but most reasonable expert players won't put it to the test since they will simply not call the TD if they feel the action was not influenced by the UI. Afterall, L16 doesn't force the opponents to call the TD (in contrast with many other laws). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 20:37:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:37:48 +1000 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 UAA04458 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:37:42 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990317103737.NJSA11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 02:37:37 -0800 Message-ID: <36EF86F1.5C05929E@home.com> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 02:41:53 -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: Sean M's updated hand References: <199903161752.JAA26964@corp.affiliation.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > If South had bid 4C, *West* would also have known what's going on. > Frankly, he knows anyway; his double was a clear error. South > either has a two-suiter and forgot his methods or a *huge* one- > or two-suiter and is making a slam try. West should be worried > about beating slam, not game. This time, however, the misinformation > will have damaged West earlier in the auction. If he'd known that > 3H was a two-suiter, he'd've bid 4D right away, guessing that there > might be a big double fit. North would pass and East would raise. > South is stuck; bidding 5S isn't impossible, but it's definitely > a very risky action. He might pass. Who knows what North would > lead? Enough possibilities arise that an assigned score seems > impossible. I'd adjust to Ave+/Ave- in favor of E/W. Oh no, please No Jeff! I'd have thought by now that at least all knowledgable ACBLers participating on BLML had realised the illegality of awarding an ArtAdj score when result(s) has been/can be obtained. It's just a lazy cop-out. L12C2 clearly specifies how to adjust when several outcomes are possible. It takes some more work but the principal is easy to apply. Whether there are 3 or 10 outcomes "at all probable" in your estimation, just figure out the resulting scores and apply L12C2. Let's face it, had the laws wanted us to award "Av+/Av-" everytime there were more than one possible result absent the infraction, the elaborate formula in L12C2 would not have been included! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 20:50:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:50:35 +1000 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 UAA04489 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:50:30 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990317105025.NKRJ11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 02:50:25 -0800 Message-ID: <36EF89F0.F440A68C@home.com> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 02:54:40 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Hesitation (no damage) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > On the auction > ..the hesitation suggests bidding if partner was considering bidding > ..the hesitation suggests passing if partner was considering a double > > Since I personally can very seldom tell which type of hesitation is > which > I lean towards barring a double (two-way) in this situation but not > ruling against a bid or pass. This is right on, imo. This is also why a "hesitator" should avoid doubling, to increase the chances they'll get to keep a good/normal result. If you want to double, do it in tempo! (of course not implying you should ever deliberately vary the tempo). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 17 21:06:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:06:55 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 VAA04591 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:06:46 +1000 Received: from [158.152.129.79] (helo=mamos.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10NE9b-0006iA-0A; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:06:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:46:05 +0000 To: Canberra Bridge Club Cc: Bridge Laws Group From: michael amos Subject: Re: An appeal - Butler Pairs major selection event References: <002901be6f89$7b66f420$561a25cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> In-Reply-To: <002901be6f89$7b66f420$561a25cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <002901be6f89$7b66f420$561a25cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au>, Canberra Bridge Club writes > Alert! There is a major adjustment to my submission below.  North > was dealer and passed. >   > mmm more thoughts should have read to bottom of mailbox before opening mouth So - North a passed hand - I guess this makes pass of 3NT less attractive - but x KQ10 QJ9xx Kxx or lots of hands with CA However 4S seems verrrry strange - I'd want to know why South bid it and without a good answer a PP seems a possibility - surely 4C is the only choice AND yet ....... I am a little perturbed by the double of 4S - unless weak Twos downunder at favourable vulnerability always show enormous 9 counts where does this come from ??? I wouldn't be certain of beating six opposite my partner's usual HOS (Is this a new acronym for David?) Is there the hint of a double-shot here??? mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 18 03:27:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 03:27:39 +1000 Received: from corp.affiliation.COM (node-129-247.imagine-inc.com [205.218.129.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07972 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 03:27:29 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA00242 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:27:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:27:18 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199903171727.JAA00242@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Vancouver NABC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: Vancouver NABC "Marvin L. French" wrote: |> Arrow switching is not used. Pairs stay within a single section |> for an entire day. | |I predict that E/W will change sections and sit N/S. Maybe we play in |different events. Butch Campbell of ACBL HQ in Memphis gave me the |movement for three sections, in which after one session E/W's change |section and sit N/S, N/S's stay in the same section and sit E/W. What difference does it make which direction they sit? They stay in the same field. *All* the E/W pairs become N/S and vice versa. |I imagine you are referring to four or six-session qualifying events, |and no doubt the N/S and E/W fields don't change, resulting in each |field having qualifiers for the day. Surely, however, you don't meet |the same pairs in the evening that you met in the afternoon? That would |be crazy. Right, but you meet pairs from the same "field" during the day. This is all in the context of "is arrow-switching used?" |Perhaps you meant "within the same field," not within the "same |section." ?? Yes. In ATF, there's really no useful meaning to "section" for purposes of scoring, only movement. |> There are rare exceptions to this. Between |> days, the field is reseeded and mixed in order to achieve the |seeding. |> I don't know if the fields are intentionally mixed well; the effect |> is close enough in any case. | |As I understand it (from Butch Campbell), the surviving seeds and maybe |some additional seeds to replace those not qualifying, are assigned to |tables 3, 9, (and maybe 6, 12 also). The remainder of the qualifiers |are sprinkled evenly according to their scores. There is some attention |made to the desire that pairs not meet a pair that they have played |already, when that is feasible. Close enough, right. Right. The field is also seeded odd/even, with the odd pairs generally being stronger. The even field is "anti-seeded," with the weakest pairs 2, 4, 8, 10, etc. (They skip the corresponding high seeds once per day if there's a 14-table section.) In national events, the seeding is pretty complete; in a regional, there's a little odd/even, usually done by stratum, and the high seeds are assigned. Note that Flight C pairs are usually 2 or 4. These days, by the way, the seeds are usually 3, 9, 13. Years ago 6 was a seed. No more. I assume this was to simplify odd/even seeding, which makes lots of sense given that entry-sellers have stratum information now. |However: When two Mitchell fields are mixed in a succeeding session, it |is not technically correct to have carryover scores unless the scores |of each original field could somehow be made equivalent. The original |Mitchell is really two different events, one for the N/S pairs and one |for the E/W pairs. They have played different hands and have compared |with different pairs, making two different games. It's like letting a |baseball team carry over some runs scored in the playoffs into the |World Series. Carryover scores are only legitimate when fields are |unchanged. Shrunk maybe, but no cross-overs. Your definition of "legitimate" isn't one that everyone might use. If the carryover is supposed to mean, "the pairs who did better get some sort of edge for the next day," then it's certainly legit. So they just did better within their "event" --- no matter. So the scores don't quite match. Not such a big deal. Perhaps they ought to be sigma-snapped. In practice, this rarely makes much difference, and players find it more inequitable to see that they scored a 480 and got 18 carryover, but their buddy scored a 476 and got 24, even if this is possibly theoretically fairer. |> |I will also look to see whether across-the-field matchpointing is |> |routinely employed. I know the answer is negative, but I want to see |> |who gets ATF and who doesn't. |> |> It's used in national events and Flight A pairs only. |> The reason is that the vast majority of Flight B and |> lower players seem to prefer in-section scoring only. | |The reason for that is: Scorers for some reason do not rank by sections |in addition to overall ranking when doing ATF matchpointing. This |results in fewer masterpoints being awarded, which of course is |disliked by B and lower players (and some A's!). Our unit uses ATF |matchpointing, with section ranking for non-overall awards, and the B & |C players have zero complaints. Maybe it helped that I explained the |policy in our La Jolla and Beach Unit publication, *Table Talk*. The |title of the column was "Fairness + Masterpoints." This is partly true. It turns out that ATF scoring produces *more* gold points. The same number of pairs get gold points (in a field scored across 5 sections at a regional, the top five pairs in each direction get gold points) but the awards are drastically higher. Typically, those who get high atf section awards also get overalls, but that's true in within-section scoring as well. I find most B and lower-rated players really want gold points. I've shown printouts to a few such players, showing them how much they get for a section top in ATF; they were quite impressed. Some were even convinced that ATF was the way to go as a result of their discussion with me. What's really amazing is that I got these sheets from a director who was trying to prove to me that ATF *reduces* masterpoints awards! You are right, by the way about the reason. Many Flight B players are very driven by masterpoint awards. Not all, of course, but many. Or at least those who scream seem to be---our district implemented ATF one year and got so many complaints that the directors flat-out refused to continue. The complaints were almost all from Flight B and Senior events. (If I recall, exactly zero were from Flight C and one or two were from A.) We've compromised and now do ATF in A and not in any other event. Unfair or not, the players seem to be happy with this, so there's no good reason to change. After all, these decisions are supposed to be made by the tournament committee, whose main job is to create a tournament that will be liked by the players and stay within a reasonable budget. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 18 05:29:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 05:29:32 +1000 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 FAA08492 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 05:29:24 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([212.68.156.101]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA13131; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:29:06 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36F002AE.EC019525@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:29:50 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Canberra Bridge Club CC: Bridge Laws Group Subject: Re: An appeal - Butler Pairs major selection event References: <005e01be6f4a$a594ad80$1a1b25cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to base64 by backrosh.inter.net.il id VAA13131 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk V2VsYyAgU2Vhbg0KDQpBcyB5b3UgZGVzY3JpYmVkIHRoZSBIYW5kICwgd2l0aCBOb3J0aCBh cyBkZWFsZXIgLCBJIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgaGUvc2hlDQppcyBhIHBhc3NlZCBoYW5kLi4uLg0K DQpXZWxsICwgaW4gbXkgb3BpbmlvbiBwYXNzIHRvIDNOVCBpc24ndCBhIExBIGZvciBTb3V0 aCA7IGlmIGhlL3NoZQ0Kc2hvdWxkIGJpZCA0Q2wgb3IgNFNwICwgaXQgaXMgYSBxdWVzdGlv biBvZiBzdHlsZSAuLi4gSSB3b3VsZCBzdWdnZXN0DQpteSBjb21taXR0ZWUgbm90IHRvIGRp c2N1c3MgaXQgOyB0aGUgb25seSBsZWdpdGltYXRlIHF1ZXN0aW9ucyBhcmUgOiANCg0KMS0g V2FzIGFuIGlycmVndWxhcml0eSA/IC0+IElNTyB5ZXMgLCBVSSBmcm9tIG5vcnRoJ3MgYW5z d2VyLg0KMi0gV2VyZSBFLVcgZGFtYWdlZCA/IC0+IGZvciBzdXJlIC4NCjMtIElzIGFueSBj b25uZWN0aW9uIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIGRhbWFnZSBhbmQgdGhlIGlycmVndWxhcml0eSA/IC0+ DQpOTyBXQVkgKElNTyB3ZXN0J3MgYmlkZGluZyBzaG93cyBhIDwuLi4+IGxldmVsIG9mIGJy aWRnZSB1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nDQphbmQgSSBjYW4ndCAiaGFuZyIgaGltIGZvciB0aGlzIGJ1 dCBubyByZWFzb24gdG8gcmVkcmVzcyApLg0KDQpkYW55DQoNCg0KPiBDYW5iZXJyYSBCcmlk Z2UgQ2x1YiB3cm90ZToNCj4gDQo+IFRoaXMgaXMgU2VhbiBNdWxsYW1waHkgaW4gQ2FuYmVy cmEsIEF1c3RyYWxpYS4NCj4goA0KPiBJIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgeW91ciBjb21tZW50cyBvbiB0 aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGFwcGVhbCBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgbGFzdA0KPiBuaWdodCBkdXJpbmcgYSBz ZXNzaW9uIG9mIGEgQnV0bGVyIFBhaXJzIGV2ZW50IHVzZWQgdG8gc2VsZWN0IG91cg0KPiBz dGF0ZSByZXByZXNlbnRhdGl2ZSB0ZWFtLg0KPiCgDQo+IEJvYXJkIDIxDQo+IERsciBOb3J0 aA0KPiBWdWwgTi1TDQo+IKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgeHh4eA0KPiCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIDEweHh4DQo+IKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKAgeHgNCj4goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBBMTB4DQo+IEoxMHigoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCB4DQo+IFF4oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBBS0p4eHgNCj4gQUtReHh4oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgSnh4eA0KPiBLeKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKAgeHgNCj4goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBBS1F4eA0KPiCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIHgNCj4goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCB4DQo+ IKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgUUp4eHh4DQo+IKANCj4gQXVjdGlvbg0KPiBX oKCgoKCgoCBOoKCgoKCgoCBFoKCgoKCgoCBTDQo+IKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIDJI KqCgoKAgM0grDQo+IHAjoKCgoKCgoCAzTlSgoKAgcKCgoKCgoKAgNFMNCj4gZGJsoKCgoKCg IHCgoKCgoKCgIHCgoKCgoKCgIDVDDQo+IGRibKCgoKCgoCA1U6CgoKCgIGRibKCgoCBhbGwg cGFzcw0KPiAqd2VhayAyDQo+ICsgYWxlcnRlZA0KPiAjIGVucXVpcmVkIGJlZm9yZSBiaWRk aW5nIGFib3V0IDNILiBEZXNjcmliZWQgYXMgYSBzdG9wcGVyIGFzay4NCj4goA0KPiBXaGVu IHBsYXkgY29tcGxldGVkIFdlc3QgY2FsbGVkIGZvciB0aGUgZGlyZWN0b3IuIEl0IHdhcyBh c2NlcnRhaW5lZA0KPiB0aGF0IE5vcnRoLVNvdXRoIGhhZCBubyBzdWNoIGFncmVlbWVudCBh Ym91dCAzSC4gV2VzdCBzdWdnZXN0ZWQgdGhhdA0KPiBTb3V0aCBoYWQgcG9zc2libHkgYWN0 ZWQgb24gdW5hdXRob3Jpc2VkIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGluIGJpZGRpbmcgNFMNCj4gcmF0aGVy IHRoYW4gNEMgYXMgU291dGggbWF5IGhhdmUgYmlkIHdpdGggNiBjbHVicyBhbmQgNSBzcGFk ZXMuDQo+IKANCj4gV2VzdCBhbHNvIGNvbnRlbmRlZCB0aGF0DQo+IDEpaGFkIFNvdXRoJ3Mg YmlkIG5vdCBiZWVuIGRlc2NyaWJlZCBhcyBhIHN0b3BwZXIgYXNrIHRoZW4gV2VzdCB3b3Vs ZA0KPiBoYXZlIGJpZCA0RCBpbW1lZGlhdGVseQ0KPiAoIDNOVCBpcyBhIHBvc3NpYmlsaXR5 IHdpdGggc29saWQgc3BhZGVzIGFuZCBjbHViIEFjZSBpZiBub3J0aCBoYXMgYQ0KPiBoZWFy dCBzdG9wcGVyKS4NCj4gMikgaWYgU291dGggd2FzIGEgMiBzdWl0ZXIgd2l0aCBzcGFkZXMg dGhlbiB3ZXN0IGNvdWxkIGJpZCA0RCBvdmVyDQo+IFNvdXRoJ3MgYWxtb3N0IGNlcnRhaW4g NEMgcmViaWQuIFRoaXMgd291bGQgbGVhZCB0byBhIGNlcnRhaW4gY2hlYXANCj4gZGlhbW9u ZCBzYXZlIGJ5IEVhc3QtV2VzdC4NCj4gV2VzdCBjb250ZW5kZWQgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSB3YXMg bm8gZGFuZ2VyIGluIHBhc3NpbmcgdGhlIDNIIGJpZCB3aGV0aGVyDQo+IHRoZSBleHBsYW5h dGlvbiB3YXMgY29ycmVjdCBvciBub3QuDQo+IKANCj4gVGhlIGRpcmVjdG9yIGFkanVzdGVk IHRoZSBzY29yZSBmcm9tIE5TICs4NTAgdG8gTlMgKzY1MC4NCj4goA0KPiBCb3RoIHNpZGVz IGFwcGVhbGVkLg0KPiCgDQo+IE5vcnRoLVNvdXRoIGNvbnRlbmRlZCB0aGF0IFdlc3QncyBh Y3Rpb25zIGhhZCBsZWFkIHRvIHRoZSBwb29yIHJlc3VsdA0KPiBhbmQgdGhhdCB0aGUgdGFi bGUgcmVzdWx0IHNob3VsZCBzdGFuZC4NCj4gRWFzdC1XZXN0IGNvbnRlbmRlZCB0aGF0IGdp dmVuIHRoZSBjb3JyZWN0IGV4cGxhbmF0aW9uIFdlc3Qgd291bGQgbWFrZQ0KPiB0aGUgbm9y bWFsIGJpZCBvZiA0RCB3aGljaCB3b3VsZCBhbHdheXMgbGVhZCB0byBhIERpYW1vbmQgc2F2 ZS4NCj4goA0KPiBDb21tZW50cyBwbGVhc2UuDQo= From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 18 06:11:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 06:11:54 +1000 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 GAA08604 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 06:11:47 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([212.68.156.101]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA16843; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:11:31 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36F00CA0.D7AAC0E7@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:12:16 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vinay Desai CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Indian Selection Trials-1999 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vinay Desai wrote: > > This was Deal # 125 of the 128 Board Final to represent the Indian Team for the BFAAME (Zonal) Championships: > > Dealer: North > Vul: Both > > North: KJT87 XX AX JTXX > East: QXXXX X QTXX 9XX > South: AX ATXXX K AKQXX > West: 9 KQJ9X J9XXXX X > > Bidding: > > North East South West > P P 1H P > 1S P 3C P > 4C P 4D P > 4S Dbl P P > 5C*** P 6C P > P > > *** = a very very long pause (5 minutes) > > The Director was called and EW protected their rights. > S-9 was led and S quickly wrapped up 12 tricks. > > Director ruled the score stands. > > Your verdict? > > Thanking you, > > Vinay Desai IMO south has his bid......He doesn't need almost any card from north's hand if he supports Club....... We must be very carefully with problems of "thinking" and "automatic UI". Bridge players are allowed to think (in spite of the facts that too much thinking produces self-wrong-action !?!). If North would pass after 20 min. of thinking and South had the right to call again - and then he bids 6Cl - that would be using an UI........ Dany From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 18 06:47:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 06:47:52 +1000 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 GAA08688 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 06:47:45 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n65.san.rr.com [204.210.46.101]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA19571 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:47:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903172047.MAA19571@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Vancouver NABC Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:47:13 -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 Jeff Goldsmith wrote: o > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > |> Arrow switching is not used. Pairs stay within a single section > |> for an entire day. > | > |I predict that E/W will change sections and sit N/S. Maybe we play in > |different events. Butch Campbell of ACBL HQ in Memphis gave me the > |movement for three sections, in which after one session E/W's change > |section and sit N/S, N/S's stay in the same section and sit E/W. > > What difference does it make which direction they sit? > They stay in the same field. *All* the E/W pairs become N/S > and vice versa. When there is one section, half the pairs switch direction, half don't. Logically this should done for multi-sections. The purpose is not mainly to meet new pairs, but to compare with a bunch of different pairs. If you are not going to arrow-switch, you should at least do that when there is overall ranking. If you rank E/W and N/S separately, no overalls, then retaining the same field is the proper method. > > |I imagine you are referring to four or six-session qualifying events, > |and no doubt the N/S and E/W fields don't change, resulting in each > |field having qualifiers for the day. Surely, however, you don't meet > |the same pairs in the evening that you met in the afternoon? That would > |be crazy. > > Right, but you meet pairs from the same "field" during the > day. This is all in the context of "is arrow-switching used?" > > |Perhaps you meant "within the same field," not within the "same > |section." ?? > > Yes. In ATF, there's really no useful meaning to "section" > for purposes of scoring, only movement. That depends. Unknown to most TDs, it is quite possible to rank within sections for those who do not win more points from an overall rank. ACBLscor offers this option. Our La Jolla and Beach unit games have two sections, overall ranking, and within-section ranking. As usual, one gets the greater masterpoint award, overall or section, not both. However, ACBL TD practice is indeed to treat the entire field as one section when using ATF matchpointing, so in a way you are right, but it ain't necessarily so. > > |> There are rare exceptions to this. Between > |> days, the field is reseeded and mixed in order to achieve the > |seeding. > |> I don't know if the fields are intentionally mixed well; the effect > |> is close enough in any case. > | > |As I understand it (from Butch Campbell), the surviving seeds and maybe > |some additional seeds to replace those not qualifying, are assigned to > |tables 3, 9, (and maybe 6, 12 also). The remainder of the qualifiers > |are sprinkled evenly according to their scores. There is some attention > |made to the desire that pairs not meet a pair that they have played > |already, when that is feasible. Close enough, right. > > Right. The field is also seeded odd/even, with the odd pairs > generally being stronger. The even field is "anti-seeded," > with the weakest pairs 2, 4, 8, 10, etc. (They skip the > corresponding high seeds once per day if there's a 14-table > section.) In national events, the seeding is pretty complete; > in a regional, there's a little odd/even, usually done by > stratum, and the high seeds are assigned. Note that Flight C > pairs are usually 2 or 4. These days, by the way, the seeds > are usually 3, 9, 13. Years ago 6 was a seed. No more. I > assume this was to simplify odd/even seeding, which makes lots > of sense given that entry-sellers have stratum information now. Excellent. Thank you very much for this information, which I have been looking for. Butch told me seeded tables are 3, 9, and then 6, 12 if needed, but he is an old-timer. Incidentally, neither system works for 17 tables, although that size section is seldom seen. Theoretically the seeds should be ordered according to strength and distributed boustrophedonically (as the ox plows, left to right, then right to left). If you make the simplifying assumption that the strength of the seeded and ordered pairs goes linearly, something like 30, 29, 28, 27, etc. in relative strength, then you want two or four seeds in each line, not an odd number, so that the total strength of seeds in each line is the same. I readily accept that the eyeballing skill of the seeders is probably sufficient to balance the sections even if there are three in each line. Too bad we don't have a player rating system more accurate than masterpoints, so the computer could do this job. Using 3, 6, 9, 12 is better if a field is going to be split for a second session, as is done for a one-section two-session game. However, in order to split off two pairs of equal total strength it is necessary to move 3 and 12, or 6 and 9, if the distribution of seeds is as I described. A different order of seed placement could easily be established so that you could split off the higher/lower numbered seeds or the odd/even numbered seeds. > > |However: When two Mitchell fields are mixed in a succeeding session, it > |is not technically correct to have carryover scores unless the scores > |of each original field could somehow be made equivalent. The original > |Mitchell is really two different events, one for the N/S pairs and one > |for the E/W pairs. They have played different hands and have compared > |with different pairs, making two different games. It's like letting a > |baseball team carry over some runs scored in the playoffs into the > |World Series. Carryover scores are only legitimate when fields are > |unchanged. Shrunk maybe, but no cross-overs. > > Your definition of "legitimate" isn't one that everyone might use. > If the carryover is supposed to mean, "the pairs who did better > get some sort of edge for the next day," then it's certainly legit. > So they just did better within their "event" --- no matter. So the > scores don't quite match. Not such a big deal. Perhaps they ought > to be sigma-snapped. In practice, this rarely makes much difference, > and players find it more inequitable to see that they scored a 480 > and got 18 carryover, but their buddy scored a 476 and got 24, even > if this is possibly theoretically fairer. I suppose "sigma-snapping" would account for the differences resulting when hands run predominantly in one direction, which gives strong pairs a big advantage. You can win more matchpoints with the combination of skillful bidding and skillfull dummy play than with merely skillful defense. It still seems to me that these are two different games that have been played by the two fields, making carryovers illogical (if not illegitimate) when the fields get mixed. > > |> |I will also look to see whether across-the-field matchpointing is > |> |routinely employed. I know the answer is negative, but I want to see > |> |who gets ATF and who doesn't. > |> > |> It's used in national events and Flight A pairs only. > |> The reason is that the vast majority of Flight B and > |> lower players seem to prefer in-section scoring only. > | > |The reason for that is: Scorers for some reason do not rank by sections > |in addition to overall ranking when doing ATF matchpointing. This > |results in fewer masterpoints being awarded, which of course is > |disliked by B and lower players (and some A's!). Our unit uses ATF > |matchpointing, with section ranking for non-overall awards, and the B & > |C players have zero complaints. Maybe it helped that I explained the > |policy in our La Jolla and Beach Unit publication, *Table Talk*. The > |title of the column was "Fairness + Masterpoints." > > This is partly true. It turns out that ATF scoring > produces *more* gold points. The same number of pairs > get gold points (in a field scored across 5 sections > at a regional, the top five pairs in each direction > get gold points) but the awards are drastically higher. > Typically, those who get high atf section awards also > get overalls, but that's true in within-section scoring > as well. I find most B and lower-rated players really > want gold points. I've shown printouts to a few such > players, showing them how much they get for a section > top in ATF; they were quite impressed. Some were even > convinced that ATF was the way to go as a result of their > discussion with me. > > What's really amazing is that I got these sheets from > a director who was trying to prove to me that ATF > *reduces* masterpoints awards! Must be the same one I talked to. > > You are right, by the way about the reason. Many Flight B > players are very driven by masterpoint awards. Not all, > of course, but many. Or at least those who scream seem > to be---our district implemented ATF one year and got > so many complaints that the directors flat-out refused > to continue. The complaints were almost all from Flight B and > Senior events. I was at the Queen Mary regional when a vote was taken among the seniors. They voted against atf after it was used for one two-session event, but the reason was not atf, it was the loss of section rankings that they objected to. No one told them they could have both. In fact, no one knew! Many players cannot understand why they don't have a "1" by their name when they have the top score (54%) in their section. > (If I recall, exactly zero were from > Flight C and one or two were from A.) We've compromised > and now do ATF in A and not in any other event. Unfair or > not, the players seem to be happy with this, so there's no > good reason to change. After all, these decisions are > supposed to be made by the tournament committee, whose > main job is to create a tournament that will be liked by > the players and stay within a reasonable budget. As I said, here we do atf and in-section ranking, no complaints. Maximum fairness, maximum masterpoints. I don't have time right now to figure out your statements about gold points. The none-atf approach for stratified games is near-universal for events with no gold points, so that is not a factor in the decision. As an aside, isn't it obvious that the total masterpoints awarded, gold or otherwise, should depend only on the number of tables in the event, not on the scoring method used? Why should games run with straight Mitchell movements pay more total masterpoints than those employing arrow-switch or Howell movements? Doesn't make sense to me. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Off to Vancouver! From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 18 07:28:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 07:28:12 +1000 Received: from corp.affiliation.COM (node-129-247.imagine-inc.com [205.218.129.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08779 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 07:28:05 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA01612 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:28:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:28:02 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199903172128.NAA01612@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Vancouver NABC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: |When there is one section, half the pairs switch direction, half don't. if arrow switching is used |Logically this should done for multi-sections. The purpose is not |mainly to meet new pairs, but to compare with a bunch of different |pairs. If you are not going to arrow-switch, you should at least do |that when there is overall ranking. If you rank E/W and N/S separately, |no overalls, then retaining the same field is the proper method. Nearly every game more highly-ranked than a club game produces a single winner. In almost no ACBL tournaments (non-club games) are new fields created by switching the direction of some sections and not others. The reason is logistics: this would cause 1/4 of the pairs to sit N/S (stationary) all day, 1/4 to move all day, and 1/2 to move half the time. (The numbers need some adjustment, but that's good enough for now.) 3/4 of the field will request a double-stationary seat. Many will complain about a double-move. To avoid arguments about this, ACBL events simply make each player move half the time unless he has a handicap preventing it. (Or, obviously, is accomodating someone else who does.) It is pointless to argue that players ought not do this; they ought to be happy moving sometimes and not others, but experience clearly indicates otherwise. |> Yes. In ATF, there's really no useful meaning to "section" |> for purposes of scoring, only movement. | |That depends. Unknown to most TDs, it is quite possible to rank within |sections for those who do not win more points from an overall rank. |ACBLscor offers this option. Our La Jolla and Beach unit games have two |sections, overall ranking, and within-section ranking. As usual, one |gets the greater masterpoint award, overall or section, not both. |However, ACBL TD practice is indeed to treat the entire field as one |section when using ATF matchpointing, so in a way you are right, but it |ain't necessarily so. I define "useful" differently. Yes, it is possible to use section ranking (not "scoring") with ATF scoring. We rejected doing that; frankly, there's no good reason. I claim ATF ranking *increases* masterpoint (at least gold) awards. |> Right. The field is also seeded odd/even, with the odd pairs |> generally being stronger. The even field is "anti-seeded," |> with the weakest pairs 2, 4, 8, 10, etc. (They skip the |> corresponding high seeds once per day if there's a 14-table |> section.) In national events, the seeding is pretty complete; |> in a regional, there's a little odd/even, usually done by |> stratum, and the high seeds are assigned. Note that Flight C |> pairs are usually 2 or 4. These days, by the way, the seeds |> are usually 3, 9, 13. Years ago 6 was a seed. No more. I |> assume this was to simplify odd/even seeding, which makes lots |> of sense given that entry-sellers have stratum information now. | |Excellent. Thank you very much for this information, which I have been |looking for. Butch told me seeded tables are 3, 9, and then 6, 12 if |needed, but he is an old-timer. Incidentally, neither system works for |17 tables, although that size section is seldom seen. 17 is fine. 3, 9, 13 are the seeds. Normal seeding is done through 14 tables and late pairs are 15-17. That's pretty much standard anyway; sections are initially constructed with 14 tables. If they become larger due to entries, late players get the higher numbers. |Theoretically the seeds should be ordered according to strength and |distributed boustrophedonically (as the ox plows, left to right, then |right to left). If you make the simplifying assumption that the |strength of the seeded and ordered pairs goes linearly, something like |30, 29, 28, 27, etc. in relative strength, then you want two or four |seeds in each line, not an odd number, so that the total strength of |seeds in each line is the same. I readily accept that the eyeballing |skill of the seeders is probably sufficient to balance the sections |even if there are three in each line. Too bad we don't have a player |rating system more accurate than masterpoints, so the computer could do |this job. "Theoretical" issues are undefined. It is not at all clear what the purposes of seeding are. Given different choices of goals, different seeding schemes work better. In any case, it is fairly easy to balance three seeds assuming one knows all there is to know about them. For example, for three sections with three seeds: 1 3 2 5 4 6 9 8 7 In fact, however, this is a pointless exercise as it assumes that there is a constant strength difference between each adjacent ordinal pair. This is a false assumption. Without a clear rating system, letting entry-sellers or seeders judge is good enough. |> ...and players find it more inequitable to see that they scored a 480 |> and got 18 carryover, but their buddy scored a 476 and got 24, even |> if this is possibly theoretically fairer. | |I suppose "sigma-snapping" would account for the differences resulting |when hands run predominantly in one direction, which gives strong pairs |a big advantage. You can win more matchpoints with the combination of Yes. |skillful bidding and skillfull dummy play than with merely skillful |defense. It still seems to me that these are two different games that Not clear. |have been played by the two fields, making carryovers illogical (if not |illegitimate) when the fields get mixed. Not true. You are assuming that a carryover is intended to start the field on uneven ground based on how well they have done so far. It is hardly unreasonable to change that to "how well they have scored so far." Yes, it's slightly imprecise, but in fact, we do compare fields. Therefore, we should use the same method to compute carryovers. Imagine a scenario in which some convoluted factoring is used to produce different final scores (as compared to raw matchpoints or percentages) for different fields. If I were to score fewer matchpoints than my friend, but rank higher than he for reasons he couldn't understand, would he be happy? No way. So we don't do it. |> You are right, by the way about the reason. Many Flight B |> players are very driven by masterpoint awards. Not all, |> of course, but many. Or at least those who scream seem |> to be---our district implemented ATF one year and got |> so many complaints that the directors flat-out refused |> to continue. The complaints were almost all from Flight B and |> Senior events. | |I was at the Queen Mary regional when a vote was taken among the |seniors. They voted against atf after it was used for one two-session |event, but the reason was not atf, it was the loss of section rankings |that they objected to. No one told them they could have both. In fact, |no one knew! Many players cannot understand why they don't have a "1" |by their name when they have the top score (54%) in their section. They were supposed to be told. I was there, too; I told the director that this was an option. He said, "no it isn't." I said, "it sure is." He said, "I don't care. We are not doing ATF scoring." What more could I do? |As an aside, isn't it obvious that the total masterpoints awarded, gold |or otherwise, should depend only on the number of tables in the event, |not on the scoring method used? Why should games run with straight |Mitchell movements pay more total masterpoints than those employing |arrow-switch or Howell movements? Doesn't make sense to me. It's not obvious, and is probably not true. It seems to me that a BAM team game is a stronger measure of skill and ought to award more masterpoints than the same sized Swiss. In practice, the masterpoint formulae were created with other constraints in mind. Losing the equality described above didn't likely seem important to the formula constructors. It doesn't seem all that important to me, either. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 18 07:35:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 07:35:22 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08802 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 07:35:16 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA27531 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:31:30 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199903172131.PAA27531@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:31:30 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The majority wishes to accept his action and let him keep his good result. > Although the rationales vary, the predominant argument is along these > lines: whether or not he had LA's or whether or not the UI demonstrably > suggested his choice is normally assessed against a hypothetical population > of comparably talented players using the same methods, i.e., as a > relatively abstract bridge judgement. But that approach is really only > utilized because we usually have no reliable gage of the player's real > thought processes. Given that he has pre-announced his action, we can > confidently judge that the losing option was not a LA _for him_, and/or > that the UI could not have demonstrably suggested _to him_ that his action > would be more successful, however it might have been seen by others. I agree. > Implicit in this argument is the notion that if we do have some reliable > external measure of a player's good faith in a UI case, then we are free to > waive the normal procedural requirements and make a straightforward > judgement about whether the player did or did not use UI, which is really > at the heart of the matter. In this case, it is obvious that he did not. I agree. > My analogy was intended to point up the flaw in this thinking. Whether we > judge that a player did or did not utilize UI should be largely immaterial, > unless we find his behavior so egregious that it warrants a C&E action. > Even if we are completely convinced of his innocence (in the sense of > taking advantage), we should be prepared to find against him if his actions > meet the usual tests. To make exceptions, either because he took a legally > meaningless precaution of pre-announcing his bid or because he's Grattan > Endicott, undermines the integrity of the Laws and the very concept of [Note that in the G.E. case we have an additional consideration--even if I as a TD _KNOW_ he's not taking advantage of UI, the spectators and opponents do not. In our original case, it will be obvious to opponents and spectators that no advantage has been taken.] > justice. I don't consider that justice requires applying laws without regard for the circumstances. > Mike Dennis > These particular laws were made with a very specific purpose in mind, to prevent a very specific sort of illegal advantage. If it is obvious that that sort of illegal advantage is not being taken, the whole point of the law is undermined. If we must use analogies, consider this one. Suppose that I run a stopsign on a very obviously deserted country road [let us stipulate that the field of vision is clear and unimpaired, etc.]. I do not think that a police officer would be acting correctly in giving me a ticket, even though it is clear that I broke the letter of the law, and it is equally clear that _under normal circumstances_ my breaking this law would be dangerous, and a ticket appropriate. The law about stopping for stopsigns is there to prevent a particular danger--and in this case that danger is obviously not present. This would be even more true if the officer had some way of knowing for certain that I ran _this_ stopsign _only_ because I _knew_ no other vehicles were present. [We may suppose the officer was on foot and hiding in a haystack.] To put it another way: there is nothing _intrinsically bad_ about making a bid that one's peers would think was suggested by UI. The whole mechanism of LA's and so on is merely devised to prevent taking advantage of UI. If I make it clear exactly what I intend to bid before any UI could be received, then it is obvious I am not taking advantage of it. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 18 10:41:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA09240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 10:41:06 +1000 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 KAA09235 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 10:40:58 +1000 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 QAA21066 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 16:40:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mime.mail.hac.com by mail.hac.com (PMDF V5.1-12 #26580) id <0F8R00F01LOBP7@mail.hac.com> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 16:37:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 16:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Indian Selection Trials-1999 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0F8R00F0DLPZP7@mail.hac.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="Boundary_(ID_sP3xj/SX0setaSQcnlwlkg)" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --Boundary_(ID_sP3xj/SX0setaSQcnlwlkg) Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Having served on several dozen ACBL National ACs, the ruling in ACBL-land (IMHO) would be as follows: 1. Was there a hesitation? Yes. 2. Does the hesitation demonstrably suggest one action over another? Yes, N-S are in a cue-bidding sequence attempting to bid a club slam. If North had no further interest in slam he would have quickly signed off in 5C. Thus, South is on safer ground bidding 6C knowing that North has unbiddable extra values. 3. Is Pass by South a logical alternative? Yes, according to current attitudes in ACBL-land. We can all think up North hand that give us no play for slam; although I admit the probability of such a hand is not very great. ......Mark p.s South should have re-doubled 4S to guarantee a control. _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re: Indian Selection Trials-1999 From: dhh@internet-zahav.net at mime Date: 3/17/99 12:12 PM Vinay Desai wrote: > > This was Deal # 125 of the 128 Board Final to represent the Indian Team for the BFAAME (Zonal) Championships: > > Dealer: North > Vul: Both > > North: KJT87 XX AX JTXX > East: QXXXX X QTXX 9XX > South: AX ATXXX K AKQXX > West: 9 KQJ9X J9XXXX X > > Bidding: > > North East South West > P P 1H P > 1S P 3C P > 4C P 4D P > 4S Dbl P P > 5C*** P 6C P > P > > *** = a very very long pause (5 minutes) > > The Director was called and EW protected their rights. > S-9 was led and S quickly wrapped up 12 tricks. > > Director ruled the score stands. > > Your verdict? > > Thanking you, > > Vinay Desai IMO south has his bid......He doesn't need almost any card from north's hand if he supports Club....... We must be very carefully with problems of "thinking" and "automatic UI". Bridge players are allowed to think (in spite of the facts that too much thinking produces self-wrong-action !?!). If North would pass after 20 min. of thinking and South had the right to call again - and then he bids 6Cl - that would be using an UI........ Dany --Boundary_(ID_sP3xj/SX0setaSQcnlwlkg) 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 <0F8R00F01BDHEQ@mail.hac.com> for "mark j bartusek"@mime.mail.hac.com; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:54:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from PROCESS-DAEMON by mail.hac.com (PMDF V5.1-12 #26580) id <0F8R00F01BCFE0@mail.hac.com> for "mark j bartusek"@mime.mail.hac.com; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:53:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from fw-es05.hac.com by mail.hac.com (PMDF V5.1-12 #26580) with ESMTP id <0F8R00CDDBAI3C@mail.hac.com> for "mark j bartusek"@mime.mail.hac.com; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:51:54 -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 MAA11992 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:54:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 06:11:54 +1000 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 GAA08604 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 06:11:47 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([212.68.156.101]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA16843; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:11:31 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:12:16 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici Subject: Re: Indian Selection Trials-1999 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <36F00CA0.D7AAC0E7@internet-zahav.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Precedence: bulk References: --Boundary_(ID_sP3xj/SX0setaSQcnlwlkg)-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 18 11:09:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 11:09:48 +1000 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 LAA09316 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 11:09:31 +1000 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 11:09:31 +1000 Received: (qmail 14267 invoked from network); 18 Mar 1999 01:09:15 -0000 Received: from pm02-066.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.66) by gulik.iag.net with SMTP; 18 Mar 1999 01:09:15 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990317200847.371725c2@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: Equity in Teams event. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:09 PM 3/15/99 -0800, you wrote: >Hi All >Just had a weekend of bridge (playing). Second day was a teams event and >had an interesting situation which cost us a few VPs ( I think). >Situation: Partner (south)opened 1D out of turn (east was dealer). >Director called. Bid not condoned, cancelled and bidding reverts to east >who passes. >Directer informs partner that she may make any legal call. >Told that if she repeats her original bid her partner would be barred >for one round. This is NOT what L31A1 says >She opens 1D-P-P-P and she plays in 1D making 0ne for >+70. My hand AKJxxxx, QJxx, x ,x. She holds x, 109xx, AKxx, KQJx. At >the other table N/S got into 5H going four off for +200 for us. (I >gather declarer decided to cross ruff and got lost). Net result is +270. >Before I knew this result I informed the director that I felt his >decision was wrong and I wished to appeal. The appeal have clearly good merits :) >On the lie of the cards and >with no interference our auction will go 1D-1S-1NT-3H-4H. We play >precision and several other teams bid similar. When I informed director >he checked Laws What is so difficult with READING the law at the time of the infraction >And decided I was right that his decision was wrong but >did not wish to change scores. 1Di making 1 is NOT the most likely result that is at all probable had the error not occured >He was prepared to let table scores stand. >We lost the match 13-17. As the cards lie and with me playing in >4H we get a diamond lead and on most lines of play I will make 4 for >+420 and a team gain of +620 brings us back to a 15-15 draw. At appeal >the committee agreed the director made a bad call but felt it was now >impossible to compare scores so neutralised the board and gave each team >3imps. Giving out A+/A+ does NOT give back the equity to the badly hurt NS side instead it gives the EW team that got totally lost on the other table a huge break in having the board thrown out. >We now have a 12-18 loss. All agreed that director was wrong. In >hind sight perhaps I should have questioned the director at the time but >I was in play mode and expected my partner who is a better director than >I to question if she felt he was wrong. It is such a shame that the DIC can not get such straight forward cases rite. The original case involves no judgement or thnking only applying it straight forward, straight from the BOOK. >Result wasn't going to change overall standings however I feel somewhat >aggrieved that what little we had was take and in fact we were penalised for >going to appeal. What should have happened? Did the AC get it right? NS are clearly allowed to get a shoot on the score they couldnt because of the director in charge forbidding them to follow the law of bridge. NS are clearly allowed to get 4H+4 420 The problem comes to what EW should have EW should NOT have A+ thats the first that comes to my mind I would probably give EW a composite score of -420 and +50, To be able to work out the details I would like to see all 4 hands but have some idea that East getting on the lead have a sequence lead in di and broken honors in Club I thnk the whole hand looks like this based on the info shown AKJxxxx QJxx x x x Qxxx AKxx x xxx QJT9x xxxxx Axx x T9xx AKxx KQJx I am as show fairly sure E have a good sequence in di and having a very normal lead of a di honor a good 90% of the time so an idea of ruling for EW is to give them a good break i thnk giving them 60% of -420 and 40% of +50 will protect them a good deal give and take on the percentage a few Giving EW +3 imp for the board is like saying NS are "likely" to go minus 300 on this hand. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 18 14:34:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 14:34:35 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA09860 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 14:34:29 +1000 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 XAA22866 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 23:34:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 23:34:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903180434.XAA05177@eratosthenes.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.16.19990317200847.371725c2@pop3.iag.net> (message from Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren on Thu, 18 Mar 1999 11:09:31 +1000) Subject: Re: Equity in Teams event. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren writes: (After director's error) > NS are clearly allowed to get 4H+4 420 The problem comes to what EW > should have EW should NOT have A+ thats the first that comes to my mind I > would probably give EW a composite score of -420 and +50, EW are non-offenders just as NS are, so they should get +50 if this is likely (and you suggest it has a 40% chance). > Giving EW +3 imp for the board is like saying NS are "likely" to go minus > 300 on this hand. Agreed; there are two table results. -- 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 Mar 18 14:47:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 14:47:20 +1000 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 OAA09884 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 14:47:15 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME ([202.27.177.65]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990318044737.IWDJ682101.mta1-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 17:47:37 +1300 Message-ID: <36F1AC67.1DF8@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 17:46:15 -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: Equity in Teams event. References: <3.0.16.19990317200847.371725c2@pop3.iag.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all Thanks for comments. Should have supplied hands at start but didn't have them availible. Have now retrieved them from club. Bd 6 dealer E Vul EW AKJ10973 QJ54 5 4 62 Q84 82 AK7 AQJ872 43 J84 109653 5 10963 K1096 AKQ7 As you can see I got my minor Aces wrong. A diamond lead is difficult to make 4H on but not impossible. D lead, S switch taken in hand. H to A, D ruffed in hand. H to K and exit with small heart leads to doomed contract. Other defence gives a chance. Whatever I now appreciate the situation with regard the equity better. Thanks Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 19 02:23:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 02:23:57 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA14452 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 02:23:49 +1000 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 LAA01470 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 11:23:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id LAA01885 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 11:23:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 11:23:50 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199903181623.LAA01885@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Indian Selection Trials-1999 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: mbartusek@west.raytheon.com Nice analysis. I'd just like to mention a couple of small additional points. > 1. Was there a hesitation? > Yes. > 2. Does the hesitation demonstrably suggest one action over another? > Yes, N-S are in a cue-bidding sequence attempting to bid a club slam. If North > had no further interest in slam he would have quickly signed off in 5C. Thus, > South is on safer ground bidding 6C knowing that North has unbiddable extra > values. Things are a little more complicated, but I agree with the conclusion. North might have been thinking about passing 4Sx or about redoubling or about bidding something higher than the eventual 5C. But all of these possibilities suggest pretty good spades, and opposite the actual South hand, all that is needed for slam is good spades. So while South doesn't know exactly what North was thinking about, _all_ the likely possibilities suggest bidding on over pass. > 3. Is Pass by South a logical alternative? > Yes, according to current attitudes in ACBL-land. We can all think up North hand > that give us no play for slam; although I admit the probability of such a hand > is not very great. Yes, the issue of LA depends critically on the definition is in the jurisdiction involved. In the ACBL, I agree that pass is a LA. In (most of) Europe or the EBU, which adopt a "25-30%" standard, I don't think it is. In Australia, which I believe uses a 10% standard (right?), the decision could go either way. What definition does India use? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 19 04:20:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA14845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 04:20:32 +1000 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA14840 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 04:20:22 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.1/8.9.0) with UUCP id MAA10713; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 12:20:16 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0H6F200O Thu, 18 Mar 99 12:13:41 Message-ID: <9903181213.0H6F200@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 99 12:13:41 Subject: INDIAN SE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Wed,  17 Mar 1999 16:37:11 -0800 (PST) B>Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 16:43 -0800 (PST) B>Subject: Re: Indian Selection Trials-1999 B>Having served on several dozen ACBL National ACs, the ruling in B>ACBL-land (IMHO) would be as follows: B>1. Was there a hesitation? B>Yes. B>2. Does the hesitation demonstrably suggest one action over another? B>Yes, N-S are in a cue-bidding sequence attempting to bid a club slam. B>If North had no further interest in slam he would have quickly signed B>off in 5C. Thus, South is on safer ground bidding 6C knowing that B>North has unbiddable extra values. B>3. Is Pass by South a logical alternative? B>Yes, according to current attitudes in ACBL-land. We can all think up B>North hand B>that give us no play for slam; although I admit the probability of such B>a hand is not very great. B>......Mark B>p.s South should have re-doubled 4S to guarantee a control. B>__________________________________________________________________________ _____ B>Subject: Re: Indian Selection Trials-1999 B>From: dhh@internet-zahav.net at mime B>Date: 3/17/99 12:12 PM B>Vinay Desai wrote: B>> B>> This was Deal # 125 of the 128 Board Final to represent the Indian B>Team for the BFAAME (Zonal) Championships: B>> B>> Dealer: North B>> Vul: Both B>> B>> North: KJT87 XX AX JTXX B>> East: QXXXX X QTXX 9XX B>> South: AX ATXXX K AKQXX B>> West: 9 KQJ9X J9XXXX X B>> B>> Bidding: B>> B>> North East South West B>> P P 1H P B>> 1S P 3C P B>> 4C P 4D P B>> 4S Dbl P P B>> 5C*** P 6C P B>> P B>> B>> *** = a very very long pause (5 minutes) B>> B>> The Director was called and EW protected their rights. B>> S-9 was led and S quickly wrapped up 12 tricks. B>> B>> Director ruled the score stands. B>> B>> Your verdict? B>> B>> Thanking you, B>> B>> Vinay Desai B>IMO south has his bid......He doesn't need almost any card from B>north's hand if he supports Club....... South has bid diamonds missing the ace. Hearts have not been cue bid. N knows that from S's point of view that that there may be problems in both of the red suis and if there are, then slam could be a dubious proposition. Two things must certainly have been considered in the huddle: 1] that there may be a problem of 12 tricks even if partner has the diamond ace [does he?]. 2] that even 11 tricks may be in danger when N does not hold the diamond ace. And what would cause those those considerations? That N chose to raise clubs with 4+ good clubs instead of preferring 3H with three bad ones- for instance. Even though the inference that a club raise suggests fewer than three hearts [remenber Hamman's Mathe story about when Mathe refused to play a superior 3N while insisting on 4H with awful heart support]. Maybe ace asking responses were 1430 and therefore unteneable when partner did not have the diamond ace. No Dany. They did not have their 6C call. The condition of the diamond and heart suits and the spade ace were critical and the tempo break clarified the matter. From N's point of view, S might have had Qx-AQJxx-Kx-AKxx and the slam would depend at least on the heart and club finesses. Roger Pewick B>We must be very carefully with problems of "thinking" and B>"automatic UI". Bridge players are allowed to think (in B>spite of the facts that too much thinking produces self-wrong-action B>!?!). If North would pass after 20 min. of thinking and South had the B>right to call again - and then he bids 6Cl - that would be B>using an UI........ B>Dany Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 19 09:56:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:56:54 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA15817 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:56:49 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA09936 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:56:46 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:56:45 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Australian LA Standards In-Reply-To: <199903181623.LAA01885@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Steve Willner wrote: > > Yes, the issue of LA depends critically on the definition is in the > jurisdiction involved. In the ACBL, I agree that pass is a LA. In > (most of) Europe or the EBU, which adopt a "25-30%" standard, I don't > think it is. In Australia, which I believe uses a 10% standard > (right?), the decision could go either way. No, Australia is very similar to most of Europe. Ours is also 25%. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 19 12:01:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 12:01:43 +1000 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 MAA16125 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 12:01:37 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivegle.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.174]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA21044 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 21:01:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990318182607.006c2750@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 18:26:07 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) In-Reply-To: <199903172131.PAA27531@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:31 PM 3/17/99 -0600, Grant wrote: > These particular laws were made with a very specific >purpose in mind, to prevent a very specific sort of illegal advantage. If >it is obvious that that sort of illegal advantage is not being taken, the >whole point of the law is undermined. > If we must use analogies, consider this one. Suppose that I run a >stopsign on a very obviously deserted country road [let us stipulate that >the field of vision is clear and unimpaired, etc.]. I do not think that a >police officer would be acting correctly in giving me a ticket, even >though it is clear that I broke the letter of the law, and it is equally >clear that _under normal circumstances_ my breaking this law would be >dangerous, and a ticket appropriate. The law about stopping for stopsigns >is there to prevent a particular danger--and in this case that danger is >obviously not present. This would be even more true if the officer had >some way of knowing for certain that I ran _this_ stopsign _only_ because >I _knew_ no other vehicles were present. [We may suppose the officer was >on foot and hiding in a haystack.] > To put it another way: there is nothing _intrinsically bad_ about >making a bid that one's peers would think was suggested by UI. Except that it is illegal to do so, doubly so if you understand that this is the case. >The whole mechanism of LA's and so on is merely devised to prevent taking advantage >of UI. If I make it clear exactly what I intend to bid before any UI >could be received, then it is obvious I am not taking advantage of it. Sorry Grant, but, as they say, rules are rules. The nature of rules, especially in a competitive environment, is that _are_ to be applied without any particular regard for extra-legal circumstances. Nit-picky violations of rules are penalized all the time in other competitive venues, and this is accepted as routine. In basketball, you must in-bound the ball from a position outside of the court. It is fairly obvious _why_ this rule exists: it would be an unfair advantage to the team in-bounding the ball to decide for themselves where play should start. But if you inadvertently step on the line while inbounding the ball, and the referee notices, he will award the ball to your opponents, even if you obviously gained no advantage from your error, and clearly were not trying to step on the line. In football, if you jump offside before the snap, you will incur the possibility of a penalty, unless the opponents judge to decline it. The nature of the game is such that players can't be allowed to cross the line of scrimmage before the ball is snapped, so the reason for a rule against this behavior is obvious. But the penalty will apply regardless of whether your side gained any advantage from the infraction, and you can count on an unsympathetic hearing indeed if you whine "but it didn't MATTER that he was offside; that was on the other side of the field from the play." So the notion of applying the Laws without regard to circumstances is not really so strange. But with respect to this particular problem, the practice of spurning the normal analytical approach in favor of an ad hoc evaluation of whether the player did or did not use UI carries an additional cost. Many players are confused about the nature of UI cases and the techniques used to analyze them. TD's are often reluctant to make adverse rulings in such cases because players interpret them as equivalent to a charge of cheating. THEY know that they didn't rely on UI! Why, they would have bid that way all the time! The NERVE! The most effective shield against this indignation is to be able to honestly describe the nature of the ruling. It is, after all, merely a technical question of what LA's might have existed and what the UI might have suggested in an "objective" theoretical sense. "No, we are not accusing you of taking advantage, but the Laws are written this way for a purpose and we are obliged to follow them." When we resort to other means of evaluation, because in this particular situation it is apparent that the player did not take advantage of UI, we are unmasking this useful little fiction and delaring that, in fact, it _is_ about our judgement of whether the player used the UI, after all. And that is not helpful to the broader objective of fair and consistent enforcement of the anti-UI regulations. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 19 19:02:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 19:02:07 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA16998 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 19:01:59 +1000 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 JAA27098 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:01:24 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 IAA29864 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:59:56 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990319100134.007c9130@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:01:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:12 11/03/99 +0100, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > What do you think of the fairness and the legality of this unusual situation? > > Playing with screens, NS start some complex slam-bidding sequence agreeing >spades as trumps. At some point, South answers to partner's BW and, before >passing the tray to the other side of the screen, advises his screenmate of >his intention to bid slam even if his partner happens to sign off (some >kind of anticipation alert?). > And what if (innocently!) he announces he will bid slam if his partner >bids a slow 5S? > I was the player who perpetrated this action (Mixed Pairs French championship, a few weeks ago); I had undisclosed values and was in some way surprised to see partner take initiative with BW. I actually used the very awful (but inadvertent) phrasing of "I will bid 6S if my partner signs off with a slow 5S" and only later realized this would allow me to pass a fast 5S! The end of story? Screenmate didn't see anything wrong with my announcement and when the tray came back, a certain time later, partner had bid ... 7S! Anyway, on reflection, I wondered about the legality of this insurance. I agree it's a dubious action intended to bend the laws (and to ask opponent's complicity to do so) in a way to allow a future bid which otherwise should not be allowed. Not surprisingly, this distorsion has been qualified with words spreading between "fine" and "bridge lawyering". I understand from the lengthy discussions that what is envolved is the line between strict enforcement of laws and spirit of laws. 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 Mar 20 02:10:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 02:10:45 +1000 Received: from proxye3-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye3-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA20532 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 02:10:38 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n7d.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.125]) by proxye3-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA27827 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:10:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990319110615.00817b10@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:06:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: UI Insurance & Marty Bergen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, The Marty Bergen hand I was talking about and the one Adam reported are different hands. The story I have heard, and which I have now confirmed, came from a 1982 Vanderbilt hand. Marty held: S-KQ86 H-K7 D-T76 C-AQ87. LHO opened 3D, and Luella doubled for takeout. Marty bid 4S, and Luella bid 4NT, regular BW as far as I can tell. Marty bid 5D, and Luella bid 5NT. It was at this point that Marty wrote a note to his screenmate, stating that he intended to bid a grand slam no matter what Luella did. He bid 6H, and sure enough, Luella now took an eternity to "sign off" in 6S. Marty raised to 7S, which was cold. Luella had S-AJ7 H-AQJ862 D-AK C-J6. This was a swing, as Jacoby-Passell came up short in 6H. The deal is reported in BW, June 1982, with no mention of the note after 5NT. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 20 03:06:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 03:06:00 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA20672 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 03:05:54 +1000 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 MAA04319 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 12:05:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id MAA02626 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 12:05:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 12:05:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199903191705.MAA02626@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" [in two messages] > ...faced with a situation in which a player who had > pre-announced his intention to take a certain action subsequently received > UI which demonstrably made his announced choice more attractive relative to > one or more LA's. He then takes the action, and the opponents cry foul. Good summary of the (potential) problem. > The majority wishes to accept his action and let him keep his good result. > Although the rationales vary, the predominant argument is along these > lines: whether or not he had LA's or whether or not the UI demonstrably > suggested his choice... I agree with you that the arguments about LA's and "suggested over another" are specious. > Even if we are completely convinced of his innocence (in the sense of > taking advantage), we should be prepared to find against him if his actions > meet the usual tests. If you will change "usual tests" to "tests prescribed by law," I'll agree completely. The original question is of interest precisely because one of the tests prescribed by L16A is not one of the usual ones. Specifically, the relevant question is just when "choose" is deemed to have taken place. Is it when the intention is pre-announced or when the action is finally taken? I'm arguing the first (along with some others, I think), but I fully admit that reasonable people could argue for the second. > Sorry Grant, but, as they say, rules are rules. The nature of rules, > especially in a competitive environment, is that _are_ to be applied > without any particular regard for extra-legal circumstances. I fully agree. We need to interpret L16A, not bypass it. > But with respect to this particular problem, the > practice of spurning the normal analytical approach in favor of an ad hoc > evaluation of whether the player did or did not use UI carries an > additional cost. Agreed. If we are not going to adjust, we need to point to specific language in L16A. That language is easy to find. (I shall be here the rest of today and may or may not check email tomorrow, then I'm away until April 8. Happy Easter to all who celebrate it.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 20 06:12:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 06:12:55 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA21140 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 06:12:47 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA18332 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:09:03 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199903192009.OAA18332@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:09:03 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 03:31 PM 3/17/99 -0600, Grant wrote: > > These particular laws were made with a very specific > >purpose in mind, to prevent a very specific sort of illegal advantage. If > >it is obvious that that sort of illegal advantage is not being taken, the > >whole point of the law is undermined. > > If we must use analogies, consider this one. Suppose that I run a > >stopsign on a very obviously deserted country road [let us stipulate that > >the field of vision is clear and unimpaired, etc.]. I do not think that a > >police officer would be acting correctly in giving me a ticket, even > >though it is clear that I broke the letter of the law, and it is equally > >clear that _under normal circumstances_ my breaking this law would be > >dangerous, and a ticket appropriate. The law about stopping for stopsigns > >is there to prevent a particular danger--and in this case that danger is > >obviously not present. This would be even more true if the officer had > >some way of knowing for certain that I ran _this_ stopsign _only_ because > >I _knew_ no other vehicles were present. [We may suppose the officer was > >on foot and hiding in a haystack.] > > To put it another way: there is nothing _intrinsically bad_ about > >making a bid that one's peers would think was suggested by UI. > > Except that it is illegal to do so, doubly so if you understand that this > is the case. But that's my point. The law against making such a bid was not made because the act itself was intrinsically bad, but rather because the lawmakers were trying to prevent 'taking advantage of UI' and knew of no other way to do it. > >The whole mechanism of LA's and so on is merely devised to prevent taking > advantage > >of UI. If I make it clear exactly what I intend to bid before any UI > >could be received, then it is obvious I am not taking advantage of it. > > Sorry Grant, but, as they say, rules are rules. The nature of rules, > especially in a competitive environment, is that _are_ to be applied > without any particular regard for extra-legal circumstances. Nit-picky And that's where we disagree. _I_ see no reason to believe that all rules must be enforced in all circumstances, even when it is _obvious_ that the harm they were designed to prevent cannot occur. This is especially true in a game where "The Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities, but rather as a redress for damage." > violations of rules are penalized all the time in other competitive venues, > and this is accepted as routine. Sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't. Baseball has a rule forbidding coaches to leave the coaches box during play--this rule is violated in every inning of every game, and I have never seen it enforced in my lifetime. It was written to prevent coaches from coming in contact with players or unduly harassing them, and as long as the coach isn't doing that no-one even looks at the box. I could list a hundred other rules in various sports and games that are broken routinely. You could equally list a hundred others that are enforced even in circumstances when the infraction is obviously irrelevant to play. But we are discussing here what _should_ be the case, and what _justice_ requires. Obviously, we have very different ideas about that. > In basketball, you must in-bound the ball from a position outside of the > court. It is fairly obvious _why_ this rule exists: it would be an unfair > advantage to the team in-bounding the ball to decide for themselves where > play should start. But if you inadvertently step on the line while > inbounding the ball, and the referee notices, he will award the ball to > your opponents, even if you obviously gained no advantage from your error, > and clearly were not trying to step on the line. [Interestingly, I just saw a player inbounds a ball with his foot on the line in the NCAA tournament. He wasn't called on it, but the referee may not have seen it.] > So the notion of applying the Laws without regard to circumstances is not > really so strange. But with respect to this particular problem, the > practice of spurning the normal analytical approach in favor of an ad hoc > evaluation of whether the player did or did not use UI carries an > additional cost. Many players are confused about the nature of UI cases and > the techniques used to analyze them. TD's are often reluctant to make > adverse rulings in such cases because players interpret them as equivalent > to a charge of cheating. THEY know that they didn't rely on UI! Why, they > would have bid that way all the time! The NERVE! > > The most effective shield against this indignation is to be able to > honestly describe the nature of the ruling. It is, after all, merely a > technical question of what LA's might have existed and what the UI might > have suggested in an "objective" theoretical sense. "No, we are not > accusing you of taking advantage, but the Laws are written this way for a > purpose and we are obliged to follow them." > > When we resort to other means of evaluation, because in this particular > situation it is apparent that the player did not take advantage of UI, we > are unmasking this useful little fiction and delaring that, in fact, it > _is_ about our judgement of whether the player used the UI, after all. And That's not the point at all. The rule was written for the 99.999999% of cases where we cannot _know_ whether the player took advantage of UI or not. It tells us, in effect, that since we cannot know one way or another we will rule proceedurally as if he did. To rule differently in the one rare case where we _do know_ that no advantage was taken says nothing about the other cases. > that is not helpful to the broader objective of fair and consistent > enforcement of the anti-UI regulations. > > Mike Dennis > I do not see any likelihood that ruling in favor if the "insured" party in this case will have any effect whatsoever on the general level of [mis]understanding of UI law. In any case, a player who cannot understansd the difference between a case where, from the perspective of the TD, a player _might_ have been taking advantage of UI, and a case where everybody present knows the player is not taking advantage of UI, cannot understand the difference between an objective proceedure and an accusation of cheating. -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 20 07:47:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 07:47:24 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA21414 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 07:47:16 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h77.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id AAA12092; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 00:47:05 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36F3610C.3977@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 00:49:16 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) References: <199903191705.MAA02626@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_UI_1.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_UI_1.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) As I had a lot of business trips - I tried only to read this discussion (with great interest) and not to take part in the discussion - but I couldn't Sorry in advance - but I was silent more than a month, so this one is rather longish... Jan Kamras wrote that this time he was with HDW and DB - and against DWS. On the contrary - it is extremely rare case where I completely disagree with DB. As I am rather "Legend-man" than "Laws-man" I will try to base my position on the (just used by HDW) principle of "good of bridge". I think hat such action (Jean-Pierre Rocafort described) is rather against good of bridge... I do not agree with S.Wilner ("I trust none of us sees any prohibition against that, at least in general. I suppose the contents of the note could be deemed misleading or to violate some other law, but that's not relevant here."). Moreover - I do not agree even with much softer M.Dennis position: "Of course there is nothing obviously wrong with the action per se." IMO that similar action violates the correct procedure and may consist violation of Proprieties. I see the main problem is determined by corresponded sentences of the L74: "LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE A. Proper Attitude 2. Etiquette of Word and Action A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. B. Etiquette As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: 2. making gratuitous comments during the auction and play. C. Violations of Procedure The following are considered violations of procedure: 4. commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence, or to the number of tricks still required for success." Let's consider in which cases such action might take place: 1. When player makes an idle bid with aim to get to know t he opponents' reaction on his (or his partner) bids - tactical aim 2. When he wanted to make a pressure (via his words rather then bid) on (at least) his screen-mate and get to know his very reaction or make him inattentive and careless 3. When (in the moment of the bid) he was mistaken about possible subsequent bidding - first DB's example 4. When (in the moment of the bid) player was mistaken about the final contract - last DB's example In case 1 the player (before bidding the final contract) wanted to get additional information from opponents - so he should pay for possible UI from partner (or even for partner's bidding mistakes - as unexpected Pass) - in accordance with well known the Law of conservation: "If something grows then something decrease". The more information - the less stability of the bidding (because growing of number of calls provides to appearing of new problems and increasing of probability of mistake). In this case Responder's note (to his LHO) is attempt to sit at both chairs at once: to increase information without increasing risk of negative consequences. IMO it is unfair - though majority in BLML estimated such action as fair one... In case 2 the player's action is direct violation of L74 and result may be adjust. In case 3 player (at least - in the moment of the bid) that there might be partner's bid at 4-th and higher level. M.Abraham pointed at the Splinter possibility (and made nice analyse of other possibilities). But there are even more interesting opener's rebid: 4 Spades or 5 Clubs. Indeed< even after these bids Responder may bid 4 Spades (as he promised) and it may happened that his LHO will agree and pass - but I doubt that such a game still may be named bridge:) So - Responder's careless action may provide to: - change of the Responder's mind after unexpected strong bid (such as Splinter) - contradiction between previous statement and the Laws after Opener's rebid 4 Spades or higher But it seems to me that Responder's carelessness and inability to foresee consequent bids rather testify to his not too high player's level, so - there are not too much chances that he will be able to use UI even in case the UI will occur. And for the same reason I am ready to estimate only this case as attempt to be fair, made by inexperience player. Otherwise (in case of experience player) I may suspect the case 2. In case 4 Responder (after his bid, made as result of his previous wrong decision) tries to insure his side against subsequent partner's UI. But it was made a bridge mistake - and why mistake of this very kind should be allowed to correct, moreover - via violation of Proprieties and correct procedure? Is it really "good of bridge" way? Let's make some conclusions: - bridge as a game is badly defended - bridge as a game is changed during years, but Lawmakers' aim is rather make this defence stronger - there is completely unacceptable case - of the 2 type. And let's remember that "The road to the Hell is paved with good intentions". If we make legal "insuring" procedure (for cases of 4 type) - we'll make such a defence weaker because there will be legal room for case 2. So for me neither current Laws (L74!) nor the Legend ("during the bidding only 15 words are allowed to use") make possible of such insuring action. And as the action is illegal - all the following consequences may be illegal too. TD (and AC) should make their decision. Now - several quotations: John R. Mayne: "I do think my action is automatic, because I said I'd bid a grand over any response by partner." Then - why did not you bid this grand instead of this bid?:) David Burn: "Sceptic might well ask: "If you knew what your next call would be, why did you not make that call instead of your current one?". But in principle, it seems to me a legal way to proceed." You asked the main question - and (IMO) did not answer on it. I tried to prove that historical, legal and logical answer provides to negative answer to Jean-Pierre Rocafort's question. Herman De Wael: "He is trying to show to his opponent that his intentions are ethical." I have contrary opinion:) Jan Kamras: "Please - show us where in the laws it states that you cannot apply this manoeuvre. It is an insult to the rest of us to pretend the laws are clear on this, since if they were then surely the thread would be very short." L74?:) Michael S. Dennis: "Maybe he remembered, immediately after passing the note, that with this partner, he's playing 3014 RKC instead of 1430. Is there some legal basis for holding him to a declared intention which in and of itself has no legal significance? Should it be legitimate to pass such notes in competitive situations?" In such case he will have quite defendable position for TD and AC. David Burn: "She produced a cue bid at the six level, then realised (as the tray went across the screen) that this was pointless, for she already had enough information to bid 7S." So - she had strong position (without such action) for defending her decision before TD/AC "In the Venice Cup in Tunisia eighteen months ago, Liz McGowan of Great Britain found herself in a similar position. She had made what became known as a "getting up steam" bid of 5NT in a position where she ought to have bid 7H anyway." Thank you for this case: it (and its consequences) proves my position. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 20 08:38:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 08:38:35 +1000 Received: from proxye3-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye3-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA21599 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 08:38:24 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n7d.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.125]) by proxye3-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA22688 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 17:37:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990319173405.007947c0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 17:34:05 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) In-Reply-To: <199903192009.OAA18332@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:09 PM 3/19/99 -0600, Micheal Dennis (I believe) wrote: >> violations of rules are penalized all the time in other competitive venues, >> and this is accepted as routine. The purpose of the laws relating to use of unauthorized information is to prohibit the use (even unintentional use) of extraneous information. A player who announces, before any unauthorized information occurs, what he is going to do next, cannot be using the unauthorized information (if any occurs). The purpose of the laws about unauthorized information is not punitive. The Laws do not prescribe a penalty, but rather a method for restoring equity. At least that's the way I see it. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 20 14:26:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 14:26:53 +1000 Received: from smtp4.mindspring.com (smtp4.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA22177 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 14:26:45 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveips.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.75.60]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA03878 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 23:26:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990319232637.006bd778@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 23:26:37 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Bid what you would have anyway? In-Reply-To: <199903191705.MAA02626@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:05 PM 3/19/99 -0500, Steve wrote: >Specifically, the relevant question is just when "choose" is deemed to >have taken place. Is it when the intention is pre-announced or when >the action is finally taken? I'm arguing the first (along with some >others, I think), but I fully admit that reasonable people could argue >for the second. > And Tim G wrote: >The purpose of the laws relating to use of unauthorized information is to >prohibit the use (even unintentional use) of extraneous information. A >player who announces, before any unauthorized information occurs, what he >is going to do next, cannot be using the unauthorized information (if any >occurs). The purpose of the laws about unauthorized information is not >punitive. The Laws do not prescribe a penalty, but rather a method for >restoring equity. At least that's the way I see it. And also Grant: > To put it another way: there is nothing _intrinsically bad_ about >making a bid that one's peers would think was suggested by UI. The whole >mechanism of LA's and so on is merely devised to prevent taking advantage >of UI. If I make it clear exactly what I intend to bid before any UI >could be received, then it is obvious I am not taking advantage of it. Your comments here, along with the comments of several others for whom I also have considerable respect, raise an issue in my mind. I have long regarded as a settled question the issue of whether a player in possession of UI may legally and ethically "bid what he would have bid anyway" when to do so he would be "choosing from logical alternatives....". Your LHO makes a bid in a competitive auction which you immediately know you plan to hit, but good ol' pard takes a sweet 20 seconds to find the green card, in a situation where his hesitation could only point to a double. You know for a fact what you were going to do, but you also know that some players in your situation might see the hand differently. Is it legal to double, knowing that your action won't survive close scrutiny by a TD or AC, if it comes to that? I was under the impression that we all agreed that it is not, i.e., that the language of L16 is not simply a formula for officials to use in adjudicating UI situations but a real honest-to-God rule which we are all obliged to follow. I have been involved (in other forums) in this debate, even on the other side of it in my younger days, but understood that the silence greeting DWS's defense of this proposition earlier in this thread indicated agreement. I bring this up because it seems logically inconsistent to me to accept this principle and yet argue in favor of UI insurance as legal defense against a L16 charge. Steve, if we accept your argument that a "choice" to bid can exist prior to the legally binding expression of that choice, then it must be the case that it is legal and proper to follow through on my "choice", even if circumstances have deprived me of the opportunity to share my thinking with opponents and spectators, and even if I know that a TD/AC would find me guilty under the L16 standards. Tim, if L16 is really only about protecting the opponents' equity, then surely it is ethical for me "bid as I would have anyway", since to do so in no way compromises their equity. Grant, if there is "nothing _intrinsically bad_ about making a bid that one's peers would think was suggested by UI", then you must be comfortable with this as well. Or am I missing something, out here on the lunatic fringe? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 20 20:37:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA22778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 20:37:08 +1000 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 UAA22773 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 20:37:01 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA13696 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 10:36:11 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 20 Mar 99 10:36 GMT From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990318182607.006c2750@pop.mindspring.com> I don't see the situation in this thread as being about whether the laws should be applied. It is a matter of which law and how. Given the information available I think it unlikely that one could present a decent case for a breach of L73C - it certainly sounds as if the player has carefully avoided taking advantage. Since there is no breach of 73C I can't use L73F (it starts "when a violation..). Maybe I should try L16. Oh dear. That contains the phrase "After...the partner may not choose.." it says nothing about choices made *before* UI is made available. Even if you ignore this and get as far as L16A2 this starts "When a player has substantial reason to believe..". Again it is highly unlikely that someone will convince me that this is the situation. Of course if someone makes a "promissory bid" and then fails to make the promised bid at his turn I will take this as prima facie evidence that the player has received UI and deliberately acted on it. Not only will I adjust the score but I will issue a large PP as well. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 20 23:26:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 23:26:21 +1000 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 XAA23122 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 23:26:14 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveh94.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.36]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA12087 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 08:26:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990320082608.006c73cc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 08:26:08 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:36 AM 3/20/99 GMT, Tim W-M wrote: >Given the information available I think it unlikely that one could present >a decent case for a breach of L73C - it certainly sounds as if the player >has carefully avoided taking advantage. Since there is no breach of 73C I >can't use L73F (it starts "when a violation..). Maybe I should try L16. >Oh dear. That contains the phrase "After...the partner may not choose.." >it says nothing about choices made *before* UI is made available. Even if >you ignore this and get as far as L16A2 this starts "When a player has >substantial reason to believe..". Again it is highly unlikely that >someone will convince me that this is the situation. > >Of course if someone makes a "promissory bid" and then fails to make the >promised bid at his turn I will take this as prima facie evidence that the >player has received UI and deliberately acted on it. Not only will I >adjust the score but I will issue a large PP as well. > I agree that no good 73C case exists. But the reliance on the bit in L16 about "After... the partner may not choose" is flimsy, precisely because the pre-announcement is not legally binding. Up until the bid is made, or indeed beyond that point, the player is free to "choose" some other action. Your plan to impose extra-legal sanctions on him for doing so might be reasonable, if it had a basis in the Laws. But as of now, it does not. Under L25, he may even change his bid _after_ he's made it, without penalty. You're effectively denying him the right to change his bid before he's made it, relying upon a circumstance (his pre-announcement) which has no legal significance. And you're going to issue a PP as well? For what? Perhaps the player violated standard legal procedure simply by making a pre-announcement, but people seem more than forgiving of that particular breach. You certainly can't point to any legal or procedural requirement which has been violated by his failure to follow through on an extra-legal pre-announcement. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 21 06:51:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 06:51:35 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA26901 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 06:51:26 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA16146 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 14:47:37 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199903202047.OAA16146@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Bid what you would have anyway? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 14:47:37 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apologies in advance--I had to write this in 5 minutes with my son talking to me, so it's less coherent than usual.... > Your comments here, along with the comments of several others for whom I > also have considerable respect, raise an issue in my mind. I have long > regarded as a settled question the issue of whether a player in possession > of UI may legally and ethically "bid what he would have bid anyway" when to > do so he would be "choosing from logical alternatives....". Your LHO makes > a bid in a competitive auction which you immediately know you plan to hit, > but good ol' pard takes a sweet 20 seconds to find the green card, in a > situation where his hesitation could only point to a double. You know for a > fact what you were going to do, but you also know that some players in your > situation might see the hand differently. Is it legal to double, knowing > that your action won't survive close scrutiny by a TD or AC, if it comes to > that? No. > I was under the impression that we all agreed that it is not, i.e., that > the language of L16 is not simply a formula for officials to use in > adjudicating UI situations but a real honest-to-God rule which we are all > obliged to follow. I have been involved (in other forums) in this debate, > even on the other side of it in my younger days, but understood that the > silence greeting DWS's defense of this proposition earlier in this thread > indicated agreement. L16 is indeed a formula for officials to use in adjudicating UI situations, and is also a rule we are obliged to follow in UI cases. What some of us are claiming is that if we can _know_ that a bid in no way takes advantage of UI, then we aren't really in a UI situation at all. > Tim, if L16 is really only about protecting the opponents' equity, then > surely it is ethical for me "bid as I would have anyway", since to do so in > no way compromises their equity. Grant, if there is "nothing _intrinsically > bad_ about making a bid that one's peers would think was suggested by UI", > then you must be comfortable with this as well. > > Or am I missing something, out here on the lunatic fringe? Well, first of all, I don't think there's anything bizarre about your position. I am, frankly, a bit surprised that it hasn't received more support from others. But I don't think these two positions are inconsistent. In an ordinary UI case: a) One very often doesn't know _for sure_ what one would have bid without the UI*, b) Even if one _is_ sure, one knows that opponents and TD's cannot know for sure what you were going to bid. In such cases, one is legally and morally obligated to bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of UI, or even giving the appearance of taking advantage of UI. {Notice that in such situations one is allowed to go ahead and 'bid what you would have anyway' if you think there are no LA's--that is, if your bid is _really obvious_. Why? Because if your bid is really obvious, it becomes more obvious you haven't taken advantage of UI!**} But in our pseudo-UI case, one _does_ know for sure what one is going to bid, and it is obvious to the opponent(s) and [if necessary] TD(s) what that was. Hence, in effect, we are not in a UI case at all! > > Mike Dennis > I'm in a hurry, and can't edit properly--sorry: *= Yesterday I was playing Bridge Baron, and was on lead against a slam holding an ace. Right before making my opening lead, I peeked at partner's hand, to see if he had bid properly. Unfortunately, I noticed that partner had a singleton facing my Ace, so the lead of the ace beats the slam and no other lead does. I think I would have led the ace anyway--I'm really sure I would have. But I must admit I cannot be absolutely certain. The same thing happens in most UI cases--although I know how I was planing on bidding the hand, I must admit that there's always the possibility that the UI influenced my decision. **= Notice that in the evaluation of UI cases AC members often argue along the lines of "It is obvious that he was planning on bidding spades this round in preparation for a heart bid the next round, so the heart bid is okay". That is, they think one does not violate L16 if we outsiders can see clearly what the bid was going to be independent of the UI. Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 21 09:40:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 09:40:03 +1000 Received: from mail.dynamite.com.au (mail.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA27199 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 09:39:59 +1000 Received: from bridge.dynamite.com.au (isp172.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.23.182.52]) by mail.dynamite.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA11488; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:37:08 +1100 Message-ID: <000201be7334$87376240$34b617cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:46:49 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE7388.1FB11CC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE7388.1FB11CC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 21 March 1999 0:25 Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) =20 =20 At 10:36 AM 3/20/99 GMT, Tim W-M wrote: >Given the information available I think it unlikely that one could = present=20 >a decent case for a breach of L73C - it certainly sounds as if the = player=20 >has carefully avoided taking advantage. Since there is no breach = of 73C I=20 >can't use L73F (it starts "when a violation..). Maybe I should try = L16. >Oh dear. That contains the phrase "After...the partner may not = choose.."=20 >it says nothing about choices made *before* UI is made available. = Even if=20 >you ignore this and get as far as L16A2 this starts "When a player = has=20 >substantial reason to believe..". Again it is highly unlikely that = >someone will convince me that this is the situation. > >Of course if someone makes a "promissory bid" and then fails to = make the=20 >promised bid at his turn I will take this as prima facie evidence = that the=20 >player has received UI and deliberately acted on it. Not only will = I=20 >adjust the score but I will issue a large PP as well. > I agree that no good 73C case exists. But the reliance on the bit in = L16 about "After... the partner may not choose" is flimsy, precisely = because the pre-announcement is not legally binding. Up until the bid is = made, or indeed beyond that point, the player is free to "choose" some other = action. Your plan to impose extra-legal sanctions on him for doing so might = be reasonable, if it had a basis in the Laws. But as of now, it does = not. Under L25, he may even change his bid _after_ he's made it, without penalty. You're effectively denying him the right to change his bid = before he's made it, relying upon a circumstance (his pre-announcement) = which has no legal significance. =20 And you're going to issue a PP as well? For what? Perhaps the player violated standard legal procedure simply by making a = pre-announcement, but people seem more than forgiving of that particular breach. You = certainly can't point to any legal or procedural requirement which has been = violated by his failure to follow through on an extra-legal pre-announcement. Mike Dennis =20 =20 ## Any adjustment or penalty imposed, should the preannounced bid = not be made, would be made in the belief that this preannouned action = actually meant "I will make this call IF partner's action comes after an = obvious hesitation" =20 Sean Mullamphy## ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE7388.1FB11CC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Michael S. Dennis <msd@mindspring.com>
To: = bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 21 March 1999 0:25
Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish=20 rant)

At 10:36 AM 3/20/99 GMT, Tim W-M=20 wrote:
>Given the information available I think it unlikely = that one=20 could present
>a decent case for a breach of L73C - it = certainly=20 sounds as if the player
>has carefully avoided taking=20 advantage.  Since there is no breach of 73C I
>can't use = L73F=20 (it starts "when a violation..).  Maybe I should try=20 L16.
>Oh dear.  That contains the phrase = "After...the=20 partner may not choose.."
>it says nothing about choices = made=20 *before* UI is made available.  Even if
>you ignore this = and get=20 as far as L16A2 this starts "When a player has =
>substantial=20 reason to believe..".  Again it is highly unlikely that=20
>someone will convince me that this is the=20 situation.
>
>Of course if someone makes a = "promissory=20 bid" and then fails to make the
>promised bid at his = turn I will=20 take this as prima facie evidence that the
>player has = received UI=20 and deliberately acted on it.  Not only will I
>adjust = the score=20 but I will issue a large PP as well.
>
I agree that no good = 73C=20 case exists. But the reliance on the bit in L16
about = "After... the=20 partner may not choose" is flimsy, precisely because
the=20 pre-announcement is not legally binding. Up until the bid is made,=20 or
indeed beyond that point, the player is free to = "choose"=20 some other action.
Your plan to impose extra-legal sanctions on = him for=20 doing so might be
reasonable, if it had a basis in the Laws. But = as of=20 now, it does not.
Under L25, he may even change his bid _after_ = he's made=20 it, without
penalty. You're effectively denying him the right to = change=20 his bid before
he's made it, relying upon a circumstance (his=20 pre-announcement) which has
no legal significance.

And = you're=20 going to issue a PP as well? For what? Perhaps the = player
violated=20 standard legal procedure simply by making a pre-announcement, = but
people=20 seem more than forgiving of that particular breach. You = certainly
can't=20 point to any legal or procedural requirement which has been = violated
by=20 his failure to follow through on an extra-legal = pre-announcement. Mike=20 Dennis

##=20 Any adjustment or penalty imposed, should the preannounced bid not = be made,=20 would be made in the belief that this preannouned action actually = meant=20 "I will make this call IF partner's action comes after an = obvious=20 hesitation"
Sean=20 Mullamphy## ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE7388.1FB11CC0-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 21 10:32:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:32:56 +1000 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 KAA27309 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:32:49 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990321003243.DWFD11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:32:43 -0800 Message-ID: <36F43F2A.D0EBBD24@home.com> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:36:58 -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: UI insurance (longish rant) References: <199903191705.MAA02626@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36F3610C.3977@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I hoped I was done with this thread, but find I must object to the following misrepresentations: vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > So for me neither current Laws (L74!)...snip... make possible of such > insuring action. > And as the action is illegal ... > Jan Kamras: "Please - show us where in the laws it states > that you cannot apply this manoeuvre. ...." > L74?:) It is simply not correct that this "maneouver" is prohibited by L74, no matter how many times you say it is. It is simply not mentioned (probably since it wasn't foreseen). It is *only your personal interpretation* of L74 that says so. Elsewhere it is said that SOs can regulate procedures based on particular playing conditions (such as screens). L80E/F, L81C3. Drawing the conclusion that SO/TD can allow the manoever when screens are in use is no less logical that you drawing your conclusions about what L74 means - possibly even more logical. Finally, even the hard-core letter-of-the-law followers (like myself) seem to have agreed that L16 was crafted in it's roundabout way not because it is the "best possible way" but rather the "best way possible" - considering the absence of a videocamera in the player's head. Why on earth would we attempt to define possible tableactions (LAs) by *guessing* what a number of players who were *not* at the table and who we've *not* interviewed might have done, or might have *considered* doing, if we had irrefutable access to what actually went on in the mind of the "perpetrator" ??? Give me a rational answer to *that* - and I might switch sides! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 21 10:56:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:56:20 +1000 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 KAA27367 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:56:14 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990321005609.EAHP11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:56:09 -0800 Message-ID: <36F444A8.EAE4FE53@home.com> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 17:00:24 -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 insurance (longish rant) References: <3.0.1.32.19990320082608.006c73cc@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > And you're going to issue a PP as well? For what? Perhaps the player > violated standard legal procedure simply by making a pre-announcement, > but people seem more than forgiving of that particular breach. Only conditionally (i.e. if he follows thru). If not, we can *now* go places where Vitold went (too early), such as L74. The combination of his actions can indeed be construed as a violation of L74A2, A3, and maybe even the worst, L72B1. It has been obvious from this thread that those who'd support the "UI insurance with screens" maneover would be very harsh with a "policy-holder" that didn't follow thru. Undoubtedly the other side will argue that two wrongs don't make a right, but at least should not argue that we are stuck when the "insured" changes his mind. All insurance-policies have conditions attached and are only valid if the premium is paid. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 21 11:06:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:06:20 +1000 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 LAA27411 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:06:13 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990321010608.ECCA11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 17:06:08 -0800 Message-ID: <36F446FF.3757B643@home.com> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 17:10:23 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <3.0.5.32.19990319100134.007c9130@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > I agree it's a dubious action intended to bend the laws (and to > ask opponent's complicity to do so) This latter part I don't think represents any problem at all in this case. We are dealing with a L16 situation, and this law is one that does not kick in automatically. It is left up to the opponent's whether or not to invoke it. If an opponent agrees not to invoke it based on the described situation I feel it's completely up to him. He can always say no and leave you out in the cold if he so choses. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 02:06:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 02:06:44 +1000 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 CAA01455 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 02:06:36 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveh5m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.182]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA19587 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:06:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990321110508.006ba478@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:05:08 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) In-Reply-To: <36F43F2A.D0EBBD24@home.com> References: <199903191705.MAA02626@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36F3610C.3977@elnet.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:36 PM 3/20/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >Elsewhere it is said that SOs can regulate procedures based on >particular playing conditions (such as screens). L80E/F, L81C3. >Drawing the conclusion that SO/TD can allow the manoever when screens >are in use is no less logical that you drawing your conclusions about >what L74 means - possibly even more logical. > You seem to be conflating the perogatives of an SO and a TD in this sentence, and it may be precisely at this point that our disagreement arises. While I have some doubts about whether it would be a good thing for an SO to allow this tactic, I have no doubt at all about their legal authority to do so, under L80F. I would hope that any SO that does authorize UI insurance would do so only after careful consideration of the possible ramifications, including specification of how notification should occur and how to handle irregularities arising from this procedure. Obviously a major question which would have to be addressed concerns the circumstances and mechanisms by which the pre-announced action is to be enforced. But the rights of an SO to issue supplementary regulations do not extend to a TD or AC. A TD's L81C3 powers apply to the management of the event and do not include the right to issue supplementary regulations about the game itself. Even if we choose to read L81C3 more broadly than this, the TD's power in this area would be limited to pre-announcing the procedures which would apply to UI insurance, and couldn't reasonably include making up new regulations after the fact. Why should we distinguish between the powers of an SO and those of a TD? Well, consider the problem at hand. Several potential problems with UI insurance should be considered in developing any useful regulations: 1. How specific must the communication be, and to whom must it be made clear? Does it suffice for a player to make his intentions clear to one or more spectators? What about the TD if he happens to be present? What form(s) can the communication take, and how should we weigh the claim of an opponent who claims not to have received the message? What about language barriers which might make such communication effectively impossible? 2. As has been repeated ad nauseum, a carefully considered UI insurance regulation must include mechanisms for enforcing the pre-announced intention. But what if circumstances change? Obviously (I think), we cannot require the pre-announcer to bid on if the auction dies before it gets back to him. But what about intervening bids by the opponents? If I have pre-announced my intention to bid "game in hearts", but the opponents double-cross me with a 4S call, can I still be required to bid 5H (or face worst-case consequences)? More generally, if the opponents intervene after my stated intention to bid to a certain level, do I have the right to change my mind and double them, or does the pre-announcement effectively grant the opponents unlimited license to stick in risk-free lead-directing bids or doubles? Even in a non-competitive situation, it is possible that circumstances could legitimately change my mind. I already raised the possiblity that a player could remember (during partner's anticipated hesitation) that he was playing a different form of Blackwood than he had thought. Would this claim, backed by appropriate documentation of the partnership methods, suffice as a defense against any penalties for reneging on his pre-announcement? Undoubtedly there are more unresolved issues, which is precisely why the implementing of appropriate regulations should be the responsibility of an SO or the WBFLC, and not a TD. You may counter that all of these questions can be addressed, and so they can. But no single individual is competent to develop and implement such a procedure, without the checks and balances which the appropriate authorities can, in principle at least, bring to bear. As of now, there is no legal context for consideration and resolution of such problems for TD's and AC's, who are, after all, responsible for enforcing the Laws and regulations rather than creating them. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 03:26:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 03:26:06 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA01580 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 03:25:52 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h1.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id UAA17999; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 20:25:36 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36F5C6C4.72A8@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 20:27:48 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kamras CC: blml Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) References: <199903191705.MAA02626@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36F3610C.3977@elnet.msk.ru> <36F43F2A.D0EBBD24@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Jan Kamras wrote: > > vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > > So for me neither current Laws (L74!)...snip... make possible of such > > insuring action. > > And as the action is illegal ... > > > Jan Kamras: "Please - show us where in the laws it states > > that you cannot apply this manoeuvre. ...." > > > L74?:) > > It is simply not correct that this "maneouver" is prohibited by L74, no > matter how many times you say it is. It is simply not mentioned > (probably since it wasn't foreseen). It is *only your personal > interpretation* of L74 that says so. Sorry for being too short - I'll try once more. It is continued from the very origin of bridge that one may used during the auction only 15 words: Pass, Double, Redouble, 1 - 7, Spade, Heart, Diamond, Club, No trump, - with some limitation. As bridge grew there appeared possibilities of use (during auction) more words. But every such case was strictly determined in the Laws (questions, explanations, stop and alert procedure). All other attempts (not specially allowed by the Laws) are determined as "erroneous" etc. and (IMO) are fully under the power of L74 ("any remarks", commenting the auction", etc.). I may assume that some authoritative body will permit such action (WBFLC or SO - see M.Dennis's nice remarks on this theme) but IMO that even SO does not have enough power for such decision because it contradicts with basic principles and demands serious revision of the Laws (including L74). Before it - such action violates the current Laws. > > Elsewhere it is said that SOs can regulate procedures based on > particular playing conditions (such as screens). L80E/F, L81C3. > Drawing the conclusion that SO/TD can allow the manoever when screens > are in use is no less logical that you drawing your conclusions about > what L74 means - possibly even more logical. > I have nothing to add to post of M.Dennis Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 04:34:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 04:34:48 +1000 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 EAA01778 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 04:34:40 +1000 Received: from modem79.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.207] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10On3H-0008Su-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 18:34:24 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Return home Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 18:33:19 -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 ************************************************ he's always word-perfect, the s**, in composing the language of G**, but G** not infrequently swears it's only the meaning He hears, and though He forbears with the rod He does shed a bucket of tears. *********************************************** Home from Warsaw 1825 Sunday. DWS left Warsaw 40 mins before me by the scenic route, so he may still be on a train somewhere between London and here. ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 08:50:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 08:50:32 +1000 Received: from neodymium (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA02331 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 08:50:26 +1000 Received: from [212.140.6.55] (helo=david-burn) by neodymium with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10Or17-0003QQ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 22:48:25 +0000 Message-ID: <199903212249250620.0040641A@mail.btinternet.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.00.00.12 Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 22:49:25 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: A half-serious question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====_92205656541=_" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====_92205656541=_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >From the European Pairs (B final, obviously): A6 KQJ432 None 87432 Screens in use, you are with RHO. Two passes to you at game all, so you choose 3H (perhaps foolishly). LHO bids 3S, partner 4H and RHO fumbles with 4S before selecting 4NT (which he does not alert). Well, at least that means you don't have to think about doubling 4S (would you?) LHO bids 5D and RHO 5NT (which he does not alert). LHO bids 6D and RHO 7S. It is obvious what has happened (for those to whom it isn't, clarification will follow). Should you alert your double to RHO? > --=====_92205656541=_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
From the European Pairs (B final, obviously):
 
A6
KQJ432
None
87432
 
Screens in use, you are with RHO. Two passes to you at game all, so you choose 3H (perhaps foolishly). LHO bids 3S, partner 4H and RHO fumbles with 4S before selecting 4NT (which he does not alert). Well, at least that means you don't have to think about doubling 4S (would you?) LHO bids 5D and RHO 5NT (which he does not alert). LHO bids 6D and RHO 7S. It is obvious what has happened (for those to whom it isn't, clarification will follow). Should you alert your double to RHO?
>
--=====_92205656541=_-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 09:31:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:31:12 +1000 Received: from fep2.post.tele.dk (fep2.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA02493 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:31:05 +1000 Received: from ip118.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.118]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990321233059.ZEST29339.fep2@ip118.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:30:59 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: blml Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:30:58 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36f56e94.600904@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.5.32.19990319100134.007c9130@phedre.meteo.fr> <36F446FF.3757B643@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36F446FF.3757B643@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 Sat, 20 Mar 1999 17:10:23 -0800, Jan Kamras wrote: >Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >> I agree it's a dubious action intended to bend the laws (and to >> ask opponent's complicity to do so)=20 > >This latter part I don't think represents any problem at all in this >case. We are dealing with a L16 situation, and this law is one that does >not kick in automatically. It is left up to the opponent's whether or >not to invoke it. L16A is a law that defines some actions as illegal. An ethical player will not take illegal action regardless of whether or not he believes that he opponents will do anything to get that illegal action penalized. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 09:31:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:31:19 +1000 Received: from fep2.post.tele.dk (fep2.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA02500 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:31:12 +1000 Received: from ip118.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.118]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990321233105.ZESZ29339.fep2@ip118.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:31:05 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Subject: Re: Bid what you would have anyway? Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:31:04 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36f76fd3.919311@post12.tele.dk> References: <199903202047.OAA16146@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199903202047.OAA16146@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 Sat, 20 Mar 1999 14:47:37 -0600 (CST), cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: [About Mike Dennis' position] > Well, first of all, I don't think there's anything bizarre about >your position. I am, frankly, a bit surprised that it hasn't received >more support from others. =20 I suspect that I'm not the only one who support Mike's position but have felt no need for a "me too" posting - Mike does such a good job of arguing his case that I haven't really felt that I could contribute anything. >{Notice that in such situations one is allowed >to go ahead and 'bid what you would have anyway' if you think there are = no >LA's--that is, if your bid is _really obvious_. =20 Yes. >Why? Because if your bid >is really obvious, it becomes more obvious you haven't taken advantage = of >UI!**}=20 No, legally speaking, it has nothing to do with taking advantage. The reason it is legal is that if there are no LAs, then the call is not among those forbidden by L16A. Of course what you are saying has a lot to do with the _background_ for L16, but we are here to rule by the laws, not by what we suppose was the reason for their existence - particularly not in a situation like this where it is obvious that the law is carefully worded to avoid any judgement of whether advantage was taken. There is one aspect of this situation that I believe has not been mentioned at all: the practicality of allowing "UI insurance". If, for a moment, we assume/pretend that UI insurance is legal, then it seems to me that we are facing a serious practical problem. As long as we are just talking about showing your screen-mate the bidding card that you expect to use in the next round (as described by David B), there is no practical problem. But if it is made a generally accepted procedure to take out UI insurance, I can imagine top players about to make a slam try first using ten minutes to make a bidding plan for the next three rounds and describe it in detail to their screen-mate. That would IMO be unacceptable. And it is very difficult to forbid if we allow UI insurance at all. To get back to whether or not it is currently legal: I completely agree with Mike, but would nevertheless like to comment on the arguments for the other position: The arguments that UI insurance is legal seems primarily to be: (a) The word "after" in L16A, combined with the fact that the player has made and announced his choice before receiving the UI. (b) The opinion that a call is not a LA if the player has stated before he received the UI that he has no intention of making that call. As for (a), Mike has pointed out that if it were a valid argument, then it would also be a valid argument when a player had made up his mind, but not told anybody, before the UI. To me, that is a definitive argument that rules out (a). Accepting (a) would mean accepting that the TD in general should judge whether or not a player had made up his mind before receiving UI - and that would be terrible. To avoid that terrible situation we have to take the position that the choice of call occurs when you call - not earlier. As for (b), I find it more interesting. What is a LA? It is not defined very well in the law book; it is an action that some players would choose/consider in the same circumstances. "Some players" "in the same circumstances" are interpreted as players who: (1) Are of comparable skill and experience, (2) Have the same hand, (3) Have the same partnership agreements, (4) Have seen the same auction (and made the same calls themselves), (5) Have seen the same mannerisms from opponents. But what about including (6) Have had reason to provide the same mannerisms themselves (such as saying "I intend to raise 6sp to 7"). I personally find that including (6) is stretching L16 too far, and I am therefore on Mike's side. But I think that it is a valid argument which can be used as an excuse to allow UI insurance - if you happen to be one of those who do not consider it too much of a stretch. Of course, such UI insurance is also a violation of L74B2, unless the SO defines it as part of correct procedure. But a violation of L74B2 in itself can only result in a PP, not an adjustment. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 11:10:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:10:34 +1000 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 LAA02811 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:10:24 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.126]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id DAA11970; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 03:09:58 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36F59893.A8688F5D@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 03:10:43 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru CC: Jan Kamras , blml Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) References: <199903191705.MAA02626@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36F3610C.3977@elnet.msk.ru> <36F43F2A.D0EBBD24@home.com> <36F5C6C4.72A8@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If the superoverclever lawyerists wouldn't let us pronounce anything but those 15 words , I think there would be easier - these are the aims of my Laws 0 & 99 . I don't want to discuss bad mannerism or some "ugly" signals , prohibited by Laws 16 & 73-74..... you are so right when you reminds us what are the simplest and basic regulations ; but as i know from other so-called "exact sciences' , the simplest and basic theorems are very difficult to be understood and proved........Sometimes we forget where the things starts...... Dany vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > Hi all:) > > Jan Kamras wrote: > > > > vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > > > > So for me neither current Laws (L74!)...snip... make possible of such > > > insuring action. > > > And as the action is illegal ... > > > > > Jan Kamras: "Please - show us where in the laws it states > > > that you cannot apply this manoeuvre. ...." > > > > > L74?:) > > > > It is simply not correct that this "maneouver" is prohibited by L74, no > > matter how many times you say it is. It is simply not mentioned > > (probably since it wasn't foreseen). It is *only your personal > > interpretation* of L74 that says so. > > Sorry for being too short - I'll try once more. It is continued from the > very origin of bridge that one may used during the auction only 15 > words: Pass, Double, Redouble, 1 - 7, Spade, Heart, Diamond, Club, No > trump, - with some limitation. As bridge grew there appeared > possibilities of use (during auction) more words. But every such case > was strictly determined in the Laws (questions, explanations, stop and > alert procedure). All other attempts (not specially allowed by the Laws) > are determined as "erroneous" etc. and (IMO) are fully under the power > of L74 ("any remarks", commenting the auction", etc.). > I may assume that some authoritative body will permit such action > (WBFLC or SO - see M.Dennis's nice remarks on this theme) but IMO that > even SO does not have enough power for such decision because it > contradicts with basic principles and demands serious revision of the > Laws (including L74). Before it - such action violates the current Laws. > > > > Elsewhere it is said that SOs can regulate procedures based on > > particular playing conditions (such as screens). L80E/F, L81C3. > > Drawing the conclusion that SO/TD can allow the manoever when screens > > are in use is no less logical that you drawing your conclusions about > > what L74 means - possibly even more logical. > > > I have nothing to add to post of M.Dennis > > Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 12:03:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:03:14 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 MAA02972 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:03:08 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Ou3R-0001Ml-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 02:03:02 +0000 Message-ID: <6EOnwdA5Ha92EwP8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 01:50:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Return home References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >Home from Warsaw 1825 Sunday. DWS left Warsaw 40 mins >before me by the scenic route, so he may still be on a train >somewhere between London and here. ~ Grattan ~ Snnaarrllll !!!! Sorry for anyone who wrote to me in Warsaw: I never got internet access. However, I can get your emails here. Nobody should ask Sergei how he got on .... :) -- 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 Mar 22 12:03:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:03:20 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 MAA02979 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:03:14 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Ou3R-00048c-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 02:03:03 +0000 Message-ID: <5k9nIZA3Fa92EwMD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 01:48:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: EBU Easter Festival of Bridge References: <199903161747.SAA08342@carno.brus.online.be> In-Reply-To: <199903161747.SAA08342@carno.brus.online.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Norbert Fornoville wrote: >Can someone give me information about the EBU Easter Festival of Bridge in >London ? >The information on Internet doesn't mention when the different discplines >are held. Fri 2/4 1400 Mixed Pairs Fri 2/4 1400 Open Pairs Fri 2/4 1930 Championship Pairs Session 1 Sat 3/4 1345 Championship Pairs Session 2 Sat 3/4 1930 Championship Pairs Session 3 Sun 4/4 1300 Flighted Swiss Teams Session 1 [4 matches] Sun 4/4 1900 Flighted Swiss Teams Session 2 [3 matches] Mon 5/4 1300 Flighted Swiss Pairs Session 1 [4 matches] Mon 5/4 1900 Flighted Swiss Pairs Session 2 [2 matches] -- 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 Mar 22 12:14:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA03016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:14:31 +1000 Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA03011 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:14:23 +1000 Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id NAA21943; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:13:46 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma021722; Mon, 22 Mar 99 13:13:19 +1100 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (sercit.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.36.71]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA09623 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:13:18 +1100 Received: from newmanpm by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15723; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:15:39 +1100 Message-Id: <4.1.19990322130133.009793e0@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:12:51 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Appeal of an appeal?? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings all, An interesting situation has arisen. Your input would be appreciated: An appeal was held yesterday in one of our state events. The appeals committee reached its decision. [Separately, I may well send this appeal]. The final results were tabulated. The winners of the event (on countback) were of course the successful pair in the appeal. So far, so good. No problems. c'est la vie. etc. etc. However, 2 of the appeals committee (out of 3) now wish to reverse their decision because they didn't understand the issues and feel it would be a miscarriage of justice to let the result stand. [Well that is their current inclination, who knows tomorrow?]. My question: Are there any grounds on which an appeal can be appealed? If so, how does one go about it? Who has the authority etc. I have never seen such a procedure carried out but..... 93C suggests it is possible but the actual practicalities are what??? Of course, in this case such an appeal could potentially affect our state representatives and involves financial subsidy as well so this issue is a political hot potato. Prompt opinions appreciated. Cheers, Peter Newman Chairman, Tournament Committe, NSWBA --- "The email is typed; and, having sent, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line. Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word." From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 13:19:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:19:25 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 NAA03178 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:19:15 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10OvEu-0007f9-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 03:18:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 02:35:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Mark Twain 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: <199903120032350840.2AF37BA8@mail.btinternet.com> >"David Burn" wrote: >> As any Oxbridge man will tell you, we are infallible. But we're modest >> with it. > >Oxbridge Man? My Oxford acquaintances were never wholly convinced of the >worth of the People's Polytechnic of the Fens. Better than that car factory. -- 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 Mar 22 13:19:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:19:34 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 NAA03177 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:19:12 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10OvEu-0007fA-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 03:18:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 03:11:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Equity in Teams event. References: <36EDF590.720A@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <36EDF590.720A@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B A Small wrote: >Situation: Partner (south)opened 1D out of turn (east was dealer). >Director called. Bid not condoned, cancelled and bidding reverts to east >who passes. Directer informs partner that she may make any legal call. >Told that if she repeats her original bid her partner would be barred >for one round. RTFLB. I trust that someone has explained to the Director that total incompetence is not acceptable. The correct ruling is of course: LAW 31 - BID OUT OF ROTATION When a player has bid out of rotation (and the bid is cancelled, as the option to accept the bid has not been exercised - see Law 29): A. RHO's Turn When the offender has bid (or has passed partner's call when it is a convention, in which case section A2b applies) at his RHO's turn to call, then: 1. RHO Passes If that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation, and when that call is legal there is no penalty. 2. RHO Acts If that opponent makes a legal +++ bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call; when this call (a) Repeats Denomination repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, (penalty) offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23). (b) Does Not Repeat Denomination does not repeat the denomination of his bid out of rotation, the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply, and (penalty) offender's partner must pass when ever it is his turn to call (see Law 23). +++ An illegal call by RHO is penalised as usual. Now, I have read several answers to this, and it seems to me that all replies have missed one point. When the Director makes an error, both sides are considered non-offending. What would have happened if the Director had made no error? Then he would have read this out, and the correct dealer would have been told that it might be to his advantage to open to change it from a L31A1 case to a L31A2 case. Remember that when you reach L82C. > She opens 1D-P-P-P and she plays in 1D making 0ne for >+70. My hand AKJxxxx, QJxx, x ,x. She holds x, 109xx, AKxx, KQJx. At >the other table N/S got into 5H going four off for +200 for us. (I >gather declarer decided to cross ruff and got lost). Net result is +270. >Before I knew this result I informed the director that I felt his >decision was wrong and I wished to appeal. On the lie of the cards and >with no interference our auction will go 1D-1S-1NT-3H-4H. Will go? *coff* May go! > We play >precision and several other teams bid similar. When I informed director >he checked Laws ... now there's a new idea! > and decided I was right that his decision was wrong but >did not wish to change scores. OK, that's it. You only course of action is to take this one to the National Authority. If the Director is going to go against the Laws when he has made a mistake solely to make life easy for himself then strong action needs to be taken. You should write to Patrick Carter , Chairman of the New Zealand Laws & Ethics Committee, and say you are seeking a ruling from the National Authority under L93C. OK, maybe I am going overboard: you really had to be there. You know the level of the event: if it was your club teams with a club Director then perhaps this is over the top. Or perhaps I have misread the nuances, and your Director was confused rather than lazy. But if "did not wish to change the scores" means what it sounds like, take it to the NA. > He was prepared to let table scores >stand. How kind. > We lost the match 13-17. As the cards lie and with me playing in >4H we get a diamond lead and on most lines of play I will make 4 for >+420 and a team gain of +620 brings us back to a 15-15 draw. Well, sorry about this, but you are in L82C territory. Both sides are non-offending. If we ignore for the moment any effect of dealer being told the Law and affecting events by opening, then a ruling of +420 for you and +50 for your opponents seems more reasonable. Presumably that leads to a score of 15-18 or thereabouts. > At appeal >the committee agreed the director made a bad call but felt it was now >impossible to compare scores so neutralised the board and gave each team >3imps. Why? What were they up to? Why didn't they just cut cards to determine a result? What the AC is asked to do is to find the most favourable result that was at all likely for each side. How on earth can that come up with three imps? > We now have a 12-18 loss. All agreed that director was wrong. So the AC fined you for the Director being wrong? > In >hind sight perhaps I should have questioned the director at the time but >I was in play mode and expected my partner who is a better director than >I to question if she felt he was wrong. Result wasn't going to change >overall standings however I feel somewhat aggrieved that what little we >had was take and in fact we were penalised for going to appeal. >What should have happened? Did the AC get it right? The AC did not do their job. They penalised a non-offending side for the Director's actions. It hardly needs a Law book to be opened to know that this is incorrect. Take it to the NA. -- 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 Mar 22 13:19:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:19:26 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA03176 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:19:12 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10OvEu-000Ioi-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 03:18:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 03:18:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal of an appeal?? References: <4.1.19990322130133.009793e0@sercit> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990322130133.009793e0@sercit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: >An appeal was held yesterday in one of our state events. The appeals >committee reached its decision. >The final results were tabulated. The winners of the event (on countback) >were of course the successful pair in the appeal. > >So far, so good. No problems. c'est la vie. etc. etc. > >However, 2 of the appeals committee (out of 3) now wish to reverse their >decision because they didn't understand the issues and feel it would be a >miscarriage of justice to let the result stand. [Well that is their current >inclination, who knows tomorrow?]. > >My question: >Are there any grounds on which an appeal can be appealed? If so, how does >one go about it? You apply to the National Authority. L93C. >Who has the authority etc. >I have never seen such a procedure carried out but..... Appeals to the National Authority happen a few times a year in England. The only question [and one that should be stated explicitly somewhere] is whether your National authority is your state or country. Probably your country. The immediate thing to do is to contact the ABF to ask the procedure for a Law 93C appeal. -- 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 Mar 22 14:47:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA03469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:47:42 +1000 Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA03464 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:47:35 +1000 Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id PAA29207; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:46:49 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma029145; Mon, 22 Mar 99 15:46:39 +1100 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (sercit.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.36.71]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA15186 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:46:39 +1100 Received: from newmanpm by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA16308; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:48:57 +1100 Message-Id: <4.1.19990322153654.0093a660@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:46:10 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Re: Appeal of an appeal?? In-Reply-To: References: <4.1.19990322130133.009793e0@sercit> <4.1.19990322130133.009793e0@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >You apply to the National Authority. L93C. Apparently, the ABF (Australian Bridge Federation) decided in 1989 that our 'National Authority' for state events was the relevant state association. The NSWBA "Memo & Arts" basically say that if an appeals committee is properly constituted and there is no denial of Natural Justice then the decision is final. This seems pretty conclusive. [In the particular case at hand the discussion about whether a bid is an LA after a hesitation clearly does not fall into either of these categories.] Is this consistent with other worldwide views? Rgds, Peter Newman -- Peter Newman bridge is not a game - it is a way of life From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 14:52:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA03491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:52:14 +1000 Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA03486 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:52:09 +1000 Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id PAA01201; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:51:35 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma001020; Mon, 22 Mar 99 15:51:06 +1100 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (sercit.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.36.71]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA15347 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:51:05 +1100 Received: from newmanpm by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA16313; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:53:27 +1100 Message-Id: <4.1.19990322154937.0093ce40@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:50:40 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Re: Appeal of an appeal?? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter again: One further thing.... Who would have the right to take the appeal to the NA? Cheers, -- Peter Newman bridge is not a game - it is a way of life From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 17:15:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA03751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:15:25 +1000 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA03746 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:15:15 +1000 Received: from modem109.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.237] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10OyvR-0007tl-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 07:15:06 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 23:31:06 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ************************************************ he's always word-perfect, the s**, in composing the language of G**, but G** not infrequently swears it's only the meaning He hears, and though He forbears with the rod He does shed a bucket of tears. *********************************************** > From: David Burn > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI insurance > Date: 14 March 1999 04:12 > > On 13/03/99 at 22:00 Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > [snip of fascinating anecdote] > > No, they do not. The Laws specify only that "after a player has made > available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call > or play... the partner may not choose from among logical alternative > actions one that could *demonstrably* have been suggested over another > by the extraneous information". > > This means that "the partner" may not make his choice after extraneous > information has been made available to him. If, as is *demonstrably* > the case in the position under discussion, the partner has made his > choice before there was any possibility of any information being made > available to him at all - extraneous or otherwise - there is not, nor > can there conceivably be, any infraction of Law. +++ I do not buy this. The player has made a gratuitous comment (illegally, 74B2) to which he cannot be held. His actual choice of call is made, as the laws provide, at his turn.+++ > > I find this case most curious: those who wish to disallow the action > because they support "the Law as it is written" do not seem to have > read it. Instead, they seem to rely on the principle of "he who > hesitates is shot", whereas formerly they were among the most vehement > opponents of that admirable precept. ++++ Rather dismissive, David, and attacking me at an unassailable point; your attack - were it to be justified - would be upon my interpretation of what I have (often) read. The limitation upon the player's action is occasioned by the receipt of UI, no matter what else happens, and is by reference to the anticipated actions of his peers in a like position; what he would do is not the question. I do not say I have no sympathy for your view of what the law should be, but which to now it is not. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ p.s. can I buy shares in the UI Insurance Company, it seems to have developed a remarkable turnover? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 18:43:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA03865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:43:56 +1000 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 SAA03860 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:43:50 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990322084344.POXQ11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:43:44 -0800 Message-ID: <36F603C9.916341EA@home.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:48:09 -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: Bid what you would have anyway? References: <199903202047.OAA16146@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36f76fd3.919311@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > The arguments that UI insurance is legal seems primarily to be: > (a) The word "after" in L16A, combined with the fact that the > player has made and announced his choice before receiving the UI. > (b) The opinion that a call is not a LA if the player has stated > before he received the UI that he has no intention of making that > call. > > As for (a), Mike has pointed out that if it were a valid > argument, then it would also be a valid argument when a player > had made up his mind, but not told anybody, before the UI. To > me, that is a definitive argument that rules out (a). Accepting > (a) would mean accepting that the TD in general should judge > whether or not a player had made up his mind before receiving UI > - and that would be terrible. To avoid that terrible situation > we have to take the position that the choice of call occurs when > you call - not earlier. What am I missing here? Of course there is a difference. If he made up his mind but didn't tell anyone we'd have to take his word for it. L16 has been constructed so as to avoid having to do that. If however he *did* tell someone (his screenmate) he now has a witness and if the witness agrees to testify the TD need *not* attempt to judge - irrefutable proof is present (although this is somewhat theoretical since if the screenmate is prepared to testify the TD would not have been called in the first place - this is btw what I referred to in the other post, Jesper). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 19:35:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:35:17 +1000 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 TAA04005 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:35:12 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10P16v-0002SN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:35:05 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990322103328.007b3870@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:33:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Appeal of an appeal?? In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990322154937.0093ce40@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 15:50 22-03-99 +1100, you wrote: >Peter again: >One further thing.... >Who would have the right to take the appeal to the NA? according to L83, i think the AC (and the players who contest the appeal) can go to the NA. see 93B3. But, i think they shouldnt do it, in this case, it looks a bit like showing incompetence and lack of responsibility, unless something really weird is going on that wasnt known during the appeal. regards, anton > >Cheers, >-- >Peter Newman >bridge is not a game - it is a way of life > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 20:09:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 20:09:39 +1000 Received: from tungsten (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA04088 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 20:09:31 +1000 Received: from [212.140.23.69] (helo=david-burn) by tungsten with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10P1dm-0004o9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:09:03 +0000 Message-ID: <199903221008280700.02AE2CA5@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.00.00.12 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:08:28 +0000 Reply-To: dburn@btinternet.com From: "David Burn" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI insurance Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 21/03/99 at 23:31 Grattan wrote: >+++ I do not buy this. The player has made a gratuitous comment >(illegally, 74B2) to which he cannot be held. His actual choice of >call is made, as the laws provide, at his turn.+++ I would rather hate the notion that behind screens, I was not allowed to make comments to my screen mate because of Law 74B2. So would every other bridge player I know. The relaxed atmosphere that exists when screens are in use is one of their many benefits. But that is not the point. The question of whether a player may announce, following his call on the current round, that on the next round he will make such-and-such a call is a perfectly simple one. It has been obscured and obfuscated by the suggestion that he might change his mind and make some other call. Of course he might, and no doubt he would be severely dealt with if he did. But the original question had nothing to do with that - the problem concerned a player who did in fact make the call he said he was going to make, and the legality of those actions. To bar pre-announcements, "insurance" if you like, on the grounds that the player might not actually do what he said he would do is wholly specious. >++++ Rather dismissive, David, and attacking me at an unassailable >point; your attack - were it to be justified - would be upon my >interpretation of what I have (often) read. The limitation upon the >player's action is occasioned by the receipt of UI, no matter what >else happens, and is by reference to the anticipated actions of his >peers in a like position; what he would do is not the question. I do >not say I have no sympathy for your view of what the law should be, >but which to now it is not. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Of course a player's actions are conditioned by UI. But only if he receives some. If he has said "I will make call X on the next round no matter what", and when the next round arrives he makes call X, it is surely obvious that he has done so on the basis of AI already in his possession, and not on the basis of any information that he has received in the meantime. And if he has not acted on the basis of information, then he has not acted on the basis of unauthorised information. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 21:26:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 21:26:06 +1000 Received: from sand3.global.net.uk (sand3.global.net.uk [194.126.80.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA04301 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 21:25:56 +1000 Received: from pc2s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.195] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10P2q3-0000kj-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:25:48 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: A half-serious question Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:33:43 -0000 Message-ID: <01be7457$d75066e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE7457.D75066E0" 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_003B_01BE7457.D75066E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: dburn@btinternet.com Date: Monday, March 22, 1999 1:18 AM Subject: Re: A half-serious question Certainly, if your agreement is that this asks for an unusual lead. You = would like a Diamond lead. 7S freely bid is not afraid of a Heart lead. = If you have a trump trick it will always come. That leaves Diamonds and = Clubs. You do not know if the Diamond bids have been alerted on the = other side, but Clubs- the unbid suit is not what you want. Sure, it's = pairs, but two tricks will be better than one. Yes- it's a penalty = double but it does have a meaning that the opps. may not expect. (I = suspect that your RHO normally plays in a jurisdiction where bids above = 3NT are not alerted.) =20 Anne Very very sorry David. I forgot to readdress the original. -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, March 21, 1999 11:31 PM Subject: A half-serious question =20 =20 From the European Pairs (B final, obviously): =20 A6 KQJ432 None 87432 =20 Screens in use, you are with RHO. Two passes to you at game all, so = you choose 3H (perhaps foolishly). LHO bids 3S, partner 4H and RHO = fumbles with 4S before selecting 4NT (which he does not alert). Well, at = least that means you don't have to think about doubling 4S (would you?) = LHO bids 5D and RHO 5NT (which he does not alert). LHO bids 6D and RHO = 7S. It is obvious what has happened (for those to whom it isn't, = clarification will follow). Should you alert your double to RHO? >=20 =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE7457.D75066E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Anne Jones <eajewm@globalnet.co.uk>
= To:=20 dburn@btinternet.com = <dburn@btinternet.com>
D= ate:=20 Monday, March 22, 1999 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: A half-serious = question

Certainly, if your agreement is that this asks for = an unusual=20 lead. You would like a Diamond lead. 7S freely bid is not afraid of a = Heart=20 lead. If you have a trump trick it will always come. That leaves = Diamonds and=20 Clubs. You do not know if the Diamond bids have been alerted on the = other side,=20 but Clubs- the unbid suit is not what you want. Sure, it's pairs, but = two tricks=20 will be better than one. Yes- it's a penalty double but it does have a = meaning=20 that the opps. may not expect. (I suspect that your RHO normally plays = in a=20 jurisdiction  where bids above 3NT are not alerted.)
 
Anne
 
Very very sorry David. I forgot to readdress the=20 original.
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 David Burn <dburn@btinternet.com>
T= o:=20 bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 Sunday, March 21, 1999 11:31 PM
Subject: A = half-serious=20 question

From the European Pairs (B final, = obviously):
 
A6
KQJ432
None
87432
 
Screens in use, you are with RHO. Two passes to = you at=20 game all, so you choose 3H (perhaps foolishly). LHO bids 3S, partner = 4H and=20 RHO fumbles with 4S before selecting 4NT (which he does not alert). = Well, at=20 least that means you don't have to think about doubling 4S (would = you?) LHO=20 bids 5D and RHO 5NT (which he does not alert). LHO bids 6D and RHO = 7S. It is=20 obvious what has happened (for those to whom it isn't, clarification = will=20 follow). Should you alert your double to RHO?
>
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE7457.D75066E0-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 22:10:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 22:10:48 +1000 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 WAA04357 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 22:10:41 +1000 Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-019.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.211]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA49822 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:09:59 GMT Message-ID: <008301be745d$bde2f1e0$d3307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: UI Insurance Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:15:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: "Of course a player's actions are conditioned by UI. But only if he receives some. If he has said "I will make call X on the next round no matter what", and when the next round arrives he makes call X, it is surely obvious that he has done so on the basis of AI already in his possession, and not on the basis of any information that he has received in the meantime. And if he has not acted on the basis of information, then he has not acted on the basis of unauthorised information." I am with you up to here David but where I move into the other camp is in the fact that I cannot be forced to make call X at my next turn...I can reconsider...therefore I have logical alternatives. Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 23:06:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:56 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA04479 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:42 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10P4PT-000If7-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:06:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:04:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: An appeal - Butler Pairs major selection event References: <002901be6f89$7b66f420$561a25cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: >mmm more thoughts >should have read to bottom of mailbox before opening mouth >So - North a passed hand - I guess this makes pass of 3NT less >attractive - but >x >KQ10 >QJ9xx >Kxx > >or lots of hands with CA You show spades and a minor, and you have a hand with a few tricks. You are playing teams, and partner bids 3NT. What do you do? You put the dummy down. OK, pass of 3NT is an LA under anyone's guidelines. BUT you have a 12-count opposite a passed partner - are you confident? Probably not. So I do not think you will stand for 3NT *if it is doubled*. So when deciding how to adjust, you can consider 3NT-5, but not 3NT*-5. Suppose West does double 3NT, and it goes pass-pass-4C: what then? West is likely to bid 4D, pass, 5D maybe, all pass. North might even lead the club ace! Wahey! There are a lot of possibilities on this hand. I think the TD might have assigned NS-500 for both sides, but there are really a lot of ifs and buts, so it is not really likely enough a possibility to be considered "likely": "at all probable", maybe. What else? East could pass 4D, but South might bid 4S, and then East will bid 5D. Look, let's have another try, and use the Dybdal principle. When deciding whether an adjustment is "likely" or "at all probable" you do not just consider the frequency of the possibility but the total frequency of it and greater adjustments. Suppose we consider the frequency table to be: 3NT-5 -500 20% 5D= -400 20% 5D-1 +100 20% 4C +150 20% 5S*= +850 20% I think the TD should assign the Os [N/S] NS-500 because a score of 3NT-5 is "at all probable". He should assign the NOs [E/W] NS-400 because such a score is "likely" under the Dybdal principle, ie they are likely to get 400 or more [40% of the time]. I find assigning N/S a plus score pretty incredible though. If the AC does not have L12C3 then this adjustment is the same for them as well. What if L12C3 was available? Then I think an AC might give 25% -500, 25% -400, 25% +100, 25% +150 and apply it to both sides. >AND yet ....... I am a little perturbed by the double of 4S - unless >weak Twos downunder at favourable vulnerability always show enormous 9 >counts where does this come from ??? I wouldn't be certain of beating >six opposite my partner's usual HOS >(Is this a new acronym for David?) Not if I have no idea what an HOS is? Highly original shot? Partner's excuse for finding the almost double-dummy line which is the only one that fails? >Is there the hint of a double-shot here??? Do you really believe that? For there to be a double-shot then West must have a pretty good idea that a wheel has come off. I don't think he has any reason to believe so. With no reason to suspect a two- suiter, and the CK probably a trick, his double of 4S is not unreasonable for an aggressive player. After 5C most players would double: the opponents seem to be running, and the bidding with the wrong explanation *strongly* suggests that the CA is a trick. I do not believe that West's actions are "irrational, wild or gambling". -- 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 Mar 22 23:06:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:49 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 XAA04460 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:32 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10P4PR-000FQY-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:06:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:43:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) References: <199903192009.OAA18332@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199903192009.OAA18332@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: > And that's where we disagree. _I_ see no reason to believe that >all rules must be enforced in all circumstances, even when it is _obvious_ >that the harm they were designed to prevent cannot occur. This is the argument I most dislike: you are setting yourself up as a higher judge than the Lawmakers: they have got it wrong, and you are right. It may be _obvious_ to you, but it is certainly _not_ obvious to me. You do not know what the player will think next round: goodness, you do not *know* what he is thinking when he writes on his piece of paper. What happens in your deserted stopsign if you do not stop and run over a man lying in the road whom you could not see at the speed you were doing? You may say that if he had been lying elsewhere you would have run over him by accident and could not be held accountable: true, but irrelevant: you have still just killed a man because you decided that you knew better than the people who enforce the road regulations. [s] > In any case, a player who cannot understansd the difference >between a case where, from the perspective of the TD, a player _might_ >have been taking advantage of UI, and a case where everybody present knows >the player is not taking advantage of UI, cannot understand the difference >between an objective proceedure and an accusation of cheating. Why thankyou! I cannot see how it favours the game or anything else to rule in favour of someone who has invented a principle to circumvent the Laws. And let me be very clear about one thing: what a player writes on a piece of paper proves **nothing** about his thought processes one round later. ----------------------- Some of the posts on this subject are not connected to the real world. Let me quote an example from someone else. 1H 1S 4H 4S and the player shows his screenmate the double card: if 5H comes back he is doubling. What is he trying to do? The person who posed this position suggested we did not understand screens and that the procedure is fine. Of course it is fine where no-one is going to argue. Several things go on behind screens where players merely try to keep the game going in a reasonable way, and no-one is going to rule on this type of position without getting all the facts and finding out what really happened. But that does not mean that where a player is trying to circumvent the Laws that we should let him. In the examples quoted we do not expect a TD call, but the original case was a bit different. If it really is an attempt to circumvent UI then the opponent is unlikely to find it acceptable. Anything that he really finds acceptable is OK with me - and I will not be called anyway. So let us not go overboard on this. If a player is really trying to circumvent the Laws, quoting examples where he is not trying to is no help. -- 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 Mar 22 23:06:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:43 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 XAA04449 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:29 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10P4PO-000FQY-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:06:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:41:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <3.0.1.32.19990312180214.006bb468@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990313105200.006bf4d8@pop.mindspring.com> <36EAD2F7.69BEAF0D@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36EAD2F7.69BEAF0D@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >Maybe you misunderstood the situation? It was not a question of >*judging* those intentions and *accidentally* getting it right. We knew >*for a fact* what the intentions were, just as if we had a Camcorder in >the players head. For a fact? In your dreams! Of course we don't know it "for a fact"! Perhaps the player will not make the call judged on his opponent's reactions. We know that he has issued a non-binding an illegal message with the prime aim of subverting a Law. Suppose he writes on a piece of paper "I shall make sure that we reach a grand slam with my next call". His opponent gives a big smile, which it is legal for him to use ["mannerisms of opponents"] and he realises he must have an ace. So he signs off in small slam next time. Now what? All you know *for a fact* is that a player is using a procedure that is not permitted by the Laws of the game to try and gain an advantage. -- 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 Mar 22 23:06:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:58 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA04480 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:43 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10P4PT-000If6-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:06:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:41:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <9903111813.aa03244@flash.irvine.com> <199903121012430930.2D06B172@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199903121012430930.2D06B172@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >I agree that to consider the matter from the point of view of a >declaration by the player that he will have no LAs to his next call is >unhelpful; the question is not whether he has any, but whether there >are any. However, I see no difficulty with the notion that a player may >declare himself not able to receive UI since he already has all the >information he requires to make his next call. Of course, such a >declaration would require considerable reinforcement from the player's >system material, and a sceptic might well ask: "If you knew what your >next call would be, why did you not make that call instead of your >current one?". But in principle, it seems to me a legal way to proceed. Does this declaration of intent then give you the right to ignore the Laws of the game which are written on a different basis, namely analysis of situation by consideration of a player's peers? -- 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 Mar 22 23:06:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:47 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 XAA04462 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:33 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10P4PR-000FQX-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:06:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:42:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >At 10:35 AM +0100 15/3/99, David Burn wrote: >>Suppose a player has such as: >> >>AKxx xx xx AQxxx >> >>and sees 1S from partner on the bidding tray. He plans the sequence >>1S-2C- anything at all - 4S, because that is his system. So, he bids 2C >>and turns to his screenmate. "I need to go to the bathroom", he says. >>"When the tray comes back, would you mind bidding 4S for me?" Why are we considering this example? Has it any relevance? Consider two cases: [1] A player wishes to go to the bathroom urgently. [2] A player wishes to circumvent UI problems that can be foreseen. Which matter is suitable for BLML? -- 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 Mar 22 23:06:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:49 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 XAA04461 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:33 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10P4PO-000FQZ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:06:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:42:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <199903132223.RAA28267@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199903132223.RAA28267@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Adam Beneschan >[and others similarly...] >> I agree with David that the current Laws don't let you do what Jean >> suggested. I tried to find something in the Laws that would give the >> director the discretion not to adjust in a case like this, but I >> couldn't. And I think this is a flaw in the Laws, although maybe a >> small one. > >Let's look a little more carefully, shall we? > >First of all, Jean asked _literally_ whether it was permitted to pass a >note to one's screenmate. I trust none of us sees any prohibition >against that, at least in general. I suppose the contents of the note >could be deemed misleading or to violate some other law, but that's not >relevant here. Passing a note is not illegal. If you pass a note that says you want your screenmate to pass the water-jug there is nothing wrong per se. Passing a note with the deliberate intention of circumventing the Laws of bridge is illegal under L72A1 and other Laws. >Of course Jean's _real_ question was: if one passes a note stating what >one plans to do next, does that relieve the usual UI obligations? And >there is an implied question: if one passes a note and then does not >follow the intentions stated, is there a penalty? > >Let's deal with Jean's question first. I trust we all -- except for >David S. -- agree that there is no problem with L73C. That law says >the player must avoid taking advantage after UI, but if a player does >what he was always intending to do, how can he have taken advantage of >UI? Have you ever, in your whole life, changed your mind? Unless the player is deliberately cheating - and I am assuming he is ethical - then all we know is what he thinks at that moment. Why should he be thinking that at his next turn? "I will bid a grand slam next time." When the tray returns, partner has bid 6S and RHO has doubled. Is the player going to bid 7S? Of course there is a problem with L73C. The player is not trying to avoid using UI: he is trying to circumvent it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 22 23:06:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:57 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 XAA04482 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:42 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10P4PV-000FQX-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:06:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:44:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) References: <199903191705.MAA02626@cfa183.harvard.edu> <36F3610C.3977@elnet.msk.ru> <36F43F2A.D0EBBD24@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36F43F2A.D0EBBD24@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >Why on >earth would we attempt to define possible tableactions (LAs) by >*guessing* what a number of players who were *not* at the table and who >we've *not* interviewed might have done, or might have *considered* >doing, if we had irrefutable access to what actually went on in the mind >of the "perpetrator" ??? I don't know, but the premise did not occur here. We do not have "irrefutable evidence": we just know [assuming he is honest] what he intended at the time he wrote the note. I'll bet you have changed your mind at least once in your life! -- 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 Mar 22 23:06:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:42 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 XAA04450 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:06:29 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10P4PO-000FQX-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:06:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:40:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas wrote: >According to David Stevenson: >> >>John R. Mayne wrote: >> >>>But it clearly unjust to stop a player from making a bid he would >>>actually make 100% of the time. >> >> It is not "unjust" to make people play to the rules of the game. > >Oh, come on, David, you know that playing with screens >is different from playing without screens, whereas >the rules mainly cover playing without screens. > >I want to stir up a little confusion, though: > >Player A says to his screenmate that he'll >bid a grand slam at his next turn. >His partner, however, bids the small slam >at normal speed. Player A then puts a pass >on the tray. > >You are called to the table, because the screenmate >wants you to force player A to bid a grand slam. >What now? Well, you seem to have suspended the Laws of bridge in favour of some other game. Why not give him an ice-cream? The Laws of Bridge, and the Regulations in force, apply to players *even when screens are in use*. Admittedly some of those Regulations supersede the Laws [permitted under L80E]. The player's actions are in breach of Laws 72A1, 72A6, 72B1, 72B2, 73D2, 74A2, 74A3, 74B2 and 74C4. I apply a PP of a full top and report him to his National Authority for consideration of disciplinary action. -- 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 Mar 23 00:53:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:53:41 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 AAA06972 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:53:33 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10P64y-0004eO-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:53:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:05:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal of an appeal?? References: <4.1.19990322154937.0093ce40@sercit> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990322154937.0093ce40@sercit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: >Peter again: >One further thing.... >Who would have the right to take the appeal to the NA? Methods of appeal to an NA are for the NA to decide. We have not had such a case in England that I can remember but I feel we would at least look at a case brought by an AC member who now has substantial reason to believe the decision was wrong, and perhaps a TD. Anyway, we would consider it at the time. However, normally it would be a player. The EBU regulations from our Orange book are: 8.2 Appeals to the National Authority 8.2.1 These are settled by the Laws & Ethics Committee and must be submitted in writing to the Secretary of the Committee, enclosing a deposit - at the time of going to print - of 50 GBP. You should inform the TD of your intention to appeal, since the Committee may want information from him, as well as the comments of the Referee or the Appeals Committee which heard the original appeal. 8.2.2 No Appeal to the National Authority will be allowed if there was not a request for an appeal against the TD's ruling under Law 92A. (Law 93C) 8.2.3 The deposit will normally be returned only if the Laws & Ethics Committee considers the appeal to involve either a question of principle, an error of direction, or an error in the application of Law or Regulation. The Committee does not revise value judgements unless they are grossly inappropriate 8.2.4 The outcome of an appeal to the National Authority, or some other intervention by the Laws & Ethics Committee, will affect the result of a match in a knock-out competition only if the decision is made before the publication of the draw for the next round. -- 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 Mar 23 00:53:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:53:40 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA06973 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:53:33 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10P64y-0004GE-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:53:27 +0000 Message-ID: <9KKeTdBBVk92EwvI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:27:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <199903221008280700.02AE2CA5@mail.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199903221008280700.02AE2CA5@mail.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Of course a player's actions are conditioned by UI. But only if he >receives some. If he has said "I will make call X on the next round no >matter what", and when the next round arrives he makes call X, it is >surely obvious that he has done so on the basis of AI already in his >possession, and not on the basis of any information that he has >received in the meantime. It is not obvious at all. It will merely be the case in a high proportion of cases. He may have changed his mind twice for all you 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 Tue Mar 23 01:07:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:07:21 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA07039 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:07:12 +1000 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 PAA23167 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:06:34 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 PAA27425 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:05:04 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990322160651.007d0670@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:06:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: A half-serious question In-Reply-To: <199903212249250620.0040641A@mail.btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 22:49 21/03/99 +0000, David Burn wrote: > From the European Pairs (B final, obviously): > A6 KQJ432 None 87432 >Screens in use, you are with RHO. Two passes to you at game all, so you >choose 3H (perhaps foolishly). LHO bids 3S, partner 4H and RHO fumbles >with 4S before selecting 4NT (which he does not alert). Well, at least >that means you don't have to think about doubling 4S (would you?) LHO bids >5D and RHO 5NT (which he does not alert). LHO bids 6D and RHO 7S. It is >obvious what has happened (for those to whom it isn't, clarification will >follow). Should you alert your double to RHO? > I think nobody could know better than you (and maybe your partner) what your agreements are in this situation, and whether you have anything to alert. Incidentally, why do you show your hand? Does anybody think it could be relevant with the question you ask? 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 Mar 23 01:28:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:28:09 +1000 Received: from neodymium (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA07066 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:28:03 +1000 Received: from [212.140.7.76] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10P6aX-0006TU-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:26:01 +0000 Message-ID: <001001be7478$8f772400$4c078cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <9903111813.aa03244@flash.irvine.com><199903121012430930.2D06B172@mail.btinternet.com> Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:27:55 -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 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson To: Sent: 22 March 1999 12:41 Subject: Re: UI insurance > Does this declaration of intent then give you the right to ignore the > Laws of the game which are written on a different basis, namely analysis > of situation by consideration of a player's peers? I'm not sure I know which Law requires such analysis. There are, perhaps, regulations which say that, in an attempt to provide guidance as to how the Law is to be applied in situations where it is not clear whether the player himself has made use of UI. But in this case, there appears to me sufficient evidence that UI has not been used, to render that guidance unnecessary. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 01:31:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:31:57 +1000 Received: from neodymium (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA07093 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:31:50 +1000 Received: from [212.140.7.76] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10P6eD-0000H9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:29:49 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01be7479$176df6e0$4c078cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:31:43 -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 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: 22 March 1999 12:42 Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) > Mark Abraham wrote: > >At 10:35 AM +0100 15/3/99, David Burn wrote: > >>Suppose a player has such as: > >> > >>AKxx xx xx AQxxx > >> > >>and sees 1S from partner on the bidding tray. He plans the sequence > >>1S-2C- anything at all - 4S, because that is his system. So, he bids 2C > >>and turns to his screenmate. "I need to go to the bathroom", he says. > >>"When the tray comes back, would you mind bidding 4S for me?" > > Why are we considering this example? Has it any relevance? > > Consider two cases: > [1] A player wishes to go to the bathroom urgently. > [2] A player wishes to circumvent UI problems that can be foreseen. > > Which matter is suitable for BLML? Oh, stop being so pompous. The point I was trying to illustrate is that in the case under discussion, no information - authorised or otherwise - has been transmitted or can be transmitted to a player who already knows what his next call will be. You continue not to address this elementary issue, for reasons best known to yourself, which is fine. But it was you who suggested that the opinions of others should be treated with respect, even though you may disagree with them. A phrase containing the words "practise" and "preach" comes to mind. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 02:14:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 02:14:37 +1000 Received: from sand3.global.net.uk (sand3.global.net.uk [194.126.80.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA07379 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 02:14:29 +1000 Received: from p73s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.116] helo=pacific) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10P7LI-0005VB-00; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:14:21 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01be747f$005399a0$748d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:59:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 22 March 1999 10:41 Subject: Re: UI insurance >On 21/03/99 at 23:31 Grattan wrote: > >>+++ I do not ..... > >But that is not the point. >>++++ Rather dismissive, David,..... > >Of course a player's actions are conditioned by UI. But only if he >receives some. If he has said "I will make call X on the next round no >matter what", and when the next round arrives he makes call X, it is >surely obvious that he has done so on the basis of AI already in his >possession, and not on the basis of any information that he has >received in the meantime. And if he has not acted on the basis of >information, then he has not acted on the basis of unauthorised >information. > +++ But "acting on the basis of unauthorised information " is not the relevant question.. The question is whether the chosen call is more suggested by the UI than another, logical alternative, call. Or at least, this is the question the law puts; it does not raise the question of the player's motivation or the basis on which the player makes the call. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 03:14:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:15 +1000 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 DAA07544 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:13:59 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-228.uunet.be [194.7.13.228]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA14578 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:13:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36F6696A.2EEDBADE@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:01:46 +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: Bid what you would have anyway? References: <3.0.1.32.19990319232637.006bd778@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > do so he would be "choosing from logical alternatives....". Your LHO makes > a bid in a competitive auction which you immediately know you plan to hit, > but good ol' pard takes a sweet 20 seconds to find the green card, in a > situation where his hesitation could only point to a double. You know for a > fact what you were going to do, but you also know that some players in your > situation might see the hand differently. Is it legal to double, knowing > that your action won't survive close scrutiny by a TD or AC, if it comes to > that? > > I was under the impression that we all agreed that it is not, i.e., that > the language of L16 is not simply a formula for officials to use in > adjudicating UI situations but a real honest-to-God rule which we are all > obliged to follow. I have been involved (in other forums) in this debate, > even on the other side of it in my younger days, but understood that the > silence greeting DWS's defense of this proposition earlier in this thread > indicated agreement. > I am a firm believer that the term logical alternative must be applied to the player in question only. Therefor I do not believe it is wrong to "bid what you would have bid anyway". However, it may well be quite difficult to prove to a TD and AC that this is in fact the case. Peer action is only a guide to determining LA's, not a definition of them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 03:14:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:16 +1000 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 DAA07546 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:00 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-228.uunet.be [194.7.13.228]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA14607 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:13:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36F66A5B.8EC99E3C@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:05:47 +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: Equity in Teams event. References: <002801be6fe1$57da4680$ae1915cb@bucksvoyager.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mary Buckland wrote: > > > The AC (which included me) decided that 4H was a difficult contract - east, > the hand sitting over dummy, > had AKxx in hearts and declarerer is in difficulty if east plays a diamond > each time he/she is in with trumps. > Making 70 looked like a good score. E/W were *deprived* of taking Bruce > light because of the directors error > and were thus deprived of a matching good score. > > Happy to read people's comments, and happy to concede an error on our part, > if in fact we did make an error. > After all that's why most of us belong to (usually lurk, for me) BLML - to > improve our directing. It was the first time I had come across > "director's error" in a team event, and we applied L82C as we thought it was > written. > Welcome to the list Mary, I do not believe the AC made an error in ruling the board unplayable. I do believe that the "usual" methods of calculation are at fault here, and this make it part of a bigger issue. Thanks for handing us this piece of example! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 03:14:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:20 +1000 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 DAA07558 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:03 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-228.uunet.be [194.7.13.228]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA14628 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:13:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36F66B35.21053955@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:09:25 +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: Equity in Teams event. References: <199903162028.PAA00484@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > There's a really interesting question lurking here, and I don't think > I've ever seen it addressed. > > To recap, a TD's error has forced NS to play in 1D. The AC is obliged > to correct under L82C, considering both sides non-offending. > > Under L12C2, the AC should award the best score that is likely, _had > the irregularity not occurred_. In this case, the irregularity is the > wrong TD ruling. Suppose the AC is convinced that the only likely > outcome of the deal, given a correct ruling, is for NS to reach 4H and > go down one on bad breaks. Should they assign -50/+50 _even though > this is a worse result for NS than the "at the table" score_? > > I believe the answer is "yes" because the "at the table" score was one > in conflict with the Laws and therefore not to be allowed. In effect, > it never could have existed but for an erroneous ruling by the TD. But > I am not at all sure of this opinion (uncharacteristically for me!), > and I'd like someone to confirm or refute it. > > Any takers? Steve is absolutely right ! The strange result of +70 is strange no matter what the normal result is. We should never look at these things just in the light of who is declaring. If the normal result is -100, then the +70 must be corrected downwards. After all, isn't that just upwards for opponents. When a result is changed, it will almost always be downwards for one side, isn't it? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 03:14:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:29 +1000 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 DAA07569 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:10 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-228.uunet.be [194.7.13.228]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA14639 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:13:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36F66D83.BBCEDA4B@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:19:15 +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: Return home References: <6EOnwdA5Ha92EwP8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Nobody should ask Sergei how he got on .... :) > Sergei got on the Appeal Committee ! There were just three of us, and when one appeal had an italian pair on, that left us with only two. I went out to look for someone and found the chief TD of the RBF, so he joined us. After that appeal, he wanted to leave, but I said, wait, there may be more Italians out there. There weren't, but there was a Belgian pair ! So Sergei got to handle a second appeal. Steen Moller was happy with Sergei's contribution. Oh, and about how Sergei got on, ... he did make it to the B-final, something that 190 other pairs failed to do ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 03:14:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:32 +1000 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 DAA07575 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:15 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-228.uunet.be [194.7.13.228]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA14645 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:14:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36F66FDF.72C49DA1@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:29:19 +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: UI insurance References: <3.0.5.32.19990311111225.007b5650@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > > As I recall his note read only "I'm going" and was written after Larry had > already tanked for a bit. Given his hand I couldn't figure out why Marty > thought that he should bid a grand. The auction had started something like > 1S (4H) 5H. It was written up in The Bridge World so it shouldn't be hard > to track down. > > > As to my opininon on the matter in hand, I agree (for once?) with DWS. The > law is what it is. One cannot circumvent it by passing notes. While there > is no automatic penalty for bidding out of tempo, the particular penalty > prescribed by the Laws is described in Law 16A. A player who can sign off > in tempo has made a better bridge action than a player who signs off out of > tempo, even though he's made the same call, and the Laws specify that the > differing actions may have different consequences. > Hello again Adam, long time no read ! You are using an example that is slightly flawed. As you say "tanked a bit", so there is already some form of UI present. It shall alway be up to TD and AC to judge as to the validity of the proof that is being offered, and passing notes is just one such proof. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 03:14:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:35 +1000 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 DAA07583 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:18 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-228.uunet.be [194.7.13.228]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA14655 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:14:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36F67596.F0DCDD7C@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:53:42 +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: UI insurance (longish rant) References: <199903192009.OAA18332@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > This is the argument I most dislike: you are setting yourself up as a > higher judge than the Lawmakers: they have got it wrong, and you are > right. It may be _obvious_ to you, but it is certainly _not_ obvious to > me. You do not know what the player will think next round: goodness, > you do not *know* what he is thinking when he writes on his piece of > paper. > > Why thankyou! I cannot see how it favours the game or anything else > to rule in favour of someone who has invented a principle to circumvent > the Laws. And let me be very clear about one thing: what a player > writes on a piece of paper proves **nothing** about his thought > processes one round later. > But you do know something about his thought processes from before he had UI. It all boils down to the definition of LA. A player who pre-announces his bids proves by that action that he has no LA's in the next round. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 03:14:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:39 +1000 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 DAA07592 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:23 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-228.uunet.be [194.7.13.228]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA14677 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:14:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36F67881.226792CF@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:06:09 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: I'm back Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As you can see from my flood of messages, I'm also back from Warszawa, and I've had a great time. Didn't see anything of the city, was cooped up in a Stalinesk building and a Pepsi hotel all the time, sat on 29 appeals (minus two when we did manage to get two committee's at the same time), and wrote them all up. The bulletin managed to print just 10, and they are already on the swiss site. I have all the others with me, and have already given a copy to David, who has promised to go over them and throw out my stupid errors (which no doubt I will have made). After that, I will mail them to Switzerland (what is that address again?) and then you can judge for yourselves how we did. I don't think there are many controversial decisions, though. I am surprised to learn that no-one on the list picked up the story I had posted in the bulletin - did it not make the internet version - about how David managed to have a ruling and an appeal within his first half an hour as a European TD. Must be some kind of record. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 03:14:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:40 +1000 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 DAA07590 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:21 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-228.uunet.be [194.7.13.228]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA14659 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:14:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36F6772F.FC3FA377@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:00:31 +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: Equity in Teams event. References: <36EDF590.720A@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B A Small wrote: > [snip about how director got it wrong] > +420 and a team gain of +620 brings us back to a 15-15 draw. At appeal > the committee agreed the director made a bad call but felt it was now > impossible to compare scores so neutralised the board and gave each team > 3imps. No comment really about Committee decision. I don't want to argue whether or not the hand is unplayable or not, but I do want to use this fine example to show you that the way an artificially adjusted score is calculated in team play is WRONG. By cancelling the board at Bruce's table, and using this method of calculation on this board, the AC has now also cancelled the result at the other table of the match. +70 is obviously a bad score and should be upped to "something". But the -200 at the other table is a great result for Bruce's team and should always count in the final analysis. That is why I advocate that in Team Play, when the AC decides to use 12C2, it should always assign +3IMPs (to both sides) over some reference score, which it should also decide upon. There are some ways of doing this, but I feel that in a case like this, putting it at 50% of a part score in spades, and 50% of a game, both making 10 tricks, seems a logical thing to do. That would be 395. I have also once stated that I would then add the 3IMS by way of first adding 100 points, but I will take just 95 when the average has done. I feel an equitable result to be : - for Bruce's team : +490+200 = +690 => +12 IMPs - for the opponents: -300-200 = -500 => -11 IMPs If you care to change the number of 50% (in the calculation of 50%x620 + 50%x170 = 395) to better fit the hand, go right ahead. But a calculation that disregards the result at the other table is IMO quite wrong. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 03:14:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:41 +1000 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 DAA07597 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:14:25 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-228.uunet.be [194.7.13.228]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA14688 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:14:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36F67894.D7CAEF7E@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:06:28 +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: Equity in Teams event. References: <199903151730.MAA16797@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > Following these guidelines, if the committee could not determine a > reasonable score, then average-plus for your side is the table result of > +7 (since the committee has not ruled that +420 was likely), and > average-plus for the opponents is the best reasonable score of -4. > While David's attempts have the right idea behind them, I do not think it is correct to use L12C1 adjustments with both sides non-offenders. While it keeps both teams happy (how many IMPs have you awarded in total, David : +7?), this cannot be the correct way to go. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 03:25:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:25:10 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07688 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:25:00 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20765 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:21:03 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199903221721.LAA20765@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: UI insurance To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:21:03 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Passing a note is not illegal. If you pass a note that says you want > your screenmate to pass the water-jug there is nothing wrong per se. > > Passing a note with the deliberate intention of circumventing the Laws > of bridge is illegal under L72A1 and other Laws. 'Circumventing the Laws of bridge' may be an accurate literal rendering of what is happening here, but it is surely misleading. For example, when bidding and playing I try to avoid looking at my partner's face, to reduce the chance of receiving UI from his facial expressions. Would you say that I am deliberately trying to circumvent the Laws by trying to avoid receiving UI? You act as if the player involved has some sort of nefarious intentions, when in fact it seems far more likely to me that his intentions are quite good. You are free to argue that his methods are illegal under L16 [I think arguing against him under L73 would be stretching the letter of the law past the breaking point], and I think your argument is a reasonable one {though I am not convinced}. But I think that the player is _at worst_ guilty of a technical illegality while seeking a reasonable goal which actually _accords_ with the goals of the Laws. We should reserve the phrase 'circumventing the Laws' for bridge-lawyering that tries to derive some truly underhanded sort of advantage. > >Let's deal with Jean's question first. I trust we all -- except for > >David S. -- agree that there is no problem with L73C. That law says > >the player must avoid taking advantage after UI, but if a player does > >what he was always intending to do, how can he have taken advantage of > >UI? > > Have you ever, in your whole life, changed your mind? Unless the > player is deliberately cheating - and I am assuming he is ethical - then > all we know is what he thinks at that moment. Why should he be thinking > that at his next turn? > > "I will bid a grand slam next time." When the tray returns, partner > has bid 6S and RHO has doubled. Is the player going to bid 7S? > > Of course there is a problem with L73C. The player is not trying to > avoid using UI: he is trying to circumvent it. I tell my screenmate "I going on to 6S even if partner signs off in 5". Partner signs off in 5, after a hesitation. I bid 6S. Are you seriously arguing that I am taking advantage of UI? Are you, in fact, arguing that my statement to my screenmate was an attempt to take advantage of UI I didn't even have, by announcing what I was going to bid anyway? Argue if you like that bidding 6S still violates L16, and so is an illegal method of trying to avoid taking advantage of UI. But you will never convince me that it is an attempt to take advantage of UI, absent some specific evidence that this player is a most terrible sort of cheater, which you and I agree we should not assume at the outset. > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 03:29:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:29:36 +1000 Received: from neodymium (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07706 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:29:26 +1000 Received: from [212.140.16.241] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10P8U0-0006gn-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:27:25 +0000 Message-ID: <001101be7489$84497220$f1108cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.5.32.19990322160651.007d0670@phedre.meteo.fr> Subject: Re: A half-serious question Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:29:17 -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 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort To: Sent: 22 March 1999 15:06 Subject: Re: A half-serious question > At 22:49 21/03/99 +0000, David Burn wrote: > > From the European Pairs (B final, obviously): > > A6 KQJ432 None 87432 > >Screens in use, you are with RHO. Two passes to you at game all, so you > >choose 3H (perhaps foolishly). LHO bids 3S, partner 4H and RHO fumbles > >with 4S before selecting 4NT (which he does not alert). Well, at least > >that means you don't have to think about doubling 4S (would you?) LHO bids > >5D and RHO 5NT (which he does not alert). LHO bids 6D and RHO 7S. It is > >obvious what has happened (for those to whom it isn't, clarification will > >follow). Should you alert your double to RHO? > > > I think nobody could know better than you (and maybe your partner) what > your agreements are in this situation, and whether you have anything to alert. > Incidentally, why do you show your hand? Does anybody think it could be > relevant with the question you ask? > > JP Rocafort Not really, but I am not a great fan of questions about a specific auction where hands aren't given. Call me fussy in that respect, if you like. Certainly we play Lightner slam doubles, and these are an alertable convention in Europe (there is much case law on the subject). The reason my question was only half-serious is that I know the answer. But my thoughts at the time were along these lines: "If I double and alert, then my RHO will continue to believe that his partner has four key cards and an extra king, and that the opening lead against 7S will be ruffed. So, he will bid 7NT, and I know that this will go more down than 7S. Perhaps he will then complain that my double caused him to go for 1700 in 7NT instead of, perhaps, 500 in 7S. Maybe, then, the sporting thing to do is not to alert - that way, RHO will realise that the wheels are off and they may stop in 7S." Well, I doubled and alerted anyway, are sure enough, RHO removed to 7NT. I did not alert my double of that, led the king of hearts, and scored 1700. I wondered if the opponents were going to complain, but they were both too busy laughing! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 03:36:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:36:16 +1000 Received: from tungsten (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07727 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:36:07 +1000 Received: from [212.140.16.241] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10P8by-0001Bw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:35:39 +0000 Message-ID: <001901be748a$73672140$f1108cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000c01be747f$005399a0$748d93c3@pacific> Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:35:59 -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 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: 22 March 1999 15:59 Subject: Re: UI insurance > > > +++ But "acting on the basis of unauthorised information " > is not the relevant question.. The question is whether the > chosen call is more suggested by the UI than another, > logical alternative, call. Or at least, this is the question > the law puts; it does not raise the question of the player's > motivation or the basis on which the player makes the > call. ~ Grattan ~ +++ I grant all of that. But for there to be UI, there must first be I. If a player's partner sits and thinks for ages, that does not in itself communicate any information at all. There is, of course, the strong inference that the partner has a problem, and in the vast majority of cases this knowledge alone may constitute information that is unauthorised. But if I am going to bid 4S, or 7S, or whatever at my next turn regardless of anything that happens between now and its becoming my next turn, then nothing that happens in that intervening period can provide me with any information additional to that which I already possess. To think is not a crime. To draw inferences from the fact that your partner has thought, and to act on those inferences, is an infraction of Law. But to bid without drawing such inferences, to act solely in accordance with your system or with the AI that you already possess, is not and can never be an infraction of Law. Or at least, if it can, then perhaps it is time I gave up the game. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 03:54:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:54:50 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07774 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:54:44 +1000 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA29039 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:54:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:54:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903221754.MAA17379@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <01be7457$d75066e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> (eajewm@globalnet.co.uk) Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones writes: > David Burn writes: >> Should you alert your double to RHO? > Certainly, if your agreement is that this asks for an unusual lead. > You would like a Diamond lead. 7S freely bid is not afraid of a Heart lead. Is the Lightner double alertable in Europe? I know that it was officially ruled in the Albuquerque World Championships that the Lightner double was not alertable, and the pair which filed an appeal based on an unalerted Lightner double was penalized for an appeal without merit. (Whether it's alertable or not, it's unlikely that damage can result from failing to alert it, since it's a standard convention.) -- 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 Mar 23 03:56:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:56:45 +1000 Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07789 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:56:38 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n7d.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.125]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA15176 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:55:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990322125205.0081faf0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:52:05 -0500 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <000c01be747f$005399a0$748d93c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:59 PM 3/22/99 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+++ But "acting on the basis of unauthorised information " >is not the relevant question.. The question is whether the >chosen call is more suggested by the UI than another, >logical alternative, call. Or at least, this is the question >the law puts; it does not raise the question of the player's >motivation or the basis on which the player makes the >call. ~ Grattan ~ +++ How can a call which is decided upon before UI is available be based upon that UI? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 04:38:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 04:38:20 +1000 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA07935 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 04:38:13 +1000 Received: from ip152.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.152]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990322183806.VTVL17403.fep4@ip152.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:38:06 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: blml Subject: Re: Bid what you would have anyway? Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:38:05 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36f78dac.3323048@post12.tele.dk> References: <199903202047.OAA16146@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36f76fd3.919311@post12.tele.dk> <36F603C9.916341EA@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36F603C9.916341EA@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 Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:48:09 -0800, Jan Kamras wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >> As for (a), Mike has pointed out that if it were a valid >> argument, then it would also be a valid argument when a player >> had made up his mind, but not told anybody, before the UI. To >> me, that is a definitive argument that rules out (a). Accepting >> (a) would mean accepting that the TD in general should judge >> whether or not a player had made up his mind before receiving UI >> - and that would be terrible. To avoid that terrible situation >> we have to take the position that the choice of call occurs when >> you call - not earlier. > >What am I missing here? Of course there is a difference. If he made up >his mind but didn't tell anyone we'd have to take his word for it. L16 >has been constructed so as to avoid having to do that. If however he >*did* tell someone (his screenmate) he now has a witness and if the >witness agrees to testify the TD need *not* attempt to judge - >irrefutable proof is present (although this is somewhat theoretical >since if the screenmate is prepared to testify the TD would not have >been called in the first place - this is btw what I referred to in the >other post, Jesper). There is quite strong evidence that he had made up his mind beforehand, and thus did not take advantage of UI. There is not quite definitive proof - perhaps he would have changed his mind without the UI. But the point is that the question of whether UI was actually used is, and should be, irrelevant. If we were to accept that the question of whether or not he actually took advantage of the UI is relevant at all, then we have completely ruined L16A's careful avoidance of that question. If you say "He said beforehand that he'd bid 7S, so I do not adjust the score" in such a case because you accept the fairly good evidence that he had decided beforehand, then you also have to not adjust the score whenever some other type of reliable evidence shows that he had made up his mind beforehand. I know lots of players who I would believe absolutely if they simply told me that they were certain that they had made up their minds before receiving UI. When such a reliable person does so, then I have evidence that is at least as convincing as in a UI insurance case that he had decided beforehand and therefore did not use UI. Should I then not adjust? And if I choose to adjust against a player who said (afterwards) that he had made up his mind beforehand, then I would implicitly be ruling that his word was less reliable evidence than the UI insurance statement: in other words, I'd effectively be calling the players liars. That is exactly what L16A carefully does not require us to do. In slightly different words: when you accept the UI insurance statement as evidence that a player had made up his mind beforehand and use this to determine your ruling, then you have decided that it is relevant to judge at what time he made up his mind. And if that is relevant at all, then you have to judge it in every case. And that is exactly what we cannot do without seriously upsetting people who will (quite reasonably) feel that they are being accused of lying when you tell them that their word is not sufficient evidence. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 04:57:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 04:57:31 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 EAA08006 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 04:57:25 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10P9sq-0006OX-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:57:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:33:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) References: <001b01be7479$176df6e0$4c078cd4@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001b01be7479$176df6e0$4c078cd4@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >> Why are we considering this example? Has it any relevance? >> >> Consider two cases: >> [1] A player wishes to go to the bathroom urgently. >> [2] A player wishes to circumvent UI problems that can be foreseen. >> >> Which matter is suitable for BLML? > >Oh, stop being so pompous. The point I was trying to illustrate is >that in the case under discussion, no information - authorised or >otherwise - has been transmitted or can be transmitted to a player who >already knows what his next call will be. You continue not to address >this elementary issue, for reasons best known to yourself, which is >fine. But it was you who suggested that the opinions of others should >be treated with respect, even though you may disagree with them. A >phrase containing the words "practise" and "preach" comes to mind. Okay, sorry, i will discuss going to the bathroom. If you go to the bathroom, and when you come back you have no UI, then you are not constrained by any UI Laws. What have I missed? -- 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 Mar 23 05:05:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 05:05:36 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA08037 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 05:05:30 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA19080 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:01:44 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199903221901.NAA19080@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:01:44 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Grant wrote: > > > And that's where we disagree. _I_ see no reason to believe that > >all rules must be enforced in all circumstances, even when it is _obvious_ > >that the harm they were designed to prevent cannot occur. > > This is the argument I most dislike: you are setting yourself up as a > higher judge than the Lawmakers: they have got it wrong, and you are > right. It may be _obvious_ to you, but it is certainly _not_ obvious to > me. You do not know what the player will think next round: goodness, > you do not *know* what he is thinking when he writes on his piece of > paper. I think it is the job of AC's [and perhaps TD's] to determine how the laws apply to the individual cases that come to their attention. In other words, they must interpret the laws, in order to achieve the goal of "redress for damage" or equity. I think, further, that here on BLML we do a similar thing. I am not putting myself up as an authority higher than the Lawmakers--I am saying that making and applying/interpreting the Laws are two different things, in bridge as in political life [where we have legislators _and_ judges]. If you tell me that you intend to bid 6S even over a signoff, and your partner signs off, and you proceed to 6S just as you said, then I do not believe that I have been damaged. {Yes, there is the remote possibility that you are a liar and in fact intend to pass over a fast signoff and bid over a slow one, and the even remoter possibility that you were so sure you were going to bid 6S that you told me about it in advance, but had the signoff been fast you would have undergone a change of heart and passed, but I will not worry about the former absent significant outside evidence {such as your having said this before and then passed} and I will not worry about the latter at all--it is simply so unlikely as to not be worth bothering about, just as I do not bother worrying about whether opponents took advantage of UI when they make a 95% bid that UI suggested.} Since the Laws are designed to provide redress for damage, I do not think the Laws require restitution in this case. If Grant Sterling the player really does appeal this case to an AC, then Grant Sterling the judge will interpret L16 and L73 in the light of "The Scope" and sensible English [or American :)] reading of phrases such as "avoid taking advantage", and rule against him. Again, you might convince me that that ruling is incorrect on the grounds of L16, but I am not granting myself some new super-legal authority. > What happens in your deserted stopsign if you do not stop and run over > a man lying in the road whom you could not see at the speed you were > doing? You may say that if he had been lying elsewhere you would have > run over him by accident and could not be held accountable: true, but > irrelevant: you have still just killed a man because you decided that > you knew better than the people who enforce the road regulations. But, again, the example is designed to present a case where one _knows_ that there will be no damage from an inherently-neutral infraction, and so the minute you introduce damage you change the case. There will be nothing that I would ever call damage if I am certain I am about to bid 6S over a signoff, state this publicly, and I then bid 6S over a signoff. > [s] > > > In any case, a player who cannot understansd the difference > >between a case where, from the perspective of the TD, a player _might_ > >have been taking advantage of UI, and a case where everybody present knows > >the player is not taking advantage of UI, cannot understand the difference > >between an objective proceedure and an accusation of cheating. > > Why thankyou! I cannot see how it favours the game or anything else > to rule in favour of someone who has invented a principle to circumvent > the Laws. And let me be very clear about one thing: what a player > writes on a piece of paper proves **nothing** about his thought > processes one round later. I think you are far too harsh in this case, compared to your position in other cases. In other cases you have emphasized that a player's testimony about his thoughts and intentions should not be discarded simply because it may seem self-serving, and you have argued that we should not assume players are liars or cheats. Yet now you say that if I am so certain of my next bid that I am willing to announce it to an opponent in advance, this proves **nothing** about what I will be bidding one round later. I am not merely quibbling about "nothing"--I would not be happy with "Virtually nothing" or "very little". I would say that a player, presumed {as usual} to be honest, who is that certain of his bid in round n will virtually always favor the same bid in round n+1. I would say that this level of continuity is far higher than, for example, the level required to rule another bid not to be a LA. In any case, in this paragraph I was reponding to the claim that we should rule against the UI-insured party on the grounds that ruling in his favor would confuse players about their legal obligations in UI cases. I simply do not see this as a likely danger. > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 05:07:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 05:07:53 +1000 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-001.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA08054 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 05:07:47 +1000 Received: from tntrasp18-109.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.109] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Mon, 22 Mar 1999 20:04:05 +0100 (MET) From: "LORMANT Philippe" To: , , Subject: Re: Mark Twain Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:59:04 +0100 Message-ID: <01be7496$0e3f52e0$6dcafcc1@lormant> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by wanadoo.fr id UAA05592 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De : Marvin L. French =C0 : Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date : jeudi 11 mars 1999 21:43 Objet : Mark Twain >Laval Dubreuil wrote: >> >> ---------- >> De : DuBreuil, Laval >> Date d'envoi : 11 mars, 1999 10:51 >> A : bridge /mime (bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk) >> Objet : RE: Is this a claim? >> ---------- >> LORMANT Philippe wrote: >> >> > >> > Kiss all people you >love, >> >> Is this a claim? Or a desire... >> >> The ones I want to won't let me, and I don't want to get >too >> much fur >> in my mouth! >> >> -- >> David Stevenson >> + >> >> Far away from my original posting....that generates near by >100 >> messages... >> I will be shy next time I post. >> >> Thx all > >Many of us have been guilty too often of not changing the subject >line when we diverge from a thread. I resolve to do better! > >I believe this is the right version of the *bon mot* that has been >quoted recently: > >"The report of my death has been greatly exaggerated" > >-- Mark Twain, in a cable from Europe to the Associated Press, who >evidently had reported his death. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > Oh, Marvin it's not a claim or a desire, only a wish, perhaps an homa= ge. Probably you knew a singer whose name was Jacques Brel. Jacques, finished ( ended ?), his private mail with the french saying: " Embrasse ceux que tu aimes ". Perhaps my poor translation into English is ambiguous? If this were so, = I am sorry. But we are far from Bridge Laws... > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 06:07:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:07:21 +1000 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 GAA08148 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:07:14 +1000 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-158-184.lsan.grid.net [207.205.158.184]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA31347 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:07:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36F6A31A.9A49B5FE@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:07:54 -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 Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) References: <199903192009.OAA18332@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36F67596.F0DCDD7C@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > This is the argument I most dislike: you are setting yourself up as a > > higher judge than the Lawmakers: they have got it wrong, and you are > > right. It may be _obvious_ to you, but it is certainly _not_ obvious to > > me. You do not know what the player will think next round: goodness, > > you do not *know* what he is thinking when he writes on his piece of > > paper. > > > > Why thankyou! I cannot see how it favours the game or anything else > > to rule in favour of someone who has invented a principle to circumvent > > the Laws. And let me be very clear about one thing: what a player > > writes on a piece of paper proves **nothing** about his thought > > processes one round later. > > > But surely it is evidence, and strong evidence at that. Last time I tried to get off a bank robbery charge, I explained that I wrote the hold-up note and brought the loaded weapon, but I really had no intention of robbing the bank, and such things prove **nothing** about my thought processes after I entered the bank. Also, no one is setting themselves at a higher plane than the lawmakers. We read the laws differently. And, with the reasoned opinions on both sides, I can't see accusing a player who tried this of wrongdoing. You can argue that it should not be an overriding factor in a L16 analysis, but it's hard to see how the player was trying to break the laws -- it appears he was trying to follow an interpretation that many of us have. --JRM "Always respect your peers. If you have any." -- Twain (I think.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 08:24:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:24:29 +1000 Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA08581 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:24:25 +1000 Received: from salsa (salsa.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.112]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA28204 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:24:18 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990323102443.00968630@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:24:43 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Mea culpa (archive request.) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ok, So last time someone mentioned where "bridge-laws" is archived I thought "Neat, but I won't need it" and forgot to write it down. Now of course I need it. Help? Michael --------------------------------------------------------- Michael H. Albert Ph: (64)-03-479-7778 Senior Teaching Fellow Fax: (64)-03-479-8427 Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 08:40:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:40:22 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA08637 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:40:13 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10PDMc-0000YS-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 22:40:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 22:28:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <199903221721.LAA20765@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199903221721.LAA20765@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: >> Passing a note is not illegal. If you pass a note that says you want >> your screenmate to pass the water-jug there is nothing wrong per se. >> >> Passing a note with the deliberate intention of circumventing the Laws >> of bridge is illegal under L72A1 and other Laws. > > 'Circumventing the Laws of bridge' may be an accurate literal >rendering of what is happening here, but it is surely misleading. For >example, when bidding and playing I try to avoid looking at my partner's >face, to reduce the chance of receiving UI from his facial expressions. >Would you say that I am deliberately trying to circumvent the Laws by >trying to avoid receiving UI? You act as if the player involved has some >sort of nefarious intentions, when in fact it seems far more likely to me >that his intentions are quite good. You are free to argue that his >methods are illegal under L16 [I think arguing against him under L73 would >be stretching the letter of the law past the breaking point], and I think >your argument is a reasonable one {though I am not convinced}. But I >think that the player is _at worst_ guilty of a technical illegality while >seeking a reasonable goal which actually _accords_ with the goals of the >Laws. We do not rule according to the goals of the Laws. We rule according to the Laws, and let the lawmakers make the Laws so that they follow the goals. He is about to make a bid that is _illegal_ and he is trying to find a method to make it appear legal. Humph. > We should reserve the phrase 'circumventing the Laws' for >bridge-lawyering that tries to derive some truly underhanded sort of >advantage. I am sorry, but that is exactly what I believe this procedure does. [s] > I tell my screenmate "I going on to 6S even if partner signs off >in 5". Partner signs off in 5, after a hesitation. I bid 6S. Are you >seriously arguing that I am taking advantage of UI? Are you, in fact, >arguing that my statement to my screenmate was an attempt to take >advantage of UI I didn't even have, by announcing what I was going to bid >anyway? No, but then L16 talks about choosing amongst LAs. Many players get ruled against correctly who have not "taken advantage" of UI because there are objective criteria. > Argue if you like that bidding 6S still violates L16, and so is an >illegal method of trying to avoid taking advantage of UI. But you will >never convince me that it is an attempt to take advantage of UI, absent >some specific evidence that this player is a most terrible sort of >cheater, which you and I agree we should not assume at the outset. I am trying to convince you that the action of bidding 6S is illegal. That's all. I do not consider whether *this player* at *this time* is "taking advantage" of 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 Tue Mar 23 08:40:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:40:23 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 IAA08638 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:40:13 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10PDMc-0000Zq-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 22:40:07 +0000 Message-ID: <$CcGRFByUs92EwPJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 22:33:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) References: <199903221901.NAA19080@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199903221901.NAA19080@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: >> Why thankyou! I cannot see how it favours the game or anything else >> to rule in favour of someone who has invented a principle to circumvent >> the Laws. And let me be very clear about one thing: what a player >> writes on a piece of paper proves **nothing** about his thought >> processes one round later. > I think you are far too harsh in this case, compared to your >position in other cases. In other cases you have emphasized that a >player's testimony about his thoughts and intentions should not be >discarded simply because it may seem self-serving, and you have argued >that we should not assume players are liars or cheats. Yet now you say >that if I am so certain of my next bid that I am willing to announce it to >an opponent in advance, this proves **nothing** about what I will be >bidding one round later. I am not merely quibbling about "nothing"--I >would not be happy with "Virtually nothing" or "very little". I would say >that a player, presumed {as usual} to be honest, who is that certain of >his bid in round n will virtually always favor the same bid in round n+1. >I would say that this level of continuity is far higher than, for example, >the level required to rule another bid not to be a LA. it is the certainty expressed in posts that I object to: the word "proves" for example. If a player says he will bid 6S next time then I agree he nearly always will - but saying as so many people have done so that this *proves* that he *will* is too strong. I always accept evidence as evidence - but not necessarily as proof. -- 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 Mar 23 08:41:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:41:41 +1000 Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA08668 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:41:37 +1000 Received: from accordion (accordion.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA14085; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:41:26 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990323094144.009c7300@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:41:44 +1100 To: Michael Albert , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: Mea culpa (archive request.) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >So last time someone mentioned where "bridge-laws" is archived I thought >"Neat, but I won't need it" and forgot to write it down. Now of course I >need it. Help? Send the 'help' command (body of the message, not the subject) to majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au (same place as (un)s*bscribe requests) and majordomo will instruct you on how to access the archive. I'm looking for a good tool to allow browsing the archives through a web browser, but they either are too majordomo (download a month at a time) or too one-article-per-file (which is a pain on the server, not your problem). Where's a good compromise when you need one? :-) Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 12:14:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:14:58 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 MAA09281 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:14:48 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10PGiH-0005B2-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 02:14:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 02:13:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Delay of card MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have been asked the following: Please would you inform me whether it is (a) ethical and (b) legal, within The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1997, for declarer to delay playing a card when the only reasonable purpose for the delay is to obtain a reaction from a defender that suggests how the cards lie. If applicable, please could you indicate which Laws are relevant. Of course, a typical situation is where the defenders between them hold the Queen and four small cards in a suit and where dummy has the Ace (or King) together with the Jack. By leading a small card from hand and delaying before playing from dummy, declarer may induce the defender who holds the Queen to show anxiety. This may affect declarer's decision as to whether to play the King or die Jack. This enquiry arises not in pursuit of a specific incident, but because I have recently raised this matter briefly and in general terms with the experienced Director of a local club. As a result, I feel that I wish to receive further clarification. Thank you very much in advance for your help in answering this query. -- 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 Mar 23 12:15:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:15:00 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 MAA09282 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:14:49 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10PGiH-0005B1-0A; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 02:14:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 02:07:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Mike Swanson From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 6 -- J3 K KT 8 -- 5 7 K42 J52 9753 -- -- 6 -- Declarer is in 2S*, and has lost 5 tricks. He appears to have two more losers, but he leads the CK hoping to discard his D. Unfortunately, E ruffs with the S8, so he over-ruffs with the S9, and West over-ruffs with the SK. East asks West whether he has any clubs [illegal in Europe] and your ruling is ....? Now please consider an alternative case. The cards as before, including the over-ruff with the revoking SK, but no-one comments. At the end of the hand East points out the revoke and your ruling is ....? cc Mike Swanson -- 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 Mar 23 13:16:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:16:20 +1000 Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [207.172.3.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA09414 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:16:09 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-65-228.s228.tnt24.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.65.228]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA14937 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 22:21:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903230321.WAA14937@smtp2.erols.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: UI insurance (longish rant) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 22:15:55 -0500 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <36F67596.F0DCDD7C@village.uunet.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 11:54 AM > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) > [snip] > > It all boils down to the definition of LA. A player who > pre-announces his bids proves by that action that he has no > LA's in the next round. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > But if a player pre-announces his bids, is he not actually making a call out of rotation? If so, L16 is a red herring. Perhaps we should look at L31. When I first thought of mentioning L31 in this thread, I thought it would be a joke. I'm not entirely sure of that any more. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 13:40:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:40:08 +1000 Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [207.172.3.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA09464 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:40:02 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-65-228.s228.tnt24.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.65.228]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA27143 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 22:45:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903230345.WAA27143@smtp2.erols.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: UI insurance (longish rant) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 22:39:53 -0500 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of David > Stevenson > Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 12:33 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) > > [snip] > > Okay, sorry, i will discuss going to the bathroom. If you go to the > bathroom, and when you come back you have no UI, then you are not > constrained by any UI Laws. What have I missed? > > -- > 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 ~ > Might this not be another form of UI insurance? The player knows his call will give his partner a problem, and so arranges to be away from the table,. missing the UI, and circumventing Law 16 (if in fact it applies). Just a different means of accomplishing the same end as passing the note. Of course, we could create a regulation to prevent this: If a player wishes to go to the bathroom during the auction, the player shall summon the TD, who shall accompany the player. The TD shall observe the player eliminating into a measured container. If the final volume is such that 75% of the player's peers would not consider it an emergency, it shall not be considered a valid bathroom journey and the TD shall adjust the score if the opponents are damaged.... Hirsch ;) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 13:58:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:58:20 +1000 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA09501 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:58:00 +1000 Received: from modem121.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.249] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10PIK1-0007zU-00; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:57:46 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 03:54:06 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ************************************************ "The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning." - Erich Fromm nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn > From: David Burn > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: UI insurance > Date: 22 March 1999 17:35 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Grattan Endicott > To: ; > Sent: 22 March 1999 15:59 > Subject: Re: UI insurance > > > > > > > The question is whether the > > chosen call is more suggested by the UI than another, > > logical alternative, call. Or at least, this is the question > > the law puts; it does not raise the question of [............... >>.................] the basis on which the player makes the > > call. ~ Grattan ~ +++ > > I grant all of that. >[......................] But if I am going to bid 4S, or 7S, or whatever at my > next turn regardless of anything that happens between now and its > becoming my next turn, then nothing that happens in that intervening > period can provide me with any information additional to that which I > already possess. > ++ Not necessarily true, but the law is not interested in the sum anyway, only in whether the partner has conveyed UI regardless of what the player himself does or does not know. The law is framed to operate without knowing or enquiring about justification of the call save only as to the degree to which it is suggested by the UI that, in common with many players, you are not using, and the availability of less suggested logical alternatives. ++ > To think is not a crime. [....................................................] >. But to bid without drawing such inferences, to act solely* in > accordance with your system or with the AI that you already possess, > is not and can never be an infraction of Law. Or at least, if it can, > then perhaps it is time I gave up the game. (+ *hmmm.. +) > +++ ? +++ {Philosophical note: David B. seemingly does not have any sympathy for a law that does not require the TD to get inside the player's mind but which operates instead objectively from without.} ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 15:17:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:17:10 +1000 Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA09685 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:17:03 +1000 Received: from salsa (salsa.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.112]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA03457 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:16:54 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990323171721.00950100@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:17:21 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: RE: UI insurance (longish rant) In-Reply-To: <199903230345.WAA27143@smtp2.erols.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS: >> >> Okay, sorry, i will discuss going to the bathroom. If you go to the >> bathroom, and when you come back you have no UI, then you are not >> constrained by any UI Laws. What have I missed? >> >> and Hirsch: > >Might this not be another form of UI insurance? The player knows his call >will give his partner a problem, and so arranges to be away from the table,. >missing the UI, and circumventing Law 16 (if in fact it applies). Just a >different means of accomplishing the same end as passing the note. > >Of course, we could create a regulation to prevent this: > >If a player wishes to go to the bathroom during the auction, the player >shall summon the TD, who shall accompany the player. The TD shall observe >the player eliminating into a measured container. If the final volume is >such that 75% of the player's peers would not consider it an emergency, it >shall not be considered a valid bathroom journey and the TD shall adjust the >score if the opponents are damaged.... > Tee-hee, this was my point in suggesting the example originally, though I had not thought of the possible regulatory issues which might ensue. Here's another variant (which I know falls foul of various laws in "normal" play.) Abel plays with Baker. Baker unfortunately finds it difficult to maintain uniform tempo, especially later in the auction. Opponents Charlie and Delta, fine fellows both, know this. The match is being played with screens. Abel adopts the expedient after his third and successive calls in all "live" auctions, of spinning his chair back to the table, closing his eyes, putting a pair of headphones (which the director has previously verified are emitting white noise) on, and counting to 100 ("no external aids etc ..." If you don't wish to allow the headphones either, he claps his hands over his ears and shakes his head back and forth.) Then he turns around. If the bidding tray has still not returned he sighs and does whatever the laws require. If it has though, he has no UI. Now I know this would not normally work ('interfering with enjoyment of the game' etc as well as the possibility of Charlie or Delta sabotaging the procedure) but as stipulated Charlie and Delta are fine fellows and acommodating chaps. It is a bit wearing though ... eventually Charlie suggests "wouldn't it be easier to write me a little note saying you intend to bid 6s?" 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 Mar 23 16:36:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:36:53 +1000 Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA09872 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:36:48 +1000 Received: from [212.140.3.60] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PKnY-0003HI-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:36:24 +0000 Message-ID: <002201be74f7$78717c40$3c038cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <199903221721.LAA20765@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:36:22 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: 22 March 1999 22:28 Subject: Re: UI insurance > I am trying to convince you that the action of bidding 6S is illegal. > That's all. I do not consider whether *this player* at *this time* is > "taking advantage" of UI. I will put this as simply as I can. If this player at this time is not taking advantage of UI, then this player at this time is doing nothing illegal. Or if he is, then could you please explain to us what it is? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 16:54:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:54:23 +1000 Received: from tungsten (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA09898 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:54:14 +1000 Received: from [212.140.23.207] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PL4F-0003J1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:53:40 +0000 Message-ID: <000701be74f9$ed14e1c0$cf178cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:53:57 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan To: David Burn ; Bridge Laws Sent: 23 March 1999 03:54 Subject: Re: UI insurance > > > ++ Not necessarily true, but the law is not interested in the sum > anyway, only in whether the partner has conveyed UI regardless > of what the player himself does or does not know. Precisely so. And, as I think I may have said before, it is not possible to convey UI (or indeed any I) to a player who already knows what he will bid on the next round. > {Philosophical note: David B. seemingly does not have any > sympathy for a law that does not require the TD to get inside > the player's mind but which operates instead objectively > from without. Not so. The difficulty I have is with the order in which people apply the relevant criteria in L16, looking at LAs first before checking whether UI is in fact present. I repeat: simply because partner has tranced does not automatically mean that I am in possession of UI. In the great majority of cases, of course, it will mean exactly that, and it will be time to consider LAs. But if it can be shown that in this case his trance conveyed no information at all, then there is no reason to consider LAs, and thus no call for the objective criteria on which you place such reliance even to be invoked. A thought has occurred to me: suppose the player, while his partner was trancing, was able to pass a note to both his opponents saying: "Whatever he does, I'm going to bid 6S". Which of his opponents do you think has the legal right then to call the Director, bearing in mind the opening sentence of L16A2? Of course, if DWS were either opponent, one would have to worry about L74. But I think that this is probably a minority position. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 18:08:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:08:36 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA10055 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:08:29 +1000 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 IAA13243 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:07:53 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 IAA20230 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:06:23 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990323090809.007c1d80@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:08:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: A half-serious question In-Reply-To: <001101be7489$84497220$f1108cd4@davidburn> References: <3.0.5.32.19990322160651.007d0670@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:29 22/03/99 -0000, David Burn wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort >To: >Sent: 22 March 1999 15:06 >Subject: Re: A half-serious question > > >> At 22:49 21/03/99 +0000, David Burn wrote: >> > From the European Pairs (B final, obviously): >> > A6 KQJ432 None 87432 >> >Screens in use, you are with RHO. Two passes to you at game all, >so you >> >choose 3H (perhaps foolishly). LHO bids 3S, partner 4H and RHO >fumbles >> >with 4S before selecting 4NT (which he does not alert). Well, at >least >> >that means you don't have to think about doubling 4S (would you?) >LHO bids >> >5D and RHO 5NT (which he does not alert). LHO bids 6D and RHO 7S. >It is >> >obvious what has happened (for those to whom it isn't, >clarification will >> >follow). Should you alert your double to RHO? > >> >> I think nobody could know better than you (and maybe your partner) >what >> your agreements are in this situation, and whether you have anything >to alert. >> Incidentally, why do you show your hand? Does anybody think it >could be >> relevant with the question you ask? >> >> JP Rocafort > >Not really, but I am not a great fan of questions about a specific >auction where hands aren't given. Call me fussy in that respect, if >you like. > >Certainly we play Lightner slam doubles, and these are an alertable >convention in Europe (there is much case law on the subject). The >reason my question was only half-serious is that I know the answer. OK, my remark was half-serious. I know there have been famous cases of protests about non-alerted Lightner doubles which come under bridge-lawyering. So to avoid any trouble, for now, I automatically write down "Lightner doubles" on all my CC but I am not happy with the need for this insurance! It's the usual problem with conventions and agreements: there are some very common conventions known by everybody, used by everybody which are not agreements because you never agreed about them with any partner. Why should they be subject to alerts? You play an Individual, you are in front of somebody you never played with before, he doubles 6S, you are sure it's Lightner, are you going to alert? There are so many agreements needing to be disclosed, even when they are not conventions! 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 Mar 23 18:40:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:40:56 +1000 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 SAA10166 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:40:45 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990323084038.CPZV11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:40:38 -0800 Message-ID: <36F75490.2F193F02@home.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:45:04 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Bid what you would have anyway? References: <199903202047.OAA16146@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36f76fd3.919311@post12.tele.dk> <36F603C9.916341EA@home.com> <36f78dac.3323048@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just one last effort at clarifying my thoughts. Jesper Dybdal wrote: > And if I choose to adjust against a player who said (afterwards) > that he had made up his mind beforehand, then I would implicitly > be ruling that his word was less reliable evidence than the UI > insurance statement: in other words, I'd effectively be calling > the players liars. That is exactly what L16A carefully does not > require us to do. Try once to seperate the matter from the a) opponent's point of view, and b) from a TD's point of view. a) If the opponent accepts the player's action, the TD won't be called at all. Do you find that opponent acting in any way improperly by not calling the TD? b) If the TD is called, apparently the player's action was *not* accepted by the opponents. Then as a TD you apply L16 literally. You don't have to call anyone anything. Blindly using L16 literally, regardless of circumstances, necessitates the assumption that it was designed to work in the ideal scenario with absolute objective knowledge of all variables. I find such an assumption somewhat naive. It seems clear to me that the exact opposite is the case i.e. that L16 was designed specifically bearing in mind that even honest and totally ethical players might have trouble with objectively judging there actions. I beleive that even Mike Dennis, who's opinion you so strongly support, agreed that L16 would be totally different if we could put "Camcorders" in the players' brains - don't you? PS: If the literal application of every law would solve every situation, create equity, and make everyone happy - then why BLML? :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 19:13:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA10273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:13:37 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA10268 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:13:30 +1000 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 JAA16830 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:12:55 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 JAA25907 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:11:25 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990323101312.007d7b20@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:13:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <002201be74f7$78717c40$3c038cd4@davidburn> References: <199903221721.LAA20765@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:36 23/03/99 -0000, David Burn wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: 22 March 1999 22:28 >Subject: Re: UI insurance > > >> I am trying to convince you that the action of bidding 6S is >illegal. >> That's all. I do not consider whether *this player* at *this time* >is >> "taking advantage" of UI. > >I will put this as simply as I can. If this player at this time is not >taking advantage of UI, then this player at this time is doing nothing >illegal. Or if he is, then could you please explain to us what it is? > I think to understand what David intents (maybe he will deny): if, at another table, another player is in the same situation, but has not contracted "UI insurance" (for which he can't be blamed!), he will not be allowed to bid 6S after a slow 5S. It can be thought it would be an unfair advantage, for the imaginative player, to be able to bid 6S; an unfair advantage over the other player who did nothing wrong and who can't be blamed for having made any "worse call" than the imaginative player. All this thread turns around what is meant by "taking advantage of UI" or "bidding what you would have always bid" and convincing arguments from both sides let me think there are very different interpretations of laws. 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 Mar 23 21:20:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:20:03 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 VAA10754 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:19:54 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10PPDf-0004bx-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 11:19:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:40:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <199903221721.LAA20765@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <002201be74f7$78717c40$3c038cd4@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <002201be74f7$78717c40$3c038cd4@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: 22 March 1999 22:28 >Subject: Re: UI insurance > > >> I am trying to convince you that the action of bidding 6S is >illegal. >> That's all. I do not consider whether *this player* at *this time* >is >> "taking advantage" of UI. > >I will put this as simply as I can. If this player at this time is not >taking advantage of UI, then this player at this time is doing nothing >illegal. Or if he is, then could you please explain to us what it is? The Law says that if UI is present then certain bids become illegal. Whether a player who makes such an illegal call is "taking advantage" or not is not the determining factor. -- 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 Mar 23 22:19:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:19:39 +1000 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 WAA10927 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:19:30 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-169.uunet.be [194.7.13.169]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA16663 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:19:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36F7753D.18E4459@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:04:29 +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: Bid what you would have anyway? References: <199903202047.OAA16146@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36f76fd3.919311@post12.tele.dk> <36F603C9.916341EA@home.com> <36f78dac.3323048@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote yet again something very sensible : > > > In slightly different words: when you accept the UI insurance > statement as evidence that a player had made up his mind > beforehand and use this to determine your ruling, then you have > decided that it is relevant to judge at what time he made up his > mind. And if that is relevant at all, then you have to judge it > in every case. And that is exactly what we cannot do without > seriously upsetting people who will (quite reasonably) feel that > they are being accused of lying when you tell them that their > word is not sufficient evidence. This is a very sound argument. But I am wondering what it is that we are arguing for. I agree with Jesper that there should be no difference between someone who tries to "prove" his moment of making up his mind, and someone who has not made such an attempt. Now if you are using this argument to prove that UI insurance is illegal, because it is impossible to accept the proof for the other player, then that is going a step too far, IMO. Rather it should be used to prove that in some cases, one should not decide that a statement such as the one you mention, is automatically self-serving, and by conclusion irrelevant. In Warsaw, we had a case where we chose to believe the player who, despite his partner's hesitation, bid on to six. It was a combination of the hand which really meant going to slam was the only LA, and his explanation that his 5Sp bid was just trying to help partner. When the appeals are published (should be soon), look up number 20. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 22:19:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:19:43 +1000 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 WAA10934 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:19:36 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-169.uunet.be [194.7.13.169]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA16678 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:19:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36F77817.16DC836A@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:16:39 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > 6 > -- > J3 > K KT 8 > -- 5 > 7 K42 > J52 9753 -- > -- > 6 > -- > > Declarer is in 2S*, and has lost 5 tricks. He appears to have two > more losers, but he leads the CK hoping to discard his D. > Unfortunately, E ruffs with the S8, so he over-ruffs with the S9, and > West over-ruffs with the SK. > let's take the second one first : > Now please consider an alternative case. The cards as before, > including the over-ruff with the revoking SK, but no-one comments. At > the end of the hand East points out the revoke and your ruling is ....? > West has the trick (one down), plays diamonds (two down) or the jack of clubs (two down at the end), or a small club (only one down - not important) and then hands two penalty tricks back. Contract made. and now to : > East asks West whether he has any clubs > [illegal in Europe] and your ruling is ....? Well, just out of "good for bridge", this should be contract making as well. Let's see : L63B : the card is retracted and changed to a club. South is in hand and will lose two more tricks. L63B : "...the penalty provisions of L64 apply as if the revoke had been established." I have in memory (sadly human, not electronic) that this refers to the two-trick penalty. Contract made ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 22:19:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:19:45 +1000 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 WAA10936 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:19:38 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-169.uunet.be [194.7.13.169]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA16688 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:19:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36F77A94.50FC0465@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:27:16 +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 insurance References: <199903221721.LAA20765@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > No, but then L16 talks about choosing amongst LAs. Many players get > ruled against correctly who have not "taken advantage" of UI because > there are objective criteria. > > > Argue if you like that bidding 6S still violates L16, and so is an > >illegal method of trying to avoid taking advantage of UI. But you will > >never convince me that it is an attempt to take advantage of UI, absent > >some specific evidence that this player is a most terrible sort of > >cheater, which you and I agree we should not assume at the outset. > > I am trying to convince you that the action of bidding 6S is illegal. > That's all. I do not consider whether *this player* at *this time* is > "taking advantage" of UI. > OK David, let's read L16 again. "A player, when in possession of UI, shall not choose from among LA's the one which is suggested" (short form but basically correct, I believe) You are right that at the moment he bids, he has UI, and this may suggest the bid he is making. We are all arguing that in fact there are no LA's ! The definition of LA is not in the Laws. We have made a lot of jurisprudence which help us finding out what the LA's are in any particular case. But they are just that - jurisprudence, not the Law itself! Now we are trying to have you agree that if a player can prove to a TD and/or AC that in his opinion, all other bids are no longer LA's, then the AC may use that evidence at its discretion in determining the LA's. Surely you are not saying that someone who states "I will bid 6" at a moment before receiving UI, will now change his mind and start contemplating other bids after he receives UI that also point to bidding 6. So how can these othe bids then be LA's ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 22:24:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:24:17 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA10970 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:24:09 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h4.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id PAA23550; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:22:59 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <36F822CD.5D7C@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:25:02 -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: Delay of card References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) May be I am too sharp but in my club such behavior will be penalized by PP and the result of the board will be 40-60. Only in case of inexperienced player TD will not award PP - just explain to him once more basic of the Properties Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 23:12:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:12:11 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11822 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:11:58 +1000 Received: from p70s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.113] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PQyA-0001aR-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:11:47 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Delay of card Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:19:45 -0000 Message-ID: <01be752f$d1b0f320$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0038_01BE752F.D1B0F320" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01BE752F.D1B0F320 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 2:50 AM Subject: Delay of card > > I have been asked the following: > > Please would you inform me whether it is (a) ethical and (b) legal, >within The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1997, for declarer to delay playing >a card when the only reasonable purpose for the delay is to obtain a >reaction from a defender that suggests how the cards lie. If >applicable, please could you indicate which Laws are relevant. No it's not ethical and no it's not legal. Law 73D. Variations in Tempo or Manner From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 23:12:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:12:26 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11841 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:12:17 +1000 Received: from p70s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.113] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PQyX-0001bw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:12:10 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:20:40 -0000 Message-ID: <01be752f$f2c10000$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Cc: Mike Swanson >Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 2:46 AM >Subject: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match > > >> >> 6 >> -- >> J3 >> K KT 8 >> -- 5 >> 7 K42 >> J52 9753 -- >> -- >> 6 >> -- >> >> Declarer is in 2S*, and has lost 5 tricks. He appears to have two >>more losers, but he leads the CK hoping to discard his D. >>Unfortunately, E ruffs with the S8, so he over-ruffs with the S9, and >>West over-ruffs with the SK. East asks West whether he has any clubs >>[illegal in Europe] and your ruling is ....? > >2S* making 8 tricks. > >L61/L63B "penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been >established." > > "Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected (except as >provided in Law 62D for a revoke on the twelfth trick), and the trick on >which the revoke occurred stands as played (but see Law 43B2(b)). " > >This phrase is used in Law 43B2(b) and we are advised by the WBFLC from it's >deliberations at Lille that this refers to the 2 trick penalty of Law 64. > >It would appear to me that East is in the same position as a dummy who >because of a violation of Law 43 has lost his right to ask declarer. >>Now please consider an alternative case. The cards as before, >>including the over-ruff with the revoking SK, but no-one comments. >At the >end of the hand East points out the revoke and your ruling is >....? > >2S* making 7 tricks. > > >Had the revoke not occurred declarer would have been two off. >In 1 above he makes his contract. >In 2 above he is one off >This seems fair and just, and within the interpretation of the Laws as >confirmed by the Law makers. > However I would be interested to know the panels comments on the situation >which occurs if the cards were such that E/W neither won the revoke trick, >nor a subsequent trick. Are we still to apply the two trick penalty of Law >64, mindfull of the fact that there is also a penalty card which could give >away yet a third trick. >Law 47. >A. To Comply with Penalty >A card once played may be withdrawn to comply with a penalty (but a defender >’s withdrawn card may become a penalty card, see Law 49). > >Anne > >> >>cc Mike Swanson >> >>-- >>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 Mar 23 23:32:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:32:10 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11927 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:32:03 +1000 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 NAA27387 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:31:28 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 NAA17043 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:29:57 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990323143146.007d2900@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:31:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Delay of card In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:13 23/03/99 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > I have been asked the following: > > Please would you inform me whether it is (a) ethical and (b) legal, >within The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1997, for declarer to delay playing >a card when the only reasonable purpose for the delay is to obtain a >reaction from a defender that suggests how the cards lie. If >applicable, please could you indicate which Laws are relevant. > > Of course, a typical situation is where the defenders between them >hold the Queen and four small cards in a suit and where dummy has the >Ace (or King) together with the Jack. By leading a small card from hand >and delaying before playing from dummy, declarer may induce the defender >who holds the Queen to show anxiety. This may affect declarer's >decision as to whether to play the King or die Jack. > > This enquiry arises not in pursuit of a specific incident, but >because I have recently raised this matter briefly and in general terms >with the experienced Director of a local club. As a result, I feel that >I wish to receive further clarification. I haven't doubts you invoked 74B4 to answer a: unethical, b: illegal. However I don't believe your exemple to be well chosen. In your situation: a) I don't know which defender will show the more anxiety, the one with the queen or the other one. b) How will you know the very purpose for which declarer will be delaying the game. After all, with AJ32 in front of K1054, it is excusable to play the 4 before thinking: if the queen appears (or a discard), no need to look further, if not, it is time to wonder where to search for the queen. Declarer's bad manners seem very difficult to prove without more evidence. JP Rocafort > > Thank you very much in advance for your help in answering this >query. >-- >David Stevenson ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 23:39:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:39:37 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11985 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:39:28 +1000 Received: from p4es07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.79] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PROq-00032x-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:39:21 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:47:17 -0000 Message-ID: <01be7533$aaa6e9c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 12:58 PM Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> 6 >> -- >> J3 >> K KT 8 >> -- 5 >> 7 K42 >> J52 9753 -- >> -- >> 6 >> -- >> >> Declarer is in 2S*, and has lost 5 tricks. He appears to have two >> more losers, but he leads the CK hoping to discard his D. >> Unfortunately, E ruffs with the S8, so he over-ruffs with the S9, and >> West over-ruffs with the SK. >> > >let's take the second one first : > >> Now please consider an alternative case. The cards as before, >> including the over-ruff with the revoking SK, but no-one comments. At >> the end of the hand East points out the revoke and your ruling is ....? >> > >West has the trick (one down), plays diamonds (two down) or >the jack of clubs (two down at the end), or a small club >(only one down - not important) and then hands two penalty >tricks back. Contract made. > >and now to : >> East asks West whether he has any clubs >> [illegal in Europe] and your ruling is ....? > >Well, just out of "good for bridge", this should be contract >making as well. >Let's see : >L63B : the card is retracted and changed to a club. South >is in hand and will lose two more tricks. >L63B : "...the penalty provisions of L64 apply as if the >revoke had been established." > >I have in memory (sadly human, not electronic) that this >refers to the two-trick penalty. > >Contract made ! IMO this is not "good for Bridge". East has committed an infraction for which his side has not been penalised. If this is the way it is to be done, then there may be no cost to defenders who ask one another, unless of course there was no trick won by their side, and it is still right to apply the two trick penalty of Law 64. What about a six no trump contract which makes 13 tricks. Does this get scored as making 14:)))) > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 23:47:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:47:53 +1000 Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA12296 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:47:44 +1000 Received: from [212.140.0.210] (helo=[212.140.0.210]) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PRWj-0006HP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:47:31 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:47:28 +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 --------------------------------------- From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: 23/03/1999 10:40:35 --------------------------------------- David Burn wrote: >I will put this as simply as I can. If this player at this time is not = >taking advantage of UI, then this player at this time is doing nothing = >illegal. Or if he is, then could you please explain to us what it is? The Law says that if UI is present then certain bids become illegal. = Whether a player who makes such an illegal call is "taking advantage" or = not is not the determining factor. Are you quoting the Law? If so, I cannot find the words you use in the Law book. Are you paraphrasing the Law? If so, I cannot find anyconstruction of the English words in the Law book which supports such an argument. The Law stated only that when a player is in receipt of UI, he is constrained in his choice of action. But a player not in receipt of UI may do what he likes.=20 I say once more: a hesitation by partner does not automatically transmit UI in all cases. The whole basis of your argument appears to be that "when UI is present, such-and-such applies". Even granted all that, it is of no relevance to this case. Partner has tranced. So what? His trance has not communicated any information to me, and I can prove that it has not, so I cannot be in breach of a Law that I can break only when I have UI. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 23 23:59:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:59:07 +1000 Received: from sand3.global.net.uk (sand3.global.net.uk [194.126.80.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA12392 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:59:00 +1000 Received: from p96s04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.151] helo=pacific) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10PRhb-0004sP-00; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:58:43 +0000 Message-ID: <002101be7535$3830eec0$d38e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:56:34 -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 March 1999 12:00 Subject: Re: UI insurance >David Burn wrote: >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: David Stevenson >>To: >>Sent: 22 March 1999 22:28 >>Subject: Re: UI insurance >------------------------\x/-------------------------------- > The Law says that if UI is present then certain bids become illegal. >Whether a player who makes such an illegal call is "taking advantage" or >not is not the determining factor. > +++ One would not wish to be aggressive, much less to dismiss a knowledgeable and respected authority's remarks or to throw a contributor's own words back at him. However, the point you make, which is so plainly stated in the law, has apparently not been picked up in DB's perusal of it. I do not quite know how we might persuade him to go back once more to the text. Anyway, the subject has reached boring point. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 00:19:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:19:43 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA14728 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:19:34 +1000 Received: from p40s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.65] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PS1e-0003BS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:19:26 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: Delay of card Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:27:26 -0000 Message-ID: <01be7539$462ea400$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01BE7539.462EA400" 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_001D_01BE7539.462EA400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My original posting in this thread arrived in a somewhat abbreviated = form! Maybe it was an improvement, but I will try again:) -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Delay of card -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 2:50 AM Subject: Delay of card > > I have been asked the following: > > Please would you inform me whether it is (a) ethical and (b) legal, >within The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1997, for declarer to delay playing >a card when the only reasonable purpose for the delay is to obtain a >reaction from a defender that suggests how the cards lie. If >applicable, please could you indicate which Laws are relevant. No it's not ethical and no it's not legal. Law 73D. Variations in Tempo or Manner From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 01:40:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA15106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 01:40:41 +1000 Received: from sand3.global.net.uk (sand3.global.net.uk [194.126.80.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA15101 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 01:40:30 +1000 Received: from p19s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.26] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10PTHs-0006XP-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:40:17 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Delay of card Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:48:42 -0000 Message-ID: <01be7544$a0cf03e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0023_01BE7544.A0CF03E0" 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_0023_01BE7544.A0CF03E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 2:50 AM Subject: Delay of card > > I have been asked the following: > > Please would you inform me whether it is (a) ethical and (b) legal, >within The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1997, for declarer to delay playing >a card when the only reasonable purpose for the delay is to obtain a >reaction from a defender that suggests how the cards lie. If >applicable, please could you indicate which Laws are relevant. No it's not ethical and no it's not legal. Law 73D. Variations in Tempo or Manner .2. Intentional Variations A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in = hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play = is made. > Of course, a typical situation is where the defenders between them >hold the Queen and four small cards in a suit and where dummy has the >Ace (or King) together with the Jack. By leading a small card from = hand >and delaying before playing from dummy, declarer may induce the = defender >who holds the Queen to show anxiety. This may affect declarer's >decision as to whether to play the King or die Jack. > > This enquiry arises not in pursuit of a specific incident, but >because I have recently raised this matter briefly and in general terms >with the experienced Director of a local club. As a result, I feel = that >I wish to receive further clarification. Law 72B2 B. Infraction of Law 1. Adjusted Score Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the = time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. 2. Intentional A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay.=20 Anne > > Thank you very much in advance for your help in answering this >query. > > >-- >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 ~ > ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01BE7544.A0CF03E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
-----Original Message-----
From: David Stevenson <bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk= >
To:=20 bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 Tuesday, March 23, 1999 2:50 AM
Subject: Delay of=20 card


>
>  I have been asked the=20 following:
>
>  Please would you inform me whether it = is (a)=20 ethical and (b) legal,
>within The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1997, = for=20 declarer to delay playing
>a card when the only reasonable purpose = for the=20 delay is to obtain a
>reaction from a defender that suggests how = the cards=20 lie.  If
>applicable, please could you indicate which Laws = are=20 relevant.

No it's not ethical and no it's not legal.
Law 73D.=20 Variations in Tempo or Manner
.2. Intentional Variations
A player = may not=20 attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or
gesture, through = the=20 haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating
before playing = a=20 singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play = is
made.
> =20 Of course, a typical situation is where the defenders between = them
>hold=20 the Queen and four small cards in a suit and where dummy has = the
>Ace (or=20 King) together with the Jack.  By leading a small card from = hand
>and=20 delaying before playing from dummy, declarer may induce the = defender
>who=20 holds the Queen to show anxiety.  This may affect=20 declarer's
>decision as to whether to play the King or die=20 Jack.
>
>  This enquiry arises not in pursuit of a = specific=20 incident, but
>because I have recently raised this matter briefly = and in=20 general terms
>with the experienced Director of a local = club.  As a=20 result, I feel that
>I wish to receive further = clarification.
Law=20 72B2
B. Infraction of Law
1. Adjusted Score
Whenever the = Director deems=20 that an offender could have known at the time of
his irregularity = that the=20 irregularity would be likely to damage the
non-offending side, he = shall=20 require the auction and play to continue,
afterwards awarding an = adjusted=20 score if he considers that the offending
side gained an advantage = through the=20 irregularity.
2. Intentional
A player must not infringe a law=20 intentionally, even if there is a
prescribed penalty he is willing to = pay.  
 
Anne

>
>  Thank you very much in advance for = your help=20 in answering this
>query.
>
>
>--
>David=20 Stevenson          &nbs= p;   =20 Bridge   RTFLB   Cats   = Railways   /\=20 /\
>Liverpool, England, = UK        Fax:=20 +44 (0)870 055=20 7697            @ = @
><bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk= > =20 ICQ 20039682      bluejak on OKB  =3D( +=20 )=3D
>      Lawspage:    = http://www.blakjak.d= emon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm    =20 ~
>
------=_NextPart_000_0023_01BE7544.A0CF03E0-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 01:51:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA15434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 01:51:33 +1000 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA15424 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 01:51:26 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.1/8.9.0) with UUCP id JAA08239 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:51:18 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0DII600I Tue, 23 Mar 99 09:37:10 Message-ID: <9903230937.0DII600@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 23 Mar 99 09:37:10 Subject: mea culpa To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Forwarded Message ---------------------------------->8================= Date: Tue, 23 Mar 99 01:07:24 Subject: MEA CULPA To: owner-bridge-laws@octavia I think I have opened an archive in Word97 and used the search feature to locate words or phrases that will tie down what I'm looking for- even though it is a hit or miss affair. I have just remembered that there are two programs that are quite good at searching files for strings, and can be quite smart about it. One is ASK SAM and the other is TRAKER PRO by Enfish. They search all text in all files of the subject HDD. My user group has or had [December] a discount to $49 from $79 for TRAKER. If it still exists it will be noted on the web site www.hal-pc.org. I would be willing to facilitate getting the discount if it is available. I have an unused copy of ASK SAM that is 2 years old [and surely has been updated with features and O/S changes] that I am willing to part with for $20US. both programs will be great for searching archives and TRAKER is brand new and superior in my opinion because of its interface [ASK SAM is ok]. Roger Pewick O>>So last time someone mentioned where "bridge-laws" is archived I O>thought >"Neat, but I won't need it" and forgot to write it down. Now of O>course I >need it. Help? O>Send the 'help' command (body of the message, not the subject) to O>majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au (same place as (un)s*bscribe requests) and O>majordomo will instruct you on how to access the archive. O>I'm looking for a good tool to allow browsing the archives through a web O>browser, but they either are too majordomo (download a month at a time) O>or too one-article-per-file (which is a pain on the server, not your O>problem). O>Where's a good compromise when you need one? :-) O>Cheers, O> Markus O>Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 O>62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: O>+61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia O>|Mobile: 0417 281429 Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader --BAB04320.922172939/news.hal-pc.org-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 02:07:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:07:24 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA16254 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:07:16 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA07282 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:02:45 -0600 (CST) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199903231602.KAA07282@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: UI insurance To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:02:45 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To prevent Grattan from getting _too_ bored, I'll make this brief. :):):) > We do not rule according to the goals of the Laws. We rule according > to the Laws, and let the lawmakers make the Laws so that they follow the > goals. I interpret and understand the laws by attempting to look for the goals for which they were written. > He is about to make a bid that is _illegal_ and he is trying to find a > method to make it appear legal. Humph. He is about to make a bid which may not be illegal in any way [he does not _know_ he will receive UI at all, nor whether the UI will suggest his action (partner might, for all he knows, make a very fast signoff), and he might very well not know whether an AC would consider him to have LA's anyway], and he his hoping to prevent it from _being_ illegal. > > I tell my screenmate "I going on to 6S even if partner signs off > >in 5". Partner signs off in 5, after a hesitation. I bid 6S. Are you > >seriously arguing that I am taking advantage of UI? Are you, in fact, > >arguing that my statement to my screenmate was an attempt to take > >advantage of UI I didn't even have, by announcing what I was going to bid > >anyway? > > No, but then L16 talks about choosing amongst LAs. Many players get > ruled against correctly who have not "taken advantage" of UI because > there are objective criteria. You snipped the preceeding passage of yours to which this was a reply. Ordinarily, that wouldn't matter, but in this case I wrote this paragraph [IIRC--I would be happy to be corrected] in reply to your claim that the player was in violation not just of L16 but of L73 as well. L73 says nothing whatsoever about LAs, and speaks only about taking advantage of UI. Are you agreeing with me, then, that this player is not in violation of L73, and can only be accused under L16? > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 02:17:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:17:14 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 CAA16683 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:17:06 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10PTrN-0002nw-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:16:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:05:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <199903221721.LAA20765@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36F77A94.50FC0465@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36F77A94.50FC0465@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> I am trying to convince you that the action of bidding 6S is >> illegal. That's all. I do not consider whether *this player* at *this >> time* is "taking advantage" of UI. >OK David, let's read L16 again. "A player, when in >possession of UI, shall not choose from among LA's the one >which is suggested" (short form but basically correct, I >believe) >You are right that at the moment he bids, he has UI, and >this may suggest the bid he is making. > >We are all arguing that in fact there are no LA's ! No, Herman, you and some others are arguing it, but there are other arguments as well, and my main arguments have been peripheral, for example whether someone is "taking advantage" which is not the determining factor. >The definition of LA is not in the Laws. >We have made a lot of jurisprudence which help us finding >out what the LA's are in any particular case. >But they are just that - jurisprudence, not the Law itself! > >Now we are trying to have you agree that if a player can >prove to a TD and/or AC that in his opinion, all other bids >are no longer LA's, then the AC may use that evidence at its >discretion in determining the LA's. Certainly - but see [3] below. >Surely you are not saying that someone who states "I will >bid 6" at a moment before receiving UI, will now change his >mind and start contemplating other bids after he receives UI >that also point to bidding 6. >So how can these othe bids then be LA's ? [1] LAs are determined with reference to the action of other people in similar circumstances. [2] A player may change his mind because of other information he receives. The most obvious example being that if 5S is doubled, then he may decide not to bid 6S. [3] I dislike continued use of the word prove. What a player writes on a piece of paper is not proof: evidence, yes, proof, no. Admittedly that is moot because ACs and TDs do not require proof [except perhaps in C&E cases]. [4] If an illegal procedure happens, as one of its benefits, to reduce possible LAs, that is not sufficient argument to allow people to follow an illegal procedure. Now, since I have attempted to answer your questions, perhaps you can answer one of mine. If I was intending to bid 6S next round, why do I not bid it this round? Is there no possibility that I am pretty certainly going to bid 6S when I use this procedure, but just possibly might not? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 02:17:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:17:08 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 CAA16676 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:17:01 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10PTrJ-00056T-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:16:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:08:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stevenson: > The Law says that if UI is present then certain bids become illegal. Burn: >The Law stated only that when a player is in receipt of UI, he is >constrained in his choice of action. You are honestly suggesting these are different? -- 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 Mar 24 02:30:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:30:33 +1000 Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17203 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:30:23 +1000 Received: from [212.140.16.1] (helo=[212.140.16.1]) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PU48-0001wF-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:30:11 +0000 From: David Burn To: Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:30:09 +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 -------------------------------------- From: "Grattan Endicott" Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: 23/03/1999 13:56:34 --------------------------------------- > The Law says that if UI is present then certain bids become illegal. = >Whether a player who makes such an illegal call is "taking advantage" or = >not is not the determining factor. > +++ One would not wish to be aggressive, much less to=20 dismiss a knowledgeable and respected authority's remarks=20 or to throw a contributor's own words back at him. However,=20 the point you make, which is so plainly stated in the law, has=20 apparently not been picked up in DB's perusal of it. I do not=20 quite know how we might persuade him to go back once=20 more to the text. Anyway, the subject has reached boring point. I agree with that last remark, at any rate. I can read, and I agree with = all you say about when UI is present. The point that I do not seem to be able to communicate to DWS or to you is that when a player has pre-announced his next call, then UI is ipso facto not present, so the Laws governing it = do not apply. Suppose I bid Blackwood. Suppose you think for ages and respond 5C. I knew = you were going to do that, because I've got all four aces - i was only = bidding 4NT so that I could bid 5NT at my next turn to ask for kings. = Indeed, playing behind screens, I may very well have removed the 5NT card = to save time when the tray comes back (always a good idea when screens are = in use to save what time one can). May I no longer bid 5NT because I have = UI from your trance over 4NT? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 03:47:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 03:47:24 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA17400 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 03:47:15 +1000 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 RAA07762 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:46:40 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.7.1) id RAA05582 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:45:10 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990323184701.007c79e0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:47:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: References: <36F77A94.50FC0465@village.uunet.be> <199903221721.LAA20765@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36F77A94.50FC0465@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:05 23/03/99 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > Now, since I have attempted to answer your questions, perhaps you can >answer one of mine. If I was intending to bid 6S next round, why do I >not bid it this round? Is there no possibility that I am pretty >certainly going to bid 6S when I use this procedure, but just possibly >might not? > This is incidental to the main issue but I can answer, and it will be a proof (excuse me, evidence) that this situation is not only theoretical but can be met in real-life: it happened! I did not bid 6S this round because I was politely answering to BW (and 6S would have been an artificial answer with some other meaning). Partner could have been knowing what he was doing and been interested with the aces ... and he was! his next bid was 7S and he was right. On another side the announcement was not a proof, nor evidence, nor a temporary state of mind, but a promise; a word which, I agree, is not in the "Definitions" glossary of the Laws. JP Rocafort >-- >David Stevenson ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 04:19:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 04:19:05 +1000 Received: from mail2.rochester.rr.com (mta@mail2-1.twcny.rr.com [24.92.226.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA19175 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 04:18:44 +1000 Received: from fw4t6 ([24.93.16.79]) by mail2.rochester.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.2 release 221 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:20:33 -0500 Message-ID: <034301be7559$7173b4a0$4f105d18@fw4t6.rochester.rr.com> From: "Bill Bickford" To: Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:17:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0340_01BE752F.880FC480" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0340_01BE752F.880FC480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 1:07 PM Subject: Re: UI insurance (SNIP) > > > Now, since I have attempted to answer your questions, perhaps you can >answer one of mine. If I was intending to bid 6S next round, why do I >not bid it this round? Is there no possibility that I am pretty >certainly going to bid 6S when I use this procedure, but just possibly >might not? > >How about the forcing pass and pull situation where your intention is to invite the grand? Cheers...................................../Bill Bickford >-- >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 ~ ------=_NextPart_000_0340_01BE752F.880FC480 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="Bill Bickford.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Bill Bickford.vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Bickford;Bill FN:Bill Bickford EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:bickford@frontiernet.net REV:19990323T181741Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_0340_01BE752F.880FC480-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 04:47:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 04:47:23 +1000 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA21388 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 04:47:09 +1000 Received: from [212.140.18.166] (helo=[212.140.18.166]) by carbon with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PWAk-00017r-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:45:09 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:46:46 +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 --------------------------------------- From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: 23/03/1999 16:05:33 --------------------------------------- [H de W] >You are right that at the moment he bids, he has UI, and >this may suggest the bid he is making. > >We are all arguing that in fact there are no LA's ! Not at all. I am arguing that from the moment he indicates what he will bid to the moment he bids it, he receives no I at all, U or otherwise. You only = start to consider LAs if there is UI - and when a man bids what he has told someone else he will bid regardless, that man may reasonably be presumed not to have received any information at all that has affected his decision. Why is L16 always read from the middle outwards? [DWS] No, Herman, you and some others are arguing it, but there are other = arguments as well, and my main arguments have been peripheral, for example = whether someone is "taking advantage" which is not the determining factor. It isn't? It is the "taking advantage" that is prohibited by Law. If that = isn't the determining factor, then what is? [1] LAs are determined with reference to the action of other people in = similar circumstances. No. That is a regulation put in place to assist when other constructions fail to determine the question. First and foremost, a logical alternative = is defined by the meaning of those words in English. If one can determine from the actions of an individual that he followed what was to him the only course that accorded with reason, and if we assume that he is a reasonable man, then there is no need to consider what others would do. [2] A player may change his mind because of other information he receives. = The most obvious example being that if 5S is doubled, then he may decide = not to bid 6S. This does not seem to me relevant (as I have said, the question of the player's changing his mind introduces an issue not at all germane to the = problem that JPR wished us to resolve). However, since DWS makes the point, = I would say that of course a player may change his mind based on "information" made available to him by an opponent (if a double of 5S can be classed as such). What he may not do is change his mind based on information made available to him by partner, and since he already has all the information he needs from that source, there is no question of such a change of mind. [3] I dislike continued use of the word prove. What a player writes on a = piece of paper is not proof: evidence, yes, proof, no. =20 This may be semantical only. If a player writes "I will do X" and then does = X, what further proof would you require that his intention at the time of = writing was to do X, and that nothing which has intervened has changed his intention? I think that the piece of paper would provide, at any rate, conclusive evidence that the player has "demonstrably" not taken any action suggested over another by UI. [4] If an illegal procedure happens, as one of its benefits, to reduce = possible LAs, that is not sufficient argument to allow people to follow an = illegal procedure. What illegal procedure? Is the writing of notes to one's screenmate against the Laws? If so, the TDs might have collected an awful lot of fines in Warsaw! >Now, since I have attempted to answer your questions, perhaps you can = answer one of mine. If I was intending to bid 6S next round, why do I not = bid it this round? Is there no possibility that I am pretty certainly = going to bid 6S when I use this procedure, but just possibly might not? Well, suppose one had: AKQxxx x void AKQxxx and heard partner open 1S. Partner does not psyche, so we know he has an opening. We bid 4D, a splinter, whichi in our methods mandates partner to cue the HA if he has it. At this point, we say to our = screenmate: "If he bids 4S I'm bidding six, and if he bids 4H I'm bidding 7S, = regardless of how long that tray takes to come back." From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 04:52:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 04:52:39 +1000 Received: from mpcmr1001.ac.com (MPCMR1001.ac.com [170.252.160.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA21774 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 04:52:24 +1000 Received: from emehm1101.ac.com (EMEHM1101.ac.com [10.2.102.45]) by mpcmr1001.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA17929 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:50:49 -0600 (CST) Received: by emehm1101.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id 8625673D.00673A2F ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:47:31 -0600 X-Lotus-FromDomain: AC_TELEKOM@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING From: "Christian Farwig" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <8625673D.0067364B.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:33:45 +0100 Subject: Re: UI insurance Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DW wrote: >> Now, since I have attempted to answer your questions, perhaps you can answer one of mine. If I was intending to bid 6S next round, why do I not bid it this round? Is there no possibility that I am pretty certainly going to bid 6S when I use this procedure, but just possibly might not?<< Probably it occured to the 4NT bidder only after the call that partners response is irrelevant. In a long tournament, you tend to do these mistakes after playing a few zillion boards. BTW: I'm with DB on this issue: UI is only relevant if the subsequent actions are influenced by it. Just my 2c worth of beating a dead horse, Christian n n n n From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 05:01:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 05:01:33 +1000 Received: from praseodumium (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA22450 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 05:01:21 +1000 Received: from [212.140.4.51] (helo=[212.140.4.51]) by praseodumium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PWNW-0001lU-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:58:20 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:01:02 +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 --------------------------------------- From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: 23/03/1999 16:08:25 --------------------------------------- Stevenson: > The Law says that if UI is present then certain bids become illegal. Burn: >The Law stated only that when a player is in receipt of UI, he is = >constrained in his choice of action. You are honestly suggesting these are different? Yes, of course I am, because of course they are. East pauses, which broadcasts "information" - North and South know that=20 East has a problem. If West is "listening" to the pause, then so does West, and of course he = may not act on inferences drawn therefrom in choosing from among LAs.=20 UI may be "present" in the sense that either of North and South may feel = that East has communicated information which has been received by them and might have been received by West. But if West has not been "listening" because he is in the bathroom, which was the point of the example you contrived to ridicule earlier, or because he already has his next bid ready, or because he is asleep, then he is not in receipt of UI (because he is not in receipt of any I). If West can show that such was indeed his state of mind, then he cannot be found to be in breach L16 (or any other Law for that matter), regardless of what you or I or the entire Vatican Council might have done with his hand. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 06:16:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 06:16:59 +1000 Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA26933 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 06:16:53 +1000 Received: from ip68.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.68]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990323201647.COQY5436.fep1@ip68.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:16:47 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: A half-serious question Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:16:46 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36fae6ed.6084519@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.5.32.19990322160651.007d0670@phedre.meteo.fr> <001101be7489$84497220$f1108cd4@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001101be7489$84497220$f1108cd4@davidburn> 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 Mar 1999 17:29:17 -0000, "David Burn" wrote: >"If I double and alert, then my RHO will continue to believe that his >partner has four key cards and an extra king, and that the opening >lead against 7S will be ruffed. So, he will bid 7NT, and I know that >this will go more down than 7S. Perhaps he will then complain that my >double caused him to go for 1700 in 7NT instead of, perhaps, 500 in >7S. Maybe, then, the sporting thing to do is not to alert - that way, >RHO will realise that the wheels are off and they may stop in 7S." Sometimes we use the "screen test": imagine what would have happened with screens. Your problem here is that you have to alert your own calls, so the screens are a disadvantage. Now try the "non-screen test" here: what would have happened without screens? Your partner would have alerted, RHO would bid 7NT, and you would have your 1700. That is the "natural" thing to happen. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 06:16:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 06:16:55 +1000 Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA26927 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 06:16:48 +1000 Received: from ip68.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.68]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990323201640.COQN5436.fep1@ip68.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:16:40 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: blml Subject: Re: Bid what you would have anyway? Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:16:39 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36f8e032.4361922@post12.tele.dk> References: <199903202047.OAA16146@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36f76fd3.919311@post12.tele.dk> <36F603C9.916341EA@home.com> <36f78dac.3323048@post12.tele.dk> <36F75490.2F193F02@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36F75490.2F193F02@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 Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:45:04 -0800, Jan Kamras wrote: >Try once to seperate the matter from the=20 >a) opponent's point of view, and >b) from a TD's point of view. > >a) If the opponent accepts the player's action, the TD won't be called >at all. Do you find that opponent acting in any way improperly by not >calling the TD? No, the opponent has no obligation to call attention to an irregularity. But the first player has acted improperly if he has deliberately made a call that is illegal according to L16A - even if he knows that his opponents will not call the TD. >b) If the TD is called, apparently the player's action was *not* >accepted by the opponents. Then as a TD you apply L16 literally. You >don't have to call anyone anything. The laws specify what is legal and what is not. Whether or not the TD is called makes no difference as to what is legal. When the TD is not called there is no score adjustment: agreed! But that does not mean that there is no irregularity. It sounds as if you possibly agree with me in the interpretation of L16A, but find it acceptable for a player to make an illegal bid with his opponents' acceptance. I do not like that, but there is not much the TD can do about it if the players do not call him. It would also be legal for the opponent to call the TD and tell him that there may be a L16A violation here, but that he'd like the TD to waive the penalty because he is convinced that there was no use of UI. It would then be legal for the TD to waive the penalty (L81C8). But is was still not legal to make the bid in the first place. >I beleive that even Mike Dennis, who's opinion you so strongly support, >agreed that L16 would be totally different if we could put "Camcorders" >in the players' brains - don't you? Certainly. If we could read players' minds, many laws would be very different. But we can't, and they're not. >PS: If the literal application of every law would solve every situation, >create equity, and make everyone happy - then why BLML? :-)) Several laws are so problematical that we sometimes do not follow them literally. L16A is IMO an extremely good law, precisely because it allows us to adjust without accusing anybody of taking advantage of UI or of lying. That property is so important that I would not dream of departing from the letter of L16A. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 07:56:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:56:39 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA28088 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:56:31 +1000 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 QAA23153 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:55:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990323165711.0070b0e8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:57:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Delay of card In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:13 AM 3/23/99 +0000, David wrote: > I have been asked the following: > > Please would you inform me whether it is (a) ethical and (b) legal, >within The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1997, for declarer to delay playing >a card when the only reasonable purpose for the delay is to obtain a >reaction from a defender that suggests how the cards lie. If >applicable, please could you indicate which Laws are relevant. It is neither ethical nor legal. L74C7. 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 Mar 24 07:57:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:57:23 +1000 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 HAA28096 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:57:16 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id VAA24219 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:56:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 23 Mar 99 10:17 GMT From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UI insurance 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: > Suppose he writes on a piece of paper "I shall make sure that we reach > a grand slam with my next call". His opponent gives a big smile, which > it is legal for him to use ["mannerisms of opponents"] and he realises > he must have an ace. So he signs off in small slam next time. Now > what? Why not adjust under L72b1 or L73d2 as you see fit. > > All you know *for a fact* is that a player is using a procedure that > is not permitted by the Laws of the game to try and gain an advantage. In the original case where a player makes his intentions clear and then follows through he is *not* trying to gain advantage, he is trying to avoid an artificial disadvantage. What is the problem with treating truthful statements as part of full disclosure and misleading/untruthful ones as irregularities. If we insist on dragging peer actions into the debate (not in my lawbook) then at least we have evidence that the player's peers were those who, at the time of making the statement, would bid the slam regardless of partner's actions. We may still adjust if we believe that some number of these peers would reconsider on subsequent reflection. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 07:57:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:57:24 +1000 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 HAA28097 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:57:17 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id VAA24227 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:56:22 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 23 Mar 99 10:17 GMT From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UI insurance 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 > > He is about to make a bid that is _illegal_ and he is trying to find a > method to make it appear legal. Humph. > He is *not* (probably) about to make a bid that is illegal. He *knows* that *his* peers would not consider a pass an LA. He is further aware that the TD/AC/opponents will be less sure about who his peers are and is trying make sure that nobody puts the near peers (who might pass) into the group called peers. It seems ridiculous that we would not give significant weight to his previously expressed opinion. Although I do agree that his statement is evidence, not proof. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 08:41:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:41:22 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA28231 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:41:06 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA27048; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:40:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-02.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.34) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026964; Tue Mar 23 16:39:41 1999 Received: by har-pa1-02.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE7553.D2970300@har-pa1-02.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:37:28 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE7553.D2970300@har-pa1-02.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Hirsch Davis'" Subject: RE: UI insurance (longish rant) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:25:57 -0500 Encoding: 60 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Actually, in North America I believe the test should be whether some of the players peers might have thought it might be an emergency, and considered going to the rest room, whether or not any of them would have actually made the journey. If that sounds silly, have you heard our guidelines for an LA. :-)) Craig ---------- From: Hirsch Davis[SMTP:hdavis@erols.com] Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 10:39 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: UI insurance (longish rant) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of David > Stevenson > Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 12:33 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) > > [snip] > > Okay, sorry, i will discuss going to the bathroom. If you go to the > bathroom, and when you come back you have no UI, then you are not > constrained by any UI Laws. What have I missed? > > -- > 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 ~ > Might this not be another form of UI insurance? The player knows his call will give his partner a problem, and so arranges to be away from the table,. missing the UI, and circumventing Law 16 (if in fact it applies). Just a different means of accomplishing the same end as passing the note. Of course, we could create a regulation to prevent this: If a player wishes to go to the bathroom during the auction, the player shall summon the TD, who shall accompany the player. The TD shall observe the player eliminating into a measured container. If the final volume is such that 75% of the player's peers would not consider it an emergency, it shall not be considered a valid bathroom journey and the TD shall adjust the score if the opponents are damaged.... Hirsch ;) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 08:50:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:50:11 +1000 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 IAA28254 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:50:06 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990323224959.JQGZ11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:49:59 -0800 Message-ID: <36F81BA1.B0F2955@home.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:54:25 -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 insurance References: <199903221721.LAA20765@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36F77A94.50FC0465@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > [1] LAs are determined with reference to the action of other people > in similar circumstances. Since you're accusing some of us of "circumventing the laws", pls point us to which specific (or general) law says that LAs are thusly determined. > [3] I dislike continued use of the word prove. What a player writes > on a piece of paper is not proof: evidence, yes, proof, no. What some of us are saying is that such evidence is at least as good as what an AC assumes to be "the action of other people in similar circumstances". From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 08:50:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:50:51 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA28269 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:50:42 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA06820; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:49:58 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-02.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.34) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma006694; Tue Mar 23 16:49:06 1999 Received: by har-pa1-02.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE7555.26379780@har-pa1-02.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:46:58 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE7555.26379780@har-pa1-02.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'David Burn'" Subject: RE: UI insurance Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:38:43 -0500 Encoding: 31 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (DB)>I will put this as simply as I can. If this player at this time is not >taking advantage of UI, then this player at this time is doing nothing >illegal. Or if he is, then could you please explain to us what it is? (DWS) The Law says that if UI is present then certain bids become illegal. Whether a player who makes such an illegal call is "taking advantage" or not is not the determining factor. (DB)Are you quoting the Law? If so, I cannot find the words you use in the Law book. Are you paraphrasing the Law? (CS) This is very clearly a paraphrase of 16A (preamble) "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call...the partner may not choose..." The law as written is clear. It does not matter that the player is not using the UI to make the call. He MAY NOT make it. That would violate the Law. Perhaps this is not what the Law should say in a perfect world, but we open such a can of worms in changing it to allow the "pre-announced bid strategy" that we should not make such a move lightly. If we do not CHANGE the law, it continues to apply. The "pre-announced call" may not violate 16A, but the ACTUAL call following the UI does, and must therefore be penalised appropriately. To do elsewise leads toward chaos. If we will not abide by the Laws, what shall we use? --- Craig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 09:22:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:22:36 +1000 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 JAA28323 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:22:30 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990323232224.KAAB11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:22:24 -0800 Message-ID: <36F8233A.D8676BF9@home.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:26:50 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Bid what you would have anyway? References: <199903202047.OAA16146@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36f76fd3.919311@post12.tele.dk> <36F603C9.916341EA@home.com> <36f78dac.3323048@post12.tele.dk> <36F75490.2F193F02@home.com> <36f8e032.4361922@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > But the first player has acted improperly if he has deliberately > made a call that is illegal according to L16A (snip) > The laws specify what is legal and what is not. Picking up from the other thread: I must be missing something, since I cannot find where in L16 (or anywhere else) this is specified. It limites our choices among "logical alternatives" but makes no effort whatsoever of telling us how to define LAs. Certain guidelines have been adopted by different SOs to define an LA, but they are not part of the laws (and indeed vary from SO to SO). I see absolutely nothing illegal per se in adopting a definition that says: "..considered by many of his peers, *in the absense of direct evidence to the contrary*...", or similar. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 10:11:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:11:29 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA28429 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:11:21 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10PbGI-000H0H-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:11:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:02:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <199903231602.KAA07282@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199903231602.KAA07282@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: >> > I tell my screenmate "I going on to 6S even if partner signs off >> >in 5". Partner signs off in 5, after a hesitation. I bid 6S. Are you >> >seriously arguing that I am taking advantage of UI? Are you, in fact, >> >arguing that my statement to my screenmate was an attempt to take >> >advantage of UI I didn't even have, by announcing what I was going to bid >> >anyway? >> >> No, but then L16 talks about choosing amongst LAs. Many players get >> ruled against correctly who have not "taken advantage" of UI because >> there are objective criteria. > > You snipped the preceeding passage of yours to which this was a >reply. Sorry: snipping is necessary, and sometimes I snip too much or too little. > Ordinarily, that wouldn't matter, but in this case I wrote this >paragraph [IIRC--I would be happy to be corrected] in reply to your claim >that the player was in violation not just of L16 but of L73 as well. L73 >says nothing whatsoever about LAs, and speaks only about taking advantage >of UI. Are you agreeing with me, then, that this player is not in >violation of L73, and can only be accused under L16? Ohhhh! I suppose it is a language thing. When you say a player has "taken advantage" of UI it really does sound ugly: it sounds as though he has done something he shouldn't, and I am not saying that the player has "taken advantage" of UI by using this procedure. But that is not precisely what L73C. It says "he must carefully avoid taking any advantage", and I do not believe that failure to follow that is "taking advantage" necessarily: it might be taking insufficient care, for example. I believe that a player can be in breach of L73C without "taking advantage", certainly without deliberately so. I shall bet a large amount of money that this one gets me into hot water from some people. Oh well, I keep trying! -- 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 Mar 24 10:11:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:11:31 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA28428 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:11:21 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10PbGI-000H0G-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:11:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:48:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <199903221721.LAA20765@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36F77A94.50FC0465@village.uunet.be> <36F81BA1.B0F2955@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36F81BA1.B0F2955@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: >> [1] LAs are determined with reference to the action of other people >> in similar circumstances. >Since you're accusing some of us of "circumventing the laws", pls point >us to which specific (or general) law says that LAs are thusly >determined. Perhaps if you want to be technical it would be better to say circumventing the rules. Anyway, I thought it was understood. There is no Law describing what an LA is: there are interpretations by the Regulating Authority which are to be followed by TDs and ACs within their domain. If the ACBL says such-and-such a call is an LA then it is for practical purposes within the ACBL, though not necessarily elsewhere. >> [3] I dislike continued use of the word prove. What a player writes >> on a piece of paper is not proof: evidence, yes, proof, no. >What some of us are saying is that such evidence is at least as good as >what an AC assumes to be "the action of other people in similar >circumstances". Fine. Now go and convince your Regulating Authority that they are wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 10:11:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:11:29 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 KAA28430 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:11:21 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10PbGI-0005hn-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:11:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:04:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <8625673D.0067364B.00@emehm1101.ac.com> In-Reply-To: <8625673D.0067364B.00@emehm1101.ac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Christian Farwig wrote: >BTW: I'm with DB on this issue: UI is only relevant if the subsequent >actions are influenced by it. Certainly. I would not disagree with that. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 10:17:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:17:47 +1000 Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA28486 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:17:40 +1000 Received: from [212.140.18.78] (helo=[212.140.18.78]) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PbM7-0007GE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:17:14 +0000 From: David Burn To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: UI insurance Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:17:12 +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 (DB) I will put this as simply as I can. If this player at this time is not = taking advantage of UI, then this player at this time is doing nothing = illegal. Or if he is, then could you please explain to us what it is? (DWS) The Law says that if UI is present then certain bids become illegal. = Whether a player who makes such an illegal call is "taking advantage" or=20 not is not the determining factor. (DB)Are you quoting the Law? If so, I cannot find the words you use in the Law book. Are you paraphrasing the Law? (CS) This is very clearly a paraphrase of 16A (preamble) "After a player = makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a = call...the partner may not choose..." No, it isn't. Since the player has already chosen, then he has not chosen _after_ his partner makes available any information, nor has he chosen _because of_ information made available by his partner. He has chosen entirely on the basis of AI currently available to him at the time he made = his choice. And what is more, he can prove it (sorry, DWS - he can provide extremely strong evidence to support it). Why do we have directives (not Laws) relating to peer actions? Because akthough we would like to believe a player who tells us "I would always = have done X, honest I would!" we know that this would render the Laws inoperative in the vast majority of cases, for though we want to beiieve = that the player is telling the truth, we have to protect his opponents in case = he is not. In the "Grattan example" that someone gave, although the AC chair and GE's opponents might all be very well aware that Grattan is an honourabe man, we will still rule agaist him (as he would expect) because we cannot afford to allow reputation to determine the outcome. The opponents are entitled to the benefit of the tiny possibility that this = time, GE's standards may have slipped. But when we _know_ beyond anything resembling reasonable doubt that a player was telling the truth - why do the Laws compel us to disbelieve him? {CS] The law as written is clear. It does not matter that the player is not = using the UI to make the call. He MAY NOT make it. That would violate the = Law. Eh? If a player is not using the UI, then what is he doing that is illegal? = He is forbidden only to make a call that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the UI. What he has done is to make a call that was demonstrably not suggested to him over another by the UI, because it was already suggested to him over all others by means of AI, as he has demonstrated. [CS] Perhaps this is not what the Law should say in a perfect world, but we open = such a can of worms in changing it to allow the "pre-announced bid=20 strategy" that we should not make such a move lightly. If we do not CHANGE = the law, it continues to apply. The "pre-announced call" may not violate = 16A, but the ACTUAL call following the UI does, and must therefore be = penalised appropriately. To do elsewise leads toward chaos. If we will not = abide by the Laws, what shall we use? I do not believe that my position or the player's actions are in any way inconsistent with abiding by the Laws. If the pre-announced call does not violate L16A, then how can the actual call violate it when they are the same call? There is no question in my mind of a need to change the Law. L16 is fine as it stands, if only people would read it. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 10:24:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:24:46 +1000 Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA28519 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:24:40 +1000 Received: from [195.171.231.225] (helo=[195.171.231.225]) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PbUS-0004fT-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:25:51 +0000 From: David Burn To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: UI insurance Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:24:25 +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 (DB) I will put this as simply as I can. If this player at this time is not = taking advantage of UI, then this player at this time is doing nothing = illegal. Or if he is, then could you please explain to us what it is? (DWS) The Law says that if UI is present then certain bids become illegal. = Whether a player who makes such an illegal call is "taking advantage" or=20 not is not the determining factor. (DB)Are you quoting the Law? If so, I cannot find the words you use in the Law book. Are you paraphrasing the Law? (CS) This is very clearly a paraphrase of 16A (preamble) "After a player = makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a = call...the partner may not choose..." No, it isn't. Since the player has already chosen, then he has not chosen _after_ his partner makes available any information, nor has he chosen _because of_ information made available by his partner. He has chosen entirely on the basis of AI currently available to him at the time he made = his choice. And what is more, he can prove it (sorry, DWS - he can provide extremely strong evidence to support it). Why do we have directives (not Laws) relating to peer actions? Because akthough we would like to believe a player who tells us "I would always = have done X, honest I would!" we know that this would render the Laws inoperative in the vast majority of cases, for though we want to beiieve = that the player is telling the truth, we have to protect his opponents in case = he is not. In the "Grattan example" that someone gave, although the AC chair and GE's opponents might all be very well aware that Grattan is an honourabe man, we will still rule agaist him (as he would expect) because we cannot afford to allow reputation to determine the outcome. The opponents are entitled to the benefit of the tiny possibility that this = time, GE's standards may have slipped. But when we _know_ beyond anything resembling reasonable doubt that a player was telling the truth - why do the Laws compel us to disbelieve him? {CS] The law as written is clear. It does not matter that the player is not = using the UI to make the call. He MAY NOT make it. That would violate the = Law. Eh? If a player is not using the UI, then what is he doing that is illegal? = He is forbidden only to make a call that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the UI. What he has done is to make a call that was demonstrably not suggested to him over another by the UI, because it was already suggested to him over all others by means of AI, as he has demonstrated. [CS] Perhaps this is not what the Law should say in a perfect world, but we open = such a can of worms in changing it to allow the "pre-announced bid=20 strategy" that we should not make such a move lightly. If we do not CHANGE = the law, it continues to apply. The "pre-announced call" may not violate = 16A, but the ACTUAL call following the UI does, and must therefore be = penalised appropriately. To do elsewise leads toward chaos. If we will not = abide by the Laws, what shall we use? I do not believe that my position or the player's actions are in any way inconsistent with abiding by the Laws. If the pre-announced call does not violate L16A, then how can the actual call violate it when they are the same call? There is no question in my mind of a need to change the Law. L16 is fine as it stands, if only people would read it. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 10:25:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:25:08 +1000 Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA28527 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:25:01 +1000 Received: from [195.171.231.225] (helo=[195.171.231.225]) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PbUn-0004fT-00; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:26:13 +0000 From: David Burn To: "Bridge Laws" , Jesper Dybdal Subject: Re: A half-serious question Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:24:38 +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 --------------------------------------- From: Jesper Dybdal Subject: Re: A half-serious question Date: 23/03/1999 20:16:46 --------------------------------------- On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:29:17 -0000, "David Burn" wrote: >"If I double and alert, then my RHO will continue to believe that his >partner has four key cards and an extra king, and that the opening >lead against 7S will be ruffed. So, he will bid 7NT, and I know that >this will go more down than 7S. Perhaps he will then complain that my >double caused him to go for 1700 in 7NT instead of, perhaps, 500 in >7S. Maybe, then, the sporting thing to do is not to alert - that way, >RHO will realise that the wheels are off and they may stop in 7S." >Sometimes we use the "screen test": imagine what would have happened with screens. >Your problem here is that you have to alert your own calls, so the screens are a disadvantage. >Now try the "non-screen test" here: what would have happened without screens? Your partner would have alerted, RHO would bid 7NT, and you would have your 1700. That is the "natural" thing to happen. it's OK, Jesper - this was the European Pairs, and we were playing with screens. If we had not been, the opponents would not have reached the seven level, for LHO would have explained 4NT as minors (his belief), and then RHO would not have thought RHO had four key cards and asked for kings, and then LHO would not have continued to insist that diamonds were his better minor, and then... I knew what I had to do, of course, so I did it. I alerted the double of 7S to my RHO, I doubled his conversion to 7NT, I led the king of hearts and collected 1700. I mention the case because (a) it might provide a little amusement value to people who are rather tired of UI questions; (b) there was a debate not long ago about whether one should not act if one felt that a correct explanation of the methods might do the opponents more damage than the incorrect one they currently possessed. The position would, of course, have been the same if I didn't have the diamond void - but perhaps there are some players who would forget to alert the double = then? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 10:25:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:25:24 +1000 Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA28548 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:25:15 +1000 Received: from [195.171.231.225] (helo=[195.171.231.225]) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PbV1-0004fT-00; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:26:26 +0000 From: David Burn To: blml , Jesper Dybdal Subject: Re: Bid what you would have anyway? Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:24:59 +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 --------------------------------------- From: Jesper Dybdal Subject: Re: Bid what you would have anyway? Date: 23/03/1999 20:16:39 --------------------------------------- [snip] It would also be legal for the opponent to call the TD and tell him that there may be a L16A violation here, but that he'd like the TD to waive the penalty because he is convinced that there was no use of UI. It would then be legal for the TD to waive the penalty (L81C8). But is was still not legal to make the bid in the first place. I am having a lot of difficulty with this. If there is no use of UI, then = where is the violation of Law? Is the trance itself a crime? >Certainly. If we could read players' minds, many laws would be very different. But we can't, and they're not. Well, we can't do it all the time, or even very much of the time. But when = we can do it, i think that we are foolish not to. >Several laws are so problematical that we sometimes do not follow them literally. L16A is IMO an extremely good law, precisely because it allows us to adjust without accusing anybody of taking advantage of UI or of lying. That property is so important that I would not dream of departing from the letter of L16A. Neither would I. But - what do those letters mean? There seems to be a belilef shared byJesper, DWS and Grattan (and some others) that L16 requires us to adjust the score whenever a player thinks. It does not. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 10:28:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:28:20 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA28567 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:28:10 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa09782; 23 Mar 99 16:27 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: UI insurance In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:46:46 PST." Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:27:24 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9903231627.aa09782@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > [1] LAs are determined with reference to the action of other people in = > similar circumstances. > > No. That is a regulation put in place to assist when other constructions > fail to determine the question. First and foremost, a logical alternative = > is > defined by the meaning of those words in English. If one can determine > from the actions of an individual that he followed what was to him the > only course that accorded with reason, and if we assume that he is a > reasonable man, then there is no need to consider what others would do. Your post has some good points, but I'm having a problem with this one. I haven't been reading every message on this thread, in part because I went up to Vancouver for a few days. So perhaps I've lost something in translation. But here's how things seem to me: Frank writes a note saying that "If partner does X, I intend to do Y." Partner bids X, so Frank bids Y. The note is now evidence (although not proof) that Frank always intended to bid Y over partner's X; therefore, if Frank received UI from his partner, the note is evidence that Frank did not use this UI in making the decision to bid Y. So far, so good. But how do we get from there to saying "Bidding Y was the only course that accorded with reason"??? I can't see a connection between the two. Just because I intend to do Y, doesn't mean that I think other bids are unreasonable. Say I have AQTxxx Ax KQx xx, and I open 1S, and I write down "If partner makes a single raise (with no interference), I'm going straight to game". Later, partner picks up the exact same hand, and after 1S-2S decides to make a game try with 3D. Just because I earlier wrote down my intent to go right to 4S in this situation, am I now required to think my partner is being *illogical*, or choosing an illogical alternative, because he took a more conservative route? But many people on this thread seem to be arguing that the two are the same. They seem to argue, and your post above seems to make this same argument, that Frank's note is evidence that Frank does not consider anything else to be a Logical Alternative. How??? How does "I intend to do Y if this situation comes up" equate to "I consider everything other than Y to be illogical or unreasonable"? The former clearly does *not* imply the latter, and it seems very silly to me to equate the two. And if the term "logical alternative" is defined by the meaning of those words in English, then it would seem to follow that these two are not equivalent: (1) I intend to do Y if this situation comes up (2) Y is my only Logical Alternative Yet many of the arguments on this thread seem to be equating them, e.g. # Surely you are not saying that someone who states "I will # bid 6" at a moment before receiving UI, will now change his # mind and start contemplating other bids after he receives UI # that also point to bidding 6. # So how can these othe bids then be LA's ? Maybe I'm not understanding the language properly? After all, I'm American and have only a 22% command of the English language. Am I missing something? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 11:27:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:27:46 +1000 Received: from sand3.global.net.uk (sand3.global.net.uk [194.126.80.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA28688 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:27:38 +1000 Received: from pefs02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.240] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10PcS2-0007DW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 01:27:23 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: A half-serious question Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 01:35:22 -0000 Message-ID: <01be7596$9547afc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws ; Jesper Dybdal Date: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 12:51 AM Subject: Re: A half-serious question --------------------------------------- From: Jesper Dybdal Subject: Re: A half-serious question Date: 23/03/1999 20:16:46 --------------------------------------- On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:29:17 -0000, "David Burn" wrote: >"If I double and alert, then my RHO will continue to believe that his >partner has four key cards and an extra king, and that the opening >lead against 7S will be ruffed. So, he will bid 7NT, and I know that >this will go more down than 7S. Perhaps he will then complain that my >double caused him to go for 1700 in 7NT instead of, perhaps, 500 in >7S. Maybe, then, the sporting thing to do is not to alert - that way, >RHO will realise that the wheels are off and they may stop in 7S." >Sometimes we use the "screen test": imagine what would have happened with screens. >Your problem here is that you have to alert your own calls, so the screens are a disadvantage. >Now try the "non-screen test" here: what would have happened without screens? Your partner would have alerted, RHO would bid 7NT, and you would have your 1700. That is the "natural" thing to happen. it's OK, Jesper - this was the European Pairs, and we were playing with screens. If we had not been, the opponents would not have reached the seven level, for LHO would have explained 4NT as minors (his belief), and then RHO would not have thought RHO had four key cards and asked for kings, and then LHO would not have continued to insist that diamonds were his better minor, and then... I knew what I had to do, of course, so I did it. I alerted the double of 7S to my RHO, I doubled his conversion to 7NT, I led the king of hearts and collected 1700. I mention the case because (a) it might provide a little amusement value to people who are rather tired of UI questions; (b) there was a debate not long ago about whether one should not act if one felt that a correct explanation of the methods might do the opponents more damage than the incorrect one they currently possessed. The position would, of course, have been the same if I didn't have the diamond void - but perhaps there are some players who would forget to alert the double then? Yes David, that is a good point. I would have thought, can I afford to double because this will get such and such a lead, and I would have decided "Yes" and because of my thought processes as a player I would have alerted, but I do see that it is easy to be blinded by the cards that one can see and failure to alert is in fact a transgression even if the double was automatic. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 12:50:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA28812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:50:27 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA28807 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:50:23 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA17385 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:50:19 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:50:19 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso Reply-To: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Delay of card In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990323165711.0070b0e8@pop.cais.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 02:13 AM 3/23/99 +0000, David wrote: > > > I have been asked the following: > > > > Please would you inform me whether it is (a) ethical and (b) legal, > >within The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1997, for declarer to delay playing > >a card when the only reasonable purpose for the delay is to obtain a > >reaction from a defender that suggests how the cards lie. If > >applicable, please could you indicate which Laws are relevant. As a director (and player) I avoid studiously every making any comment about the ethics of any situation or occurance. The term is subjective and often determined by a persons background and culture. As to (b), a legal action is one in accordance with (and preferably prescribed by) the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Since what David describes seems to be in contravention of 74C7, I would consider it illegal. A PP under Law 90 or an adjustment under 73B1 would both be possible. The intentional nature of the act makes it quite serious, viz 73B2. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 13:05:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA28847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:05:40 +1000 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 NAA28842 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:05:29 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990324030518.MSAJ11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:05:18 -0800 Message-ID: <36F85778.C179254C@home.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:09:44 -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: UI insurance References: <199903221721.LAA20765@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36F77A94.50FC0465@village.uunet.be> <36F81BA1.B0F2955@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Fine. Now go and convince your Regulating Authority that they are > wrong. I'd love to, but am not sure which one is "mine", SBF, FSB or ACBL :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 13:08:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA28883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:08:52 +1000 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 NAA28878 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:08:46 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveg2e.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.78]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA22975 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:08:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990323220657.006c6654@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:06:57 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Bid what you would have anyway? In-Reply-To: <36F75490.2F193F02@home.com> References: <199903202047.OAA16146@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36f76fd3.919311@post12.tele.dk> <36F603C9.916341EA@home.com> <36f78dac.3323048@post12.tele.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:45 AM 3/23/99 -0800, Jan wrote: >I beleive that even Mike Dennis, who's opinion you so strongly support, >agreed that L16 would be totally different if we could put "Camcorders" >in the players' brains - don't you? > Well, not quite. I do agree that _if_ we had available to us a reliable, objective method of determining motives and intent, then the legal procedures which we have developed to rule in UI cases, and a variety of others as well (inadequate claims, "inadvertent" violations which benefit the OS, etc.), would probably be replaced (or at least supplemented) by this "camcorder" technology. But it's a really big if. We don't have such technology, and are unlikely to get it any time soon. What I will insist upon in the unlikely event that such technology should appear is that its adoption into our legal framework would require careful consideration and implementation at least at the level of SO's, if not the WBFLC. For an individual TD or AC who stumbles upon such technology to apply it to these situations, in lieu of the less glamorous analytical approaches, would still be wholly inappropriate, even if the results got him closer to the underlying issue of who actually used UI. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 13:24:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA28918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:24:56 +1000 Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA28913 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:24:40 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n7d.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.125]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA04655 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:23:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990323222007.00813550@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:20:07 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: UI insurance In-Reply-To: <8625673D.0067364B.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:33 PM 3/23/99 +0100, Christian Farwig wrote: >BTW: I'm with DB on this issue: UI is only relevant if the subsequent >actions are influenced by it. Shouldn't that be: "if the subsequent actions could have been influeneced by it"? Hardly anyone ever thinks they have been influenced by UI. It seems to me, though, that the statement of intent which takes place before the UI has been made available is storng evidence that a player's action could not have been influenced by the UI. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 13:47:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA28978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:47:19 +1000 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 NAA28967 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:47:02 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveg2e.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.78]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA30674 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:46:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990323224645.006d2adc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:46:45 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: UI insurance In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:17 AM 3/24/99 +0000, David B wrote: > {Craig} >The law as written is clear. It does not matter that the player is not using the UI to make the call. He MAY NOT make it. That would violate the Law. > {David} >Eh? If a player is not using the UI, then what is he doing that is illegal? He is >forbidden only to make a call that could demonstrably have been suggested >over another by the UI. What he has done is to make a call that was >demonstrably not suggested to him over another by the UI, because it was >already suggested to him over all others by means of AI, as he has >demonstrated. > You have inserted two small words -- "to him" -- into the clauses in your second sentence. They are absolutely critical to your argument, and also absolutely wrong. It is a carefully crafted and deliberate strategy of the lawmakers, I am convinced, to have provided both Laws and jurisprudential procedures which allow us to avoid evaluating the subjective experience of players in such cases. Indeed, they "allow" this by requiring us to follow objective, analytical standards. What's wrong with trying to understand the player's intentions, especially when they are so obvious as in this case? Simply that to do so undercuts our ability to rule correctly in the vast majority of cases where intentions are murkier. A ruling based primarily on our judgement, however well-founded, that _this_ player was obviously not taking advantage of UI, makes it that much harder to defend adverse rulings against the indignant charge that we are impugning the integrity of the players whose bids we have declared illegal. One other point about your general argument. You have consistently maintained that a player who has pre-announced his bid cannot subsequently be a recipient of UI, at least so long as he follows through on his announced intention. In this you have confused the presence of UI with its inappropriate usage. Your partner announces at the beginning of the hand that he has an 11-count. This information may be completely irrelevant to any decision you have to make over the course of the hand, but it is still UI. Your score will not be adjusted so long as you "do not choose.." (although your side may suffer a stiff PP), but the UI is there, regardless of whether it affects your actions or not. Finally, I personally do not care if the community of world-class players who normally get to play with screens choose to adopt an informal practice regarding pre-announcements, and I can live with a "gentlemen's agreement" not to challenge such calls. Perhaps their games go more smoothly as a result. But these players should understand that extra-legal undertakings afford them no legal protection in disputes arising from such practices. When one side breaks the "gentlemen's agreement" and seeks to enforce their legal rights, they are entitled to have those rights adjudicated according to well-established, documented procedures and regulations, without reference to extra-legal understandings. Players who consider that such practices should enjoy legal status should petition their SO's to incorporate appropriate regulations governing their usage. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 15:17:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:17:44 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA29221 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:17:37 +1000 Received: from vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.21]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA21943 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:17:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:17:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903240517.AAA02151@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Burn on Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:24:38 +0000) Subject: Re: A half-serious question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn writes: >Jesper Dybdal writes: >> Now try the "non-screen test" here: what would have happened >> without screens? Your partner would have alerted, RHO would bid >> 7NT, and you would have your 1700. That is the "natural" thing >> to happen. > it's OK, Jesper - this was the European Pairs, and we were playing with > screens. If we had not been, the opponents would not have reached the > seven level, for LHO would have explained 4NT as minors (his belief), > and then RHO would not have thought RHO had four key cards and asked > for kings, Under the UI rules, RHO, who intended 4NT as Blackwood, would have an obligation to treat it as Blackwood, and bid 5NT to look for the probable grand slam. Failure to bid 5NT would have been an infraction, and would have caused an adjustment to the worst likely score, apparently 7NTx down a bunch. > and then LHO would not have continued to insist that diamonds > were his better minor, Maybe. Without screens, LHO has no UI, other than anything he gets from RHO's reaction to his incorrect comment. Thus, in theory, LHO can bid something else; I would assume that 5NT is "pick a slam", and would bid 6D or 6NT as appropriate. -- 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 Mar 24 18:13:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:13:25 +1000 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA29435 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:13:17 +1000 Received: from modem47.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.175] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Pime-0001Ux-00; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:13:04 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:51:04 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ************************************************ "The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning." - Erich Fromm nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) > Date: 22 March 1999 17:33 > > David Burn wrote: > > >Oh, stop being so pompous. The point I was trying to illustrate is > >that in the case under discussion, no information - authorised or > >otherwise - has been transmitted or can be transmitted to a player who > >already knows what his next call will be. +++ This is where we come to grief. The statement is simply not true. Any significant pause by partner conveys something and that something is UI. This applies even when the player "knows what his next call will be". And when his turn comes and he has to select a call he is subject to the limitations the law lays down, regardless of any gratuitous remark he may have made, to which he is not tied since it is no part of correct procedure, is looked upon as a discourtesy (and is unenforceable but may be subject to PP). ~G~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 18:13:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:13:20 +1000 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA29433 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:13:14 +1000 Received: from modem47.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.175] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Pimg-0001Ux-00; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:13:07 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:11:56 -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 quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning." - Erich Fromm nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn > From: Tim Goodwin > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UI insurance > Date: 22 March 1999 17:52 > > At 03:59 PM 3/22/99 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >+++ But "acting on the basis of unauthorised information " > >is not the relevant question.. The question is whether the > >chosen call is more suggested by the UI than another, > >logical alternative, call. Or at least, this is the question > >the law puts; it does not raise the question of the player's > >motivation or the basis on which the player makes the > >call. ~ Grattan ~ +++ > > How can a call which is decided upon before UI is available be based upon > that UI? +++ If true, it isn't, but the law does not talk about based on, it talks about suggested by. The relevant timing is the moment at which with UI available the player has to choose his call. And although the player purports to decide his call in advance he is free to change until he selects his call at his turn. I am not stating what is desirable I am merely noting what the law actually says; I quite understand the emotional response to the situation which causes some to argue that the law provides what they feel it should provide, but the cold dispassionate words of the law offer them no comfort. Of course at some tables no-one would call the Director maybe, but that is a marginal issue. The point that we have to get across is that at the time he comes to make the call partner's action has limited him and if the call is suggested more than a LA (judged not by the player's mind but by those of his peers) he is not allowed to implement the action he had planned. There is nothing in the law to authorize 'pre-selection' as an escape route from the law. And he cannot argue he has no UI; partner's hesitation or whatever has added to the player's information and has created UI for him. Emough. ~Grattan~ +++ ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 20:49:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA29846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:49:46 +1000 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA29841 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:49:38 +1000 Received: from [195.171.254.214] (helo=[195.171.254.214]) by carbon with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PlC5-0001H0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:47:32 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: UI insurance Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:49:10 +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 --------------------------------------- From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: UI insurance Date: 24/03/1999 03:46:45 --------------------------------------- You have inserted two small words -- "to him" -- into the clauses in your = second sentence. They are absolutely critical to your argument, and also = absolutely wrong. Are they? Does L16 really mean that a player may never make a call in the presence of UI if there are alternatives that would be suggested to = some other group of players in the absence of UI? I do not believe that this is the primary meaning of the words in L16. I believe that in the great majority of cases, sucn an interpretation may be helpful in that it allows the appearance of an objective determination. But a test for the existence = of LAs as far as a group of other players is concerned is not the only, and certainly not the primary, test to be applied in a L16 case. People appear to me to be placing far too much reliance on the wording of the directives of their respective NBOs, and not nearly enough reliance on the words in the Law book. If something is "suggested", then it is = presumably suggested to somebody. In the context of L16, the sense of the words in English is that the call chosen should not be suggested to the player who chooses it. If a player can demonstrate beyod doubt that he has: (a) not received any information from the tempo of his partner's call; or (b) not used any such information in selecting his own call then he has not broken L16, and the fact that someone else might have made a different call on his hand in different circumstances has nothing whatever to do with the matter. >It is a carefully crafted and deliberate strategy of the lawmakers, I am = convinced, to have provided both Laws and jurisprudential procedures which = allow us to avoid evaluating the subjective experience of players in such = cases. It is refreshing to find so charitable an interpretation of the facts. It = restores one's faith in something, though I am not sure what. In truth, the current position - hugely unsatisfactory as it is in just about every respect - has arisen purely and simply to avoid players suing their NBOs for calling them cheats. >What's wrong with trying to understand the player's intentions, especially = when they are so obvious as in this case? Simply that to do so undercuts our ability to rule correctly in the vast majority of cases where intentions are murkier.=20 One might as well say that anyone who kills another human being is guilty of murder, though the killing might have ben justifiable, or accidental. = Why should we try to understand the intentions of the perpetrator? Because they are a crucial part of the alleged offence. It is simply not the case at = bridge that we have no duty to attempt to understand the intentions of a player. Only when the sole testimony to those intentions is in the form of a=20 "self-serving" statement ("I would always have done that!") is it sensible = for us to disregard it in favour of those objective tests that have been prescribed by a number of NBOs. But when strong evidence exists as to a player's intentions, it would be unfair - illegal even - for us to ignore = it. >A ruling based primarily on our judgement, however well-founded, that = _this_ player was obviously not taking advantage of UI, makes it that much harder to defend adverse rulings = against the indignant charge that we are impugning the integrity of the = players whose bids we have declared illegal. Why? And why does that matter anyway? It is an infraction of Law to "take advantage of UI" (I am aware of the existence of a mysterious message from DWS explaining this phrase, but for the moment, let us assume that we know what it means.) It is not an infraction of Law not to take advantage of UI. Now, it may well happen that a player in fact does the latter, but we rule against him as if he had done the former, because the external evidence suggests not that he did, but that he might have done. = That in itself is an injustice, but it is one with which we are prepared to = live. However, when the external evidence makes it clear that he has not broken the Law, to proceed against him as though he had makes no kind of sense at all. >One other point about your general argument. You have consistently maintained that a player who has pre-announced his bid cannot subsequently be a recipient of UI, at least so long as he follows through on his announced intention. In this you have confused the presence of UI with its = inappropriate usage.=20 On the contrary. I am at least aware of the distinction. Of course, if my partnner sits there for five minutes and then bids, I have some information to which I am not entitled and which I may not use (for example, if the auction did not end with my pre-announced call, I could not then use the information in selecting subsequent ones). But my point is simply that the pre-announced call cannot possibly be "informed" by my partner's trance, since it was chosen before that trance. (Apologies to non-English-speaking readers who will not be famiiar with this use of the verb "to inform", but = it is actually quite important in terms of the present discussion.) >Your partner announces at the beginning of the hand that he has an 11-count. This information may be completely irrelevant to any decision you have to make over the course of the hand, but it is still UI. Your score will not be adjusted so long as you "do not choose.." = (although your side may suffer a stiff PP), but the UI is there, regardless of whether it affects your actions or not. Of course it is. But so what? it is an infraction of Law to use UI. It is = not an infraction of Law to be in the presence of UI, despite what DWS appears to believe. I suppose one might call partner's announcement "unauthorised data" - it would become "information" only if it "informed" any of my = actions. >Finally, I personally do not care if the community of world-class players who normally get to play with screens choose to adopt an informal practice = regarding pre-announcements, and I can live with a "gentlemen's agreement" not to challenge such calls. Perhaps their games go more smoothly as a result. But these players should understand that extra-legal undertakings = afford them no legal protection in disputes arising from such practices. It has long been accepted by international players that the game is not run for their benefit, but for the convenience of officials. Fortunately, this = has not completely ruined their enjoyment of it, though at times I am at a loss to understand why not. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 20:50:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA29853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:50:08 +1000 Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA29848 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:50:02 +1000 Received: from [195.171.254.214] (helo=[195.171.254.214]) by carbon with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PlCZ-0001H0-00; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:48:05 +0000 From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:49:35 +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 --------------------------------------- From: Adam Beneschan Subject: Re: UI insurance=20 Date: 24/03/1999 00:27:24 --------------------------------------- > No. That is a regulation put in place to assist when other constructions = fail=20 > to determine the question. First and foremost, a logical alternative is > defined by the meaning of those words in English. If one can determine > from the actions of an individual that he followed what was to him the > only course that accorded with reason, and if we assume that he is a > reasonable man, then there is no need to consider what others would do. Your post has some good points, but I'm having a problem with this one. I haven't been reading every message on this thread, in part because I went up to Vancouver for a few days. So perhaps I've lost = something in translation. But here's how things seem to me: >Frank writes a note saying that "If partner does X, I intend to do Y." = Partner bids X, so Frank bids Y. The note is now evidence (although not proof) that Frank always intended to bid Y over partner's X; therefore, if Frank received UI from his partner, the note is evidence that Frank did not use this UI in making the decision to bid Y. So far, so good. But how do we get from there to saying "Bidding Y was the only course that accorded with reason"??? =20 We don't, and I apologise for my somewhat elliptical argument. Two important words often ignored in L16 are "over another" in the phrase "suggested over another by...". A player may not make a selection from among LAs if (and only if) the selection could have been "promoted" in his thinking above some other selection by the UI. Now, when a player has announced that he will do X, this is in effect an assertion that nothing which happens between his announcement and his turn to call can possibly "promote" any other call over X in his thinking. In other words, nothing further can "inform" his next call, and he cannot be said to have used "information" that happened subsequent to his announcement in making that call. >I can't see a connection between the two. Just because I intend to do Y, doesn't mean that I think other bids are unreasonable. =20 Certainly. What it means is that it would be impossible for anything to happen that might suggest doing not-Y over doing Y. And if such a suggestion is impossible, then so is a breach of L16 (ex def). >But many people on this thread seem to be arguing that the two are the same. They seem to argue, and your post above seems to make this same = argument, that Frank's note is evidence that Frank does not consider anything else to be a Logical Alternative. Not quite. I cannot speak for others, but what I assert is that Frank's note is evidence that he does not consider anything else to be "a logical alternative over which UI might cause him to promote the call he actually makes". From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 21:13:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 21:13:46 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA29941 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 21:13:39 +1000 Received: from p77s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.120] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PlbI-0000Yr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:13:33 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:18:53 -0000 Message-ID: <01be75e8$196403c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 1:40 PM Subject: Fw: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match > > > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: David Stevenson >>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>Cc: Mike Swanson >>Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 2:46 AM >>Subject: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match >> >> >>> >>> 6 >>> -- >>> J3 >>> K KT 8 >>> -- 5 >>> 7 K42 >>> J52 9753 -- >>> -- >>> 6 >>> -- >>> >>> Declarer is in 2S*, and has lost 5 tricks. He appears to have two >>>more losers, but he leads the CK hoping to discard his D. >>>Unfortunately, E ruffs with the S8, so he over-ruffs with the S9, and >>>West over-ruffs with the SK. East asks West whether he has any clubs >>>[illegal in Europe] and your ruling is ....? >> >>2S* making 8 tricks. >> From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 22:37:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 22:37:52 +1000 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 WAA00222 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 22:37:46 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-122.uunet.be [194.7.9.122]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01761 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:37:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36F8D4A0.7E5943E9@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:03:44 +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: UI insurance References: <199903221721.LAA20765@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36F77A94.50FC0465@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: > > > >We are all arguing that in fact there are no LA's ! > > No, Herman, you and some others are arguing it, but there are other > arguments as well, and my main arguments have been peripheral, for > example whether someone is "taking advantage" which is not the > determining factor. > What other arguments can there be if we argue that there are no LA's ? No LA's - results stands - case closed. > >The definition of LA is not in the Laws. > >We have made a lot of jurisprudence which help us finding > >out what the LA's are in any particular case. > >But they are just that - jurisprudence, not the Law itself! > > > >Now we are trying to have you agree that if a player can > >prove to a TD and/or AC that in his opinion, all other bids > >are no longer LA's, then the AC may use that evidence at its > >discretion in determining the LA's. > > Certainly - but see [3] below. > > >Surely you are not saying that someone who states "I will > >bid 6" at a moment before receiving UI, will now change his > >mind and start contemplating other bids after he receives UI > >that also point to bidding 6. > >So how can these othe bids then be LA's ? > > [1] LAs are determined with reference to the action of other people in > similar circumstances. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Can I be more clear ? Peer action only exists because usually we have no other evidence as to personal consideration of alternatives. > [2] A player may change his mind because of other information he > receives. The most obvious example being that if 5S is doubled, then he > may decide not to bid 6S. Of course he won't. His mention to screenmate must be interpreted as well. It means "I intend to bid six". If he doesn't, he can come explain why he doesn't, but five being doubled is certainly a good explanation. > [3] I dislike continued use of the word prove. What a player writes on > a piece of paper is not proof: evidence, yes, proof, no. Admittedly > that is moot because ACs and TDs do not require proof [except perhaps in > C&E cases]. OK, substitute evidence for proof. I have never said this is a all-final argument, but the AC should take it in as very important evidence. > [4] If an illegal procedure happens, as one of its benefits, to reduce > possible LAs, that is not sufficient argument to allow people to follow > an illegal procedure. > Now why would passing a note to screenmate be an illegal procedure ? The equivalent trick of avoiding UI by going to the toilet was much more illegal at Warszawa ! > Now, since I have attempted to answer your questions, perhaps you can > answer one of mine. If I was intending to bid 6S next round, why do I > not bid it this round? Is there no possibility that I am pretty > certainly going to bid 6S when I use this procedure, but just possibly > might not? > Which is one of the questions we asked of the appellant in appeal 20 as well. We found his answer to be satisfactory. After all, the note is just evidence, not proof. ;-) ! Other answers might well be that 6Sp might mean something else in the system. Player has to answer aces correctly, before going on to six. I would always want to know what made the player pass the note saying he would press on. Maybe we discover that the note was based on UI itself, such as Adam's example where the note came after already some pause. Of course we will not allow this without question. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 22:37:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 22:37:50 +1000 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 WAA00221 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 22:37:43 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-122.uunet.be [194.7.9.122]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01755 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:37:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36F8D1E2.EF6FDBF6@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:52:02 +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: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match References: <01be7533$aaa6e9c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > > > >Well, just out of "good for bridge", this should be contract > >making as well. > > IMO this is not "good for Bridge". East has committed an infraction for > which his side has not been penalised. If this is the way it is to be done, > then there may be no cost to defenders who ask one another, unless of course > there was no trick won by their side, and it is still right to apply the two > trick penalty of Law 64. When I said "good of bridge" I did not mean this revoker should be penalised more than the simpler one. But certainly he should not be punished less!! > What about a six no trump contract which makes 13 tricks. Does this get > scored as making 14:)))) of course it doesn't ! ;-) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 23:21:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 23:21:13 +1000 Received: from sand3.global.net.uk (sand3.global.net.uk [194.126.80.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA00354 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 23:21:03 +1000 Received: from p14s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.21] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10PnaX-0006LB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:20:56 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: <01be75fa$46a8e460$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE75FA.46A8E460" 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_000F_01BE75FA.46A8E460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 1:40 PM Subject: Fw: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match > > > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: David Stevenson >>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>Cc: Mike Swanson >>Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 2:46 AM >>Subject: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match >> >> >>> >>> 6 >>> -- >>> J3 >>> K KT 8 >>> -- 5 >>> 7 K42 >>> J52 9753 -- >>> -- >>> 6 >>> -- >>> >>> Declarer is in 2S*, and has lost 5 tricks. He appears to have two >>>more losers, but he leads the CK hoping to discard his D. >>>Unfortunately, E ruffs with the S8, so he over-ruffs with the S9, and >>>West over-ruffs with the SK. East asks West whether he has any clubs >>>[illegal in Europe] and your ruling is ....? >> >>2S* making 8 tricks. >> >>>Now please consider an alternative case. The cards as before, >>>including the over-ruff with the revoking SK, but no-one comments. = >At >the >>end of the hand East points out the revoke and your ruling is >....? >> >>2S* making 7 tricks. This is hopelessly wrong. It would be nice if it were not so, but it is. In this case also the ruling is 2S* making 8 tricks >> >> >>Had the revoke not occurred declarer would have been two off. >>In 1 above he makes his contract. In 2 above he makes his contract. This seems unfair and unjust.Where is the penalty to E/W for East's infraction? No doubt this was the reason for the question in the first place. Ownership of the revoke trick, whether or not there is a subsequent = trick, and whether or not the penalty card will cost, changes the balance. Anne ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE75FA.46A8E460 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
----Original Message-----
From: Anne Jones <eajewm@globalnet.co.uk>
= To: BLML=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 Tuesday, March 23, 1999 1:40 PM
Subject: Fw: L63B: from an English = Gold Cup=20 match


>
>
>
>>
>>-----Origina= l=20 Message-----
>>From: David Stevenson <bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk= >
>>To:=20 bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
>>Cc:=20 Mike Swanson <MSDBridge@aol.com>
>>Da= te:=20 Tuesday, March 23, 1999 2:46 AM
>>Subject: L63B: from an = English Gold=20 Cup=20 match
>>
>>
>>>
>>>  =             &= nbsp;        =20 6
>>>         &n= bsp;           &nb= sp; =20 --
>>>         &= nbsp;           &n= bsp; =20 J3
>>>         &= nbsp;    =20 K       =20 KT       =20 8
>>>         &n= bsp;    =20 --            = ;    =20 5
>>>         &n= bsp;    =20 7            =      =20 K42
>>>         =      =20 J52      9753     =20 --
>>>         &= nbsp;           &n= bsp; =20 --
>>>         &= nbsp;           &n= bsp; =20 6
>>>         &n= bsp;           &nb= sp; =20 --
>>>
>>>  Declarer is in 2S*, and has = lost 5=20 tricks.  He appears to have two
>>>more losers, but he = leads=20 the CK hoping to discard his D.
>>>Unfortunately, E ruffs = with the=20 S8, so he over-ruffs with the S9, and
>>>West over-ruffs = with the=20 SK.  East asks West whether he has any = clubs
>>>[illegal in=20 Europe] and your ruling is ....?
>>
>>2S* making 8=20 tricks.
>>
>>>Now please consider an alternative=20 case.  The cards as before,
>>>including the over-ruff = with the=20 revoking SK, but no-one comments.  >At
>the
>>end = of the=20 hand East points out the revoke and your ruling is=20 >....?
>>
>>2S* making 7 tricks.

This is = hopelessly=20 wrong. It would be nice if it were not so, but it is.
In this case = also the=20 ruling is  2S* making 8 = tricks
>>
>>
>>Had the=20 revoke not occurred declarer would have been two off.
>>In 1 = above he=20 makes his contract.
    In 2 above he makes his=20 contract.
This seems unfair and unjust.Where is the penalty to E/W = for=20 East's
infraction? No doubt this was the reason for the question in = the=20 first
place.

Ownership of the revoke trick,  whether or = not there=20 is a subsequent trick,
and whether or not the penalty card will cost, = changes=20 the balance.


Anne

 
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE75FA.46A8E460-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 24 23:57:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 23:57:40 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA00536 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 23:57:33 +1000 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 IAA14268; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:56:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990324085823.0070f5f0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:58:23 -0500 To: "Anne Jones" From: Eric Landau Subject: Hot links Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <01be75fa$46a8e460$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne (and others): Please turn off whatever in your mail client is causing it to embed hot links in the text of your mail messages. (My mail client insists on aligning them, making it extremely difficult to read messages longer than one screen.) Thanks. In general, I'd like all of us to be careful to send messages as plain text: no HTML, no attached VCF files, no embedded fonts, etc. /eric Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 25 01:16:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 01:16:38 +1000 Received: from zeus.midmaine.com (mail.midmaine.com [208.237.80.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA03062 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 01:16:29 +1000 Received: from default ([208.248.186.129]) by zeus.midmaine.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA02250; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:11:55 -0500 Message-ID: <000e01be7609$536713c0$81baf8d0@default> From: "Rosemarie & Tom Goodwin" To: Cc: "Tim Goodwin" , , Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:16:36 -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 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>From: "Grattan" >>To: , "Tim Goodwin" >>Subject: Re: UI insurance >>Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:11:56 -0000 >>Grattan >> Secretary, WBF Laws Committee >>************************************************ >>"The quest for certainty blocks the search >> for meaning." - Erich Fromm >>nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn **************************************************** "An irrational law is no law at all." -Thomas L. Goodwin nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn >>> At 03:59 PM 3/22/99 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >>> >+++ But "acting on the basis of unauthorised information " >>> >is not the relevant question.. The question is whether the >>> >chosen call is more suggested by the UI than another, >>> >logical alternative, call. Or at least, this is the question >>> >the law puts; it does not raise the question of the player's >>> >motivation or the basis on which the player makes the >>> >call. ~ Grattan ~ +++ >>> >>> How can a call which is decided upon before UI is available be based upon >>> that UI? >> >>+++ If true, it isn't, but the law does not talk about based on, >>it talks about suggested by. Rewrite the question, then: "How can a call which is decided upon before UI happens be SUGGESTED BY that UI?" The answer is that it cannot be. What it CAN be is: "A call that MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED by the UI that actually occurred, except that it was decided upon BEFORE the occurrence of the UI." [Sorry about the all-caps: I don't know how to do italics or underlining in e-mail.] Players before committees in UI cases say all the time that, "I wasn't influenced at all by partner's tempo, I knew all along what I was going to do." And committees routinely reject that argument, not necessarily because they disbelieve it, but because it is unsusceptible of proof. The whole point of the Law in this area is to relieve directors (and committees) of the necessity to examine motives, in cases where there is no suggestion that anybody is doing anything evil. But advance notice of the kind Marty Bergen gave in the 1982 Vanderbilt (when he wrote a note to his screenmate, announcing BEFORE he responded to Blackwood that he was going to bid a grand slam no matter what his partner did next) eliminates the problem of proving motive, doesn't it? >>The relevant timing is the moment >>at which with UI available the player has to choose his call. That is the "relevant timing" for determining whether a call is a logical alternative that might be suggested by the UI. In the advance-notice (or "insurance") situation, though, all we find out at this "relevant time" is that the call is a logical alternative that MIGHT HAVE BEEN suggested by the UI -- except that we know it was NOT such a call. >> And although the player purports to decide his call in advance >>he is free to change until he selects his call at his turn. Surely that is wrong. Suppose the bidding goes (with opponents silent) 1C - 1S - 3S - 4D, but before he bids 4D responder slips his screenmate a note that says, "I am going to bid Blackwood next if he bids either 4H or 4S." Opener now signs off in 4S in a flash, and responder "changes his mind" and passes. They cannot even make five. Do you mean to say that the opponents have no remedy for this? Or say that opener bids 4H over 4D, but does so with obvious reluctance; again responder "changes his mind" and signs off in 4S. Again, no remedy? I do not believe that. >>I am not stating what is desirable I am merely noting >>what the law actually says; I quite understand the emotional >>response to the situation which causes some to argue that the >>law provides what they feel it should provide, but the cold >>dispassionate words of the law offer them no comfort. Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. Are we really dealing with "cold dispassionate words," subject to mechanical application, even in ways that the lawmakers could not have intended; or are we dealing with rational rules of conduct, subject to logical interpretation and application to particular cases? If it is the former, we wouldn't need all those pesky lawyers and judges. (No need for anybody to reply just to tell me what a good thing that would be!) >>Of course at some tables no-one would call the Director maybe, >>but that is a marginal issue. >> The point that we have to get across is that at the time >>he comes to make the call partner's action has limited him and >>if the call is suggested more than a LA (judged not by the >>player's mind but by those of his peers) he is not allowed to >>implement the action he had planned. This suggests that the purpose of UI laws is to PUNISH the player who broadcasts the UI -- and to punish him regardless of whether he has caused any harm. Talk about wooden application of the laws.... In fact, the harm addressed by the UI laws is the POSSIBILITY that a player will take, or has taken, action based on information he is not entitled to have under the rules of the game. When that possibility has been eliminated, UI laws are simply inapplicable. Screens are relevant. Without them, partner might see you pass the note to an opponent, and that would itself be unauthorized information for him (even though he might not be able to see the contents of the note. Of course Grattan, your present correspondent, might suggest that it doesn't matter whether or not he SEES you pass the note -- the crucial fact (the sound made by the tree falling in the remote forest, far from anybody who might hear it) is that you PASSED it. >>There is nothing in the law to authorize 'pre-selection' as an escape route from the law. Nor was there anything in the law to "authorize," for example, a "diminished-capacity" defense to crime, until cases came along in which judges found the concept to be logical, consistent with what was already known to be "authorized" in the law, and necessary for the just adjudication of particular cases. >>And he cannot argue he has no UI; partner's hesitation or >>whatever has added to the player's information and has >>created UI for him. Emough. ~Grattan~ +++ Cordially, TLG From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 25 02:53:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:53:17 +1000 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-002.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA03467 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:53:10 +1000 Received: from tntrasp18-236.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.236] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:49:26 +0100 (MET) From: "LORMANT Philippe" To: "Grattan" , , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:44:29 +0100 Message-ID: <01be7615$95d04e00$eccafcc1@lormant> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by wanadoo.fr id RAA00518 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De : Grattan =C0 : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; Ti= m Goodwin Date : mercredi 24 mars 1999 10:11 Objet : Re: UI insurance >Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee >************************************************ >"The quest for certainty blocks the search > for meaning." - Erich Fromm >nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn > >> From: Tim Goodwin >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: UI insurance >> Date: 22 March 1999 17:52 >> >> At 03:59 PM 3/22/99 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >+++ But "acting on the basis of unauthorised information " >> >is not the relevant question.. The question is whether the >> >chosen call is more suggested by the UI than another, >> >logical alternative, call. Or at least, this is the question >> >the law puts; it does not raise the question of the player's >> >motivation or the basis on which the player makes the >> >call. ~ Grattan ~ +++ >> >> How can a call which is decided upon before UI is available be based u= pon >> that UI? > >+++ If true, it isn't, but the law does not talk about based on, >it talks about suggested by. The relevant timing is the moment >at which with UI available the player has to choose his call. > And although the player purports to decide his call in advance >he is free to change until he selects his call at his turn. >I am not stating what is desirable I am merely noting >what the law actually says; I quite understand the emotional >response to the situation which causes some to argue that the >law provides what they feel it should provide, but the cold >dispassionate words of the law offer them no comfort. Of >course at some tables no-one would call the Director maybe, >but that is a marginal issue. > The point that we have to get across is that at the time >he comes to make the call partner's action has limited him and >if the call is suggested more than a LA (judged not by the >player's mind but by those of his peers) he is not allowed to >implement the action he had planned. There is nothing in the >law to authorize 'pre-selection' as an escape route from the law. >And he cannot argue he has no UI; partner's hesitation or >whatever has added to the player's information and has >created UI for him. Emough. ~Grattan~ +++ > > > >~ Grattan ~ +++ > >Bonjour, What is this problem? Really, I don't understand . Are-you ruling " virtual Bridge " ? >Auction are made with calls not with " promised calls ". In my knowledg= e Law does not talk about " promised calls ", this act is no existent, NUL and VOID and if a slow 5S is made, in Jean-Pierre's example, - oh yes - his partner cannot argu= e he has no UI, and Director has to rule if AT THE MOMENT when he calls sla= m, he choosed from among logical alternative actions....a call suggested ( = or better, more suggested...) by UI.... ( Grattan , 22/03 and I agree ). This night I have had a dream, and for once time not about Claudia Sch...= .! I saw JP Rocafort , in South, playing Bridge against my son in West. Jean -Pierre is better Bridge player but I am not sure better poker player. He called= BW and before passing tray he says to West " even if my partner's call is a slow bid, I shall bid slam " and West retorts: " Even if my partner produces a slow Pass, I shall strongly double any slam !" How do you rule now? First case: Jean-Pierre may think that something is fishy Do you think that, for this reason he has ethically right to pass? Other scenario: West has a reasonable double against slam. After strange Jean-Pierre's information he is afraid and he doesn't double when slam is one down! All this are virtual bridge, surrealist bridge, no bridge. " Players are required to follow the Laws, and if they don't, TDs and ACs will rule against them" D.Stevenson, 11/03 and I agree ). You are good Bridge Directors , do you want to become " surrealist Bridge= TD " ? I n this case: good luck! > Embrassez ceux que vous aimez From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 25 03:10:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 03:10:30 +1000 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA03554 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 03:10:23 +1000 Received: from ip41.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.41]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990324171016.ICRE2344.fep4@ip41.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:10:16 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: blml Subject: Re: Bid what you would have anyway? Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:10:15 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36f8fb99.2675697@post12.tele.dk> References: <199903202047.OAA16146@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <36f76fd3.919311@post12.tele.dk> <36F603C9.916341EA@home.com> <36f78dac.3323048@post12.tele.dk> <36F75490.2F193F02@home.com> <36f8e032.4361922@post12.tele.dk> <36F8233A.D8676BF9@home.com> In-Reply-To: <36F8233A.D8676BF9@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 Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:26:50 -0800, Jan Kamras wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>=20 >> But the first player has acted improperly if he has deliberately >> made a call that is illegal according to L16A > >(snip) > >> The laws specify what is legal and what is not.=20 > >Picking up from the other thread: >I must be missing something, since I cannot find where in L16 (or >anywhere else) this is specified. It limites our choices among "logical >alternatives" but makes no effort whatsoever of telling us how to define >LAs. Some time ago I wrote that the proponents of allowing UI insurance used two different arguments: (a) The word "after" in L16A, combined with the fact that the player has made and announced his choice before receiving the UI. (b) The opinion that a call is not a LA if the player has stated before he received the UI that he has no intention of making that call. I then explained why (a) IMO would not do as a reason to allow UI insurance (because it leads to the general need of judging at what time a player determines his call). You commented on my reasoning in that respect, and that led us to this part of the discussion, in which my contributions have been exclusively about (a). You now turn the discussion to (b), about which I said from the beginning that I believe it to be a valid argument, though I believe that it requires more stretching of L16 (or rather of the usual interpretation of the LA concept) than I personally would like. I do not see anything fundamentally wrong with the (b) argument - it is a question of the definition of LA, and that definition is not in the law book. An SO could choose to define a LA so that (b) would be valid. The reasons that I personally would not like a definition of LA that allows the (b) argument are: * It requires us to judge the probability that the player would change his mind, thus moving us at least a little further away from the nice objectiveness of L16 rulings, * It only makes sense when the player in question has violated L74B2, * It thus gives an advantage to players who have violated L74B2 over players who have not. Of course, an SO could define that it is correct procedure to inform your screen mate of your plans for future bidding, and that only those documented plans are then to be considered LAs. That would solve the L74B2 problem, but it would give the problem that when players got used to this regulation they would use UI insurance all the time, which would mean that: * We would need longer time to play because players would make detailed written plans for several rounds of bidding before embarking on a slam try, * There would be lots of cases where players changed their mind after all, which would (1) be a practical problem (what do you do when it happens?) and (2) make the original decision to not consider other calls LAs very doubtful. When David B tells us how top players show their screen mate the double card to indicate that they will double further competition, and the opponents then do not call the TD after a hesitation, it does give the first impression of a practical, well-working procedure. And it quite possibly is, as long as it happens only on rare occasions where the player really has made up his mind. But if we make it an officially legal procedure, then it will become part of every player's thinking before a call: "Should I document my plans now to avoid adjustments later? What will I bid in three rounds' time? Am I really sure?". I am convinced that it will then not be a practical and well-working procedure. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 25 03:10:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 03:10:37 +1000 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA03561 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 03:10:31 +1000 Received: from ip41.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.41]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990324171024.ICRS2344.fep4@ip41.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:10:24 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: blml Subject: Re: Bid what you would have anyway? Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:10:23 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37011b98.10865894@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:24:59 +0000, David Burn wrote: >I am having a lot of difficulty with this. If there is no use of UI, = then where >is the violation of Law? Is the trance itself a crime? L16A says: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." That text is not about "using" UI - it is about choosing actions that "could demonstrably have been suggested". It makes no difference that you would have chosen the same action without the UI - even if the TD is perfectly convinced that you would. >>Certainly. If we could read players' minds, many laws would be >very different. But we can't, and they're not. > >Well, we can't do it all the time, or even very much of the time. But = when we >can do it, i think that we are foolish not to. We should use all available evidence when the laws require us to make a choice. Please consider 4 players in identical situations: partner opens 1H, RHO bids 3S, our players bid 4H, LHO (screen mate) bids 4S, it takes three minutes before the tray comes back with to passes, and our players bid 5H, which turns out to be the successful action. Player A is known to be a perfectly honest and ethical player: he did not say anything beforehand, but afterwards he says that he had decided to bid on even before LHO bid 4S. You really have no doubt that his word can be trusted. Player B says the same as player A - he just happens to be somebody who has a reputation of telling the TD whatever he believes will give the most favourable ruling. Player C is just as honest as A, and is also known to be a player who usually decides on a plan in advance and then follows it. As his screen mate bid 4S, he showed the 5H card to indicate that he had already made up his mind. Player D did the same as C. He is an honest player, but known for his tendency to bid somewhat randomly and to often change his mind at the last second. An hour earlier you were called to a table where D had indicated in an equivalent way that he was going to bid on, but then he changed his mind and did not bid on (his partner did not hesitate at that time). Now try to judge for each of these 4 players whether double is a logical alternative to 5H (let us assume that the hand is such that 60% of his peers would bid 5H, and the remaining 40% would double). My problem is that if you consider an LA to be a personal thing at all and therefore allow the evidence of player C to influence the judgment of LAs so that double is not considered an LA for C, then you must also evaluate the evidence in the other cases. I believe that if I weighed the evidence under a "personal" definition of the LA concept, I would find myself convinced that double was not a logical alternative for A and C, but not convinced by B and D. The point here is of course that the "self-serving" evidence of A is more reliable than the "objective" evidence of D. So the desire to trust C leads us to a need to rule A differently from B, and C differently from D. I do not want to do that. I do not want it to be my job to judge whether or not players are liars or whether they often change their minds. I want to be able to adjust in all four cases, or in none of them. So I like the current status which does not require me to judge this evidence at all, but just to make an objective ruling: adjust in all four cases. >There seems to be a >belilef shared byJesper, DWS and Grattan (and some others) that L16 >requires us to adjust the score whenever a player thinks. If his partner then chooses a call that is forbidden by L16A, yes - otherwise not. The statement "If I think, I lose" is an accusation that law interpreters have encountered from top players before. It has only a very limited connection to reality - the right version is "If I think, I may reduce partner's possibilities". The example below surprised me, since it seems to show that you do believe that "If I think, I lose" is the way we would rule: On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:46:46 +0000, David Burn wrote: >Well, suppose one had: > >AKQxxx x void AKQxxx > >and heard partner open 1S. Partner does not psyche, so we know he has >an opening. We bid 4D, a splinter, whichi in our methods mandates >partner to cue the HA if he has it. At this point, we say to our = screenmate: >"If he bids 4S I'm bidding six, and if he bids 4H I'm bidding 7S, = regardless >of how long that tray takes to come back." I don't understand the problem, or why you would want to say anything to your screen mate. I cannot imagine any TD adjusting on that hand. Which calls are you afraid that the TD will find to be LAs to the calls you mention? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 25 05:53:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 05:53:49 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 FAA04137 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 05:53:41 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10PtiX-0004gO-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 19:53:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:36:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >(I am aware of the existence of a mysterious message >from DWS explaining this phrase, but for the moment, let us assume that >we know what it >It is not an >infraction of Law to be in the presence of UI, despite what DWS appears to >believe. I have no idea why David makes his comments on me so personal. I am sick of it. He keeps deliberately misquoting me. In person he is as charming a person as you would wish to meet. On BLML he lies with the apparent intent of demeaning my character. I have no idea why, but I am a very thin-skinned person. I shall attempt to do what I threatened before, and completely ignore him. Hopefully this will be sufficient for me to continue on BLML. If not, then maybe the time has come to leave. Reading DALB's posts upsets me considerably, and I have found that my killfile does not work on mailing lists. On a previous occasion Herman told BLML that I clearly agreed with him, because I had not publicly disagreed with him. To be fair to Herman, he immediately apologised when I explained that there are many other reasons for not answering posts. So please, in future, in a similar way, do not assume I agree with anything DALB says because I do not answer. If he says I said something or I meant something I shall avoid replying however far from the truth it may be. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 25 08:13:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 08:13:46 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 IAA04525 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 08:13:39 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Pvty-000EBq-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 22:13:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:30:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <000e01be7609$536713c0$81baf8d0@default> In-Reply-To: <000e01be7609$536713c0$81baf8d0@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Rosemarie & Tom Goodwin wrote: > The answer is that it cannot be. What it CAN be >is: "A call that MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED >by the UI that actually occurred, except that it was >decided upon BEFORE the occurrence of the UI." >[Sorry about the all-caps: I don't know how to do >italics or underlining in e-mail.] I know of no convention for italics in email. However, _underlining_ is done by putting below-the-line dashes before and after the underlined bit, and *bold* is done by putting asterisks before and after the bold bit. You could even make it **more bold still** by using multiple asterisks. -- 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 Mar 25 08:13:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 08:13:55 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 IAA04533 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 08:13:48 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Pvu6-0002tw-0A; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 22:13:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 22:12:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Mike Swanson From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: Suppose I offer a solution and people shoot it down. I shall answer in reverse order, since the second question was the easy one. > 6 > -- > J3 > K KT 8 > -- 5 > 7 K42 > J52 9753 -- > -- > 6 > -- > > Now please consider an alternative case. The cards as before, >including the over-ruff with the revoking SK, but no-one comments. At >the end of the hand East points out the revoke and your ruling is ....? West won the revoke trick, and East/West one later trick [a diamond], so the defence won two tricks: since West won the revoke trick, two tricks are transferred, so 2S made. > Declarer is in 2S*, and has lost 5 tricks. He appears to have two >more losers, but he leads the CK hoping to discard his D. >Unfortunately, E ruffs with the S8, so he over-ruffs with the S9, and >West over-ruffs with the SK. East asks West whether he has any clubs >[illegal in Europe] and your ruling is ....? Since West has a club he replaces the SK with a club, and does not win this trick. Later West wins the SK, and East a diamond, so the defence won two tricks. L63B says that "the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established". So, did West win the revoke trick? No. Did West win a later trick with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, ie a *club*? No. One trick is transferred, 2S*-1. By asking illegally, the defence have saved themselves a trick. Yes? cc Mike Swanson -- 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 Mar 25 08:13:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 08:13:55 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA04534 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 08:13:48 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Pvu9-0005Uj-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 22:13:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:44:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Delay of card References: <3.0.1.32.19990323165711.0070b0e8@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990323165711.0070b0e8@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >David wrote: >> I have been asked the following: >> >> Please would you inform me whether it is (a) ethical and (b) legal, >>within The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1997, for declarer to delay playing >>a card when the only reasonable purpose for the delay is to obtain a >>reaction from a defender that suggests how the cards lie. If >>applicable, please could you indicate which Laws are relevant. >It is neither ethical nor legal. L74C7. Aaaah. I had missed L74C7, which is clear. Thanks. --------- Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > I haven't doubts you invoked 74B4 to answer a: unethical, b: illegal. I don't think L74B4 is clear, but since L74C7 is, we do not need L74B4. >However I don't believe your exemple to be well chosen. Well, I was passing on verbatim a question that I was asked. --------- Anne Jones wrote: > No it's not ethical and no it's not legal. > Law 73D. Variations in Tempo or Manner > .2. Intentional Variations > A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark > or > gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in > hesitating > before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or > play is > made. I don't think he is trying to mislead an opponent just to create a reaction, so again I prefer L74C7 to L73D. --------- Laurie Kelso wrote: >As a director (and player) I avoid studiously every making any comment >about the ethics of any situation or occurance. The term is subjective and >often determined by a persons background and culture. When a person asks about the ethics of a situation, I believe we have a responsibility to answer 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 Thu Mar 25 10:06:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:06:13 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net ([195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04805 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:06:07 +1000 Received: from modem92.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.92] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Pxeq-0003Hr-00; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 00:06:01 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "David Grabiner" , Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 00:00:26 -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 ************************************************ Perhaps I should not mention it but today, 24 March, they made me a Great Grandfather. [][][][][][][][]][][][][][][][][][][][][[][][][][][][][][][][][][][] > From: David Grabiner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question > Date: 22 March 1999 17:54 > > Anne Jones writes: > > > David Burn writes: >........................ \x/ ...................... > Is the Lightner double alertable in Europe? I know that it was > officially ruled in the Albuquerque World Championships that the > Lightner double was not alertable, and the pair which filed an appeal > based on an unalerted Lightner double was penalized for an appeal > without merit. > > (Whether it's alertable or not, it's unlikely that damage can result > from failing to alert it, since it's a standard convention.) > +++ The Albuquerque decision had a precedent in the European Championships in Turku, in a famous/notorious (depending on your nationality) case. ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 25 10:12:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:12:34 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04832 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:12:29 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA19081 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:12:25 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:12:24 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Delay of card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > Laurie Kelso wrote: > > >As a director (and player) I avoid studiously every making any comment > >about the ethics of any situation or occurance. The term is subjective and > >often determined by a persons background and culture. > > When a person asks about the ethics of a situation, I believe we have > a responsibility to answer him. Here we obviously disagree. The word "unethical" has extremely bad conitations at the bridge table. The laws do a good job at defining correct procedure and acceptable conduct. When players step outside these boundaries they have committed an infraction and may be penalised as the Laws prescribe. When a player commits a so called "unethical" act, by what standard do we judge him? The problem here is that although he may have violated the majority's view of what is correct behaviour, this is not always the same as violating the Law (maybe it will be someday?) The director is concerned with Law and Regulation, not social values. In answering a question about ethics I believe I would only be giving a personal opinion. I try to avoid voicing any opinion about behaviour not covered by the higher numbered laws. When it is covered, it is either legal or illegal, nothing more or less. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 25 10:15:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:15:58 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04848 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:15:49 +1000 Received: from pa2s07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.163] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10PxoD-00033z-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 00:15:42 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 00:23:53 -0000 Message-ID: <01be7655$c322fb60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Mike Swanson Date: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 10:46 PM Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match >David Stevenson wrote: > > Suppose I offer a solution and people shoot it down. I shall answer >in reverse order, since the second question was the easy one. > >> 6 >> -- >> J3 >> K KT 8 >> -- 5 >> 7 K42 >> J52 9753 -- >> -- >> 6 >> -- >> >> Now please consider an alternative case. The cards as before, >>including the over-ruff with the revoking SK, but no-one comments. At >>the end of the hand East points out the revoke and your ruling is ....? > > West won the revoke trick, and East/West one later trick [a diamond], >so the defence won two tricks: since West won the revoke trick, two >tricks are transferred, so 2S made. > >> Declarer is in 2S*, and has lost 5 tricks. He appears to have two >>more losers, but he leads the CK hoping to discard his D. >>Unfortunately, E ruffs with the S8, so he over-ruffs with the S9, and >>West over-ruffs with the SK. East asks West whether he has any clubs >>[illegal in Europe] and your ruling is ....? > > Since West has a club he replaces the SK with a club, and does not win >this trick. Later West wins the SK, and East a diamond, so the defence >won two tricks. L63B says that "the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply >as if the revoke had been established". So, did West win the revoke >trick? No. Did West win a later trick with a card that he could >legally have played to the revoke trick, ie a *club*? No. One trick is >transferred, 2S*-1. > > > > By asking illegally, the defence have saved themselves a trick. Yes? No. I do not think so. The WBFLC in their minutes from Lille confirmed that the sentence "the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as though the revoke had been established" is to be interpreted as meaning the 2 trick penalty. It is true that they were talking about Law 43B2(b) at the time, but surely the intended meaning of exactly the same phrase cannot change. I am concerned however that in your examples, it has not actually cost to ask illegally and I do not think that a PP is in order here as there is a finite penalty for the offence. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 25 11:32:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:32:06 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 LAA05022 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:31:59 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Pyzu-0001l3-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 01:31:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 01:25:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > Perhaps I should not mention it but today, >24 March, they made me a Great Grandfather. Great Grandfather Endicott. No doubt people have wondered what GG Endicott stands for. Well done that man: an achievement. -- 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 Mar 25 11:32:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:32:06 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05021 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:31:58 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Pyzu-000L3l-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 01:31:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 01:22:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match References: <01be7655$c322fb60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01be7655$c322fb60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >No. I do not think so. The WBFLC in their minutes from Lille confirmed that >the sentence "the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as though the revoke >had been established" is to be interpreted as meaning the 2 trick penalty. >It is true that they were talking about Law 43B2(b) at the time, but surely >the intended meaning of exactly the same phrase cannot change. >I am concerned however that in your examples, it has not actually cost to >ask illegally and I do not think that a PP is in order here as there is a >finite penalty for the offence. I do not believe that the term "two-trick penalty" applies when the Law says it should not be two tricks. To take a ridiculous example, if it did, and the revokers took no tricks, then the other side would score fifteen tricks. I am sure that when they refer to the two-trick penalty they mean two tricks if the Law says so, not invariably. -- 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 Mar 25 12:43:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 12:43:47 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA05189 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 12:43:39 +1000 Received: from pc9s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.202] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10Q07G-0006k0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:43:31 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:52:17 -0000 Message-ID: <01be766a$7e61c460$ca8693c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 2:00 AM Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match >Anne Jones wrote: > >>No. I do not think so. The WBFLC in their minutes from Lille confirmed that >>the sentence "the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as though the revoke >>had been established" is to be interpreted as meaning the 2 trick penalty. >>It is true that they were talking about Law 43B2(b) at the time, but surely >>the intended meaning of exactly the same phrase cannot change. >>I am concerned however that in your examples, it has not actually cost to >>ask illegally and I do not think that a PP is in order here as there is a >>finite penalty for the offence. > > I do not believe that the term "two-trick penalty" applies when the >Law says it should not be two tricks. To take a ridiculous example, if >it did, and the revokers took no tricks, then the other side would score >fifteen tricks. This is something that (believe it or not I spotted the problem) I commented on, in my reply to Herman. > > I am sure that when they refer to the two-trick penalty they mean two >tricks if the Law says so, not invariably. This may be so, but it is not what they said. Perhaps Grattan can elucidate. I suspect that what we need, and which I have not got, is the minute from Alberquerque to which the minute from Lille refers. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 25 16:19:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA06010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:19:19 +1000 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA06003 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:19:09 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.1/8.9.0) with UUCP id AAA29204 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 00:18:52 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 00CZ103H Thu, 25 Mar 99 00:15:23 Message-ID: <9903250015.00CZ103@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 99 00:15:23 Subject: L63B: FROM AN ENGLI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Blml, I was under the impression that once a revoke has become established that it may not be corrected [L62A]. Therefore, the spade K continues to win the revoke trick. Roger Pewick B>David Stevenson wrote: B>Suppose I offer a solution and people shoot it down. I shall answer B>in reverse order, since the second question was the easy one. B>> 6 B>> -- B>> J3 B>> K KT 8 B>> -- 5 B>> 7 K42 B>> J52 9753 -- B>> -- B>> 6 B>> -- B>> B>> Now please consider an alternative case. The cards as before, B>>including the over-ruff with the revoking SK, but no-one comments. At B>>the end of the hand East points out the revoke and your ruling is ....? B>West won the revoke trick, and East/West one later trick [a diamond], B>so the defence won two tricks: since West won the revoke trick, two B>tricks are transferred, so 2S made. B>> Declarer is in 2S*, and has lost 5 tricks. He appears to have two B>>more losers, but he leads the CK hoping to discard his D. B>>Unfortunately, E ruffs with the S8, so he over-ruffs with the S9, and B>>West over-ruffs with the SK. East asks West whether he has any clubs B>>[illegal in Europe] and your ruling is ....? B>Since West has a club he replaces the SK with a club, and does not win B>this trick. Later West wins the SK, and East a diamond, so the defence B>won two tricks. L63B says that "the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply B>as if the revoke had been established". So, did West win the revoke B>trick? No. Did West win a later trick with a card that he could B>legally have played to the revoke trick, ie a *club*? No. One trick is B>transferred, 2S*-1. B>By asking illegally, the defence have saved themselves a trick. Yes? B>cc Mike Swanson B>-- B>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ B>Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ B> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= B> Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 25 20:34:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA06380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 20:34:04 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA06375 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 20:33:57 +1000 Received: from un.frw.uva.nl (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA05083; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:33:45 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199903251033.LAA05083@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:35:51 +0100 Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals CC: Mike Swanson X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson wrote: > > Suppose I offer a solution and people shoot it down. I shall answer > in reverse order, since the second question was the easy one. > > > 6 > > -- > > J3 > > K KT 8 > > -- 5 > > 7 K42 > > J52 9753 -- > > -- > > 6 > > -- > > > > Now please consider an alternative case. The cards as before, > >including the over-ruff with the revoking SK, but no-one comments. At > >the end of the hand East points out the revoke and your ruling is ....? > > West won the revoke trick, and East/West one later trick [a diamond], > so the defence won two tricks: since West won the revoke trick, two > tricks are transferred, so 2S made. > > > Declarer is in 2S*, and has lost 5 tricks. He appears to have two > >more losers, but he leads the CK hoping to discard his D. > >Unfortunately, E ruffs with the S8, so he over-ruffs with the S9, and > >West over-ruffs with the SK. East asks West whether he has any clubs > >[illegal in Europe] and your ruling is ....? > > Since West has a club he replaces the SK with a club, and does not win > this trick. Later West wins the SK, and East a diamond, so the defence > won two tricks. L63B says that "the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply > as if the revoke had been established". However, if the revoke had been established, West would have won the trick. Why not take the ruling from there? IMO the text of the law does allow this. But I'm just a simple soul...... > So, did West win the revoke > trick? No. Did West win a later trick with a card that he could > legally have played to the revoke trick, ie a *club*? No. One trick is > transferred, 2S*-1. > > > By asking illegally, the defence have saved themselves a trick. Yes? Well... no. JP From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 25 21:08:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:08:31 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA06468 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:08:23 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Q7zj-00071i-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:08:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:47:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L63B: FROM AN ENGLI References: <9903250015.00CZ103@bbs.hal-pc.org> In-Reply-To: <9903250015.00CZ103@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger wrote: >I was under the impression that once a revoke has become established that it >may not be corrected [L62A]. Therefore, the spade K continues to win the >revoke trick. LAW 63 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE B. Attention Is Illegally Drawn When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. While you are right about an established revoke, L63B refers to *first* substituting a legal card and *then* acting as though the revoke was established. This is all moot in the ACBL where defenders are permitted to ask each other anyway [it is a Zonal option]. -- 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 Mar 25 21:08:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:08:33 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 VAA06469 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:08:24 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Q7zh-0002JX-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:08:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:02:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Swanson wrote [via DWS] >That's all very well but the law says "as if the revoke had been established" >which to me means "as if the enquiry had not been made", so the defence would >then have won the revoke trick (just because they didn't in reality seems >irelevant to me) and a two trick penalty should be applied. Take that reading further. If the Ace of trumps was still out, and now took the trick, felling the king, your reading would still give two tricks, even though there was only one available! If the defence had taken none so far, that would give declarer fourteen! No, I do not think that is a valid interpretation. >If one can't iterpret this law in this way, it becomes even more ridiculous >than it already is! Why oh why did they amend it in 1987 anyway? It is a terrible Law! -- 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 Mar 25 23:07:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:07:14 +1000 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 XAA06810 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:07:08 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-206.uunet.be [194.7.9.206]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA21583 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:06:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36FA1390.2AE72B83@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:44:32 +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: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Declarer is in 2S*, and has lost 5 tricks. He appears to have two > >more losers, but he leads the CK hoping to discard his D. > >Unfortunately, E ruffs with the S8, so he over-ruffs with the S9, and > >West over-ruffs with the SK. East asks West whether he has any clubs > >[illegal in Europe] and your ruling is ....? > > Since West has a club he replaces the SK with a club, and does not win > this trick. Later West wins the SK, and East a diamond, so the defence > won two tricks. L63B says that "the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply > as if the revoke had been established". So, did West win the revoke > trick? No. Did West win a later trick with a card that he could > legally have played to the revoke trick, ie a *club*? No. One trick is > transferred, 2S*-1. > > > By asking illegally, the defence have saved themselves a trick. Yes? > Nope. I believe there is a WBFLC decision somewhere that says this applies to the two-trick penalty. Ton ? Grattan ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 25 23:07:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:07:08 +1000 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 XAA06802 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:07:00 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-206.uunet.be [194.7.9.206]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA21576 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:06:50 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <36FA1260.DF7F26D3@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:39:28 +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: Bid what you would have anyway? References: <37011b98.10865894@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > Please consider 4 players in identical situations: partner opens > 1H, RHO bids 3S, our players bid 4H, LHO (screen mate) bids 4S, > it takes three minutes before the tray comes back with to passes, > and our players bid 5H, which turns out to be the successful > action. > > Player A is known to be a perfectly honest and ethical player: he > did not say anything beforehand, but afterwards he says that he > had decided to bid on even before LHO bid 4S. You really have no > doubt that his word can be trusted. > > Player B says the same as player A - he just happens to be > somebody who has a reputation of telling the TD whatever he > believes will give the most favourable ruling. > > Player C is just as honest as A, and is also known to be a player > who usually decides on a plan in advance and then follows it. As > his screen mate bid 4S, he showed the 5H card to indicate that he > had already made up his mind. > > Player D did the same as C. He is an honest player, but known > for his tendency to bid somewhat randomly and to often change his > mind at the last second. An hour earlier you were called to a > table where D had indicated in an equivalent way that he was > going to bid on, but then he changed his mind and did not bid on > (his partner did not hesitate at that time). > > Now try to judge for each of these 4 players whether double is a > logical alternative to 5H (let us assume that the hand is such > that 60% of his peers would bid 5H, and the remaining 40% would > double). > > My problem is that if you consider an LA to be a personal thing > at all and therefore allow the evidence of player C to influence > the judgment of LAs so that double is not considered an LA for C, > then you must also evaluate the evidence in the other cases. > > I believe that if I weighed the evidence under a "personal" > definition of the LA concept, I would find myself convinced that > double was not a logical alternative for A and C, but not > convinced by B and D. > > The point here is of course that the "self-serving" evidence of A > is more reliable than the "objective" evidence of D. > > So the desire to trust C leads us to a need to rule A differently > from B, and C differently from D. > > I do not want to do that. I do not want it to be my job to judge > whether or not players are liars or whether they often change > their minds. I want to be able to adjust in all four cases, or > in none of them. > > So I like the current status which does not require me to judge > this evidence at all, but just to make an objective ruling: > adjust in all four cases. > Your example is slightly flawed, since it appears that Pass is not a LA, and so the hesitation cannot prove anything. Let's change the example to a slow double and a take-out to 5H. This is a good example, and I can agree with your wish to treat all 4 cases the same. But are they in fact the same ? When a player is so certain, in such a small time, that he will bid 5H, even over a double by partner, then don't you think that his hand will show it ? So don't you think you would rule in favour of A, B and D as well as for C ? It might just be that C will not see the director, because his screenmate will agree that there is no LA, since C has told him. In order for UI insurancce to work, a player must make his mind up after the 4Sp bid, in time for no UI to arrive through the tray not coming back immediately. When a player can do that, he really must have a clear hand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 26 00:04:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:04:29 +1000 Received: from sand3.global.net.uk (sand3.global.net.uk [194.126.80.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA06911 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:04:21 +1000 Received: from p91s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.146] helo=pacific) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10QAjy-0002ln-00; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:04:11 +0000 Message-ID: <018001be76c8$4ddfc540$e98393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Jan Kamras" Cc: "blml" Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 13:47:12 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Jan Kamras Cc: blml Date: 21 March 1999 18:00 Subject: Re: UI insurance (longish rant) >Hi all:) > >Jan Kamras wrote: >> >> vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: >> >> > So for me neither current Laws (L74!)...snip... make possible of such >> > insuring action. >> > And as the action is illegal ... >> >> > Jan Kamras: "Please - show us where in the laws it states >> > that you cannot apply this manoeuvre. ...." ++++ Hi Vitold (and others); thank you for the private email. I am responding to part of it with a published note. The player's remark is a gratuitous comment, not part of the action on the hand, and may be penalized if it affects the play. Say it puts opponent off doubling and the contract goes two down. A breach of Law 74A2 may be adjudged, and there is certainly a breach of 74B2 and consequently 74A3. There is no power by which the director can require the player at his turn to make good his stated intention. You will understand that I am not entering into any debate as to what is desirable. My purpose here is simply not to let the law as it stands become submerged, lost to sight. The discussion has tended to centre on what individuals feel the law should be and has been misrepresented in some of the postings. Where we go next is a matter for the WBFLC and I have no wish to pre-empt any corporate action of the Committee if it did feel inclined to change anything (not impossible, but I would be slightly surprised). When the player's turn comes any UI available from partner affects what he may choose to do. The law stands apart from his illegal wriggles to try to avoid the situation, and whatever he may have known previously, he now has the extra knowledge that his partner would welcome whatever action the UI suggests. The law applies objective criteria which have nothing to do with what is in the player's mind, his intentions, the basis for his action; these things are not the criteria for the application of the law which is based solely on the fact that he has been given UI and what he may now do assessed upon an objective comparison of his desired actiuon with what other players would regard as LAs. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 26 00:48:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:48:51 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA09281 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:48:45 +1000 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 OAA18615 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:48:08 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 OAA08281 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:46:37 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990325154830.007d0560@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:48:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Bid what you would have anyway? In-Reply-To: <36FA1260.DF7F26D3@village.uunet.be> References: <37011b98.10865894@post12.tele.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:39 25/03/99 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> > >Your example is slightly flawed, since it appears that Pass >is not a LA, and so the hesitation cannot prove anything. >Let's change the example to a slow double and a take-out to >5H. > >In order for UI insurancce to work, a player must make his >mind up after the 4Sp bid, in time for no UI to arrive >through the tray not coming back immediately. When a player >can do that, he really must have a clear hand. >-- >Herman DE WAEL If the player has a "clear hand", there will not be any LA and insurance will be useless. I think a player can be (unduly?) tempted to use UI insurance in very intricate situations, with an "unclear hand", in which he could think: "if partner makes such slow bid, I will be very embarrassed at my next turn; my bid will be constrained by UI, I will have difficulties to establish which bids will be LA and even which bid will be suggested by UI; if my bid is unsuccessful I will live with it and if successful there will be problems with TD and the AC will spend hours trying to clear up the whole thing. How nice would it be for everybody if I could make my next decision straight away and make it obvious (maybe by the mean of a confidential note to my screenmate, to be read only at the end of the deal, in order to avoid confusing each other) before UI could be delivered". 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 Mar 26 01:42:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 01:42:19 +1000 Received: from acheron.uwa.edu.au (uniwa.uwa.edu.au [130.95.128.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09456 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 01:42:15 +1000 Received: from cygnus.uwa.edu.au (root@cygnusl.uwa.edu.au [130.95.128.5]) by acheron.uwa.edu.au (8.8.7/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA10295; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:42:11 +0800 (WST) Received: from oemcomputer (dial162.cygnus.uwa.edu.au [203.24.97.162]) by cygnus.uwa.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA30393; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:42:09 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <36FA58B9.C14E7922@cygnus.uwa.edu.au> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:39:37 +0800 From: Peter Hart X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI insurance X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <000e01be7609$536713c0$81baf8d0@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I suppose you could _underline_ and *embolden* together.Cheers, Peter Hart. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 26 03:38:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 03:38:15 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA09846 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 03:38:05 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA03404; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:37:11 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-28.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.60) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma003323; Thu Mar 25 11:36:33 1999 Received: by har-pa1-28.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE76BB.CDA8B460@har-pa1-28.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 12:34:19 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE76BB.CDA8B460@har-pa1-28.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , David Grabiner , "'Grattan'" Subject: RE: Fw: A half-serious question Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 12:21:18 -0500 Encoding: 39 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First off, congratulations. Now having whetted our appetites, would you be willing to tell us about the case? ---------- From: Grattan[SMTP:hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 7:00 PM To: David Grabiner; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ************************************************ Perhaps I should not mention it but today, 24 March, they made me a Great Grandfather. [][][][][][][][]][][][][][][][][][][][][[][][][][][][][][][][][][][] > From: David Grabiner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question > Date: 22 March 1999 17:54 > > Anne Jones writes: > > > David Burn writes: >........................ \x/ ...................... > Is the Lightner double alertable in Europe? I know that it was > officially ruled in the Albuquerque World Championships that the > Lightner double was not alertable, and the pair which filed an appeal > based on an unalerted Lightner double was penalized for an appeal > without merit. > > (Whether it's alertable or not, it's unlikely that damage can result > from failing to alert it, since it's a standard convention.) > +++ The Albuquerque decision had a precedent in the European Championships in Turku, in a famous/notorious (depending on your nationality) case. ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 26 03:53:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 03:53:27 +1000 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-004.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA09887 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 03:53:21 +1000 Received: from tntrasp19-200.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.201.200] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:49:42 +0100 (MET) From: "LORMANT Philippe" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:44:50 +0100 Message-ID: <01be76e7$2ebfd780$c8c9fcc1@lormant> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by wanadoo.fr id SAA12264 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De : David Stevenson =C0 : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date : jeudi 25 mars 1999 12:58 Objet : Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match >Mike Swanson wrote [via DWS] > >>That's all very well but the law says "as if the revoke had been established" >>which to me means "as if the enquiry had not been made", so the defence would >>then have won the revoke trick (just because they didn't in reality see= ms >>irelevant to me) and a two trick penalty should be applied. > > Take that reading further. If the Ace of trumps was still out, and >now took the trick, felling the king, your reading would still give two >tricks, even though there was only one available! If the defence had >taken none so far, that would give declarer fourteen! > > No, I do not think that is a valid interpretation. > >>If one can't iterpret this law in this way, it becomes even more ridiculous >>than it already is! Why oh why did they amend it in 1987 anyway? > > It is a terrible Law! > >-- >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 ~ > Hello, We have in France a Consultative Committee of Laws with 5 Directors, our mission is to say how French Directors have to understand and to apply laws when th= ey rule for French competitions and when we meet a problem to interpret it. Of course , we discussed about this stupid- oh sorry- this terrible Law.Probably we are wrong, but we understand " as if the revoke had been established " like " as if the enquiry had not been made ".But of course = we cannot transfer more tricks than the offender side has won after the revoke. In your cases we transfer 2 tricks and 2S made. We are sure of only one thing: same ruling in Paris, Lille or Marseille, same ruling is good thing ,even if it is wrong ruling.One day perhaps we shall have Laws easy to read and easy to understand even for " clubs Directors ". You are all, world experts and you have many difficulties to have consensus....I don't think THIS law is terrible in my opinion : Bridge Laws are terrible! If Laws apply for all, Laws have to be understood by everyone. The most important stands: Embrassez ceux que vous aimez. Philippe. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 26 10:30:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA11642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:30:19 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA11637 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:30:14 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA12319 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:30:11 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:30:10 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match In-Reply-To: <36FA1390.2AE72B83@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Herman De Wael wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > Declarer is in 2S*, and has lost 5 tricks. He appears to have two > > >more losers, but he leads the CK hoping to discard his D. > > >Unfortunately, E ruffs with the S8, so he over-ruffs with the S9, and > > >West over-ruffs with the SK. East asks West whether he has any clubs > > >[illegal in Europe] and your ruling is ....? > > > > Since West has a club he replaces the SK with a club, and does not win > > this trick. Later West wins the SK, and East a diamond, so the defence > > won two tricks. L63B says that "the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply > > as if the revoke had been established". So, did West win the revoke > > trick? No. Did West win a later trick with a card that he could > > legally have played to the revoke trick, ie a *club*? No. One trick is > > transferred, 2S*-1. > > > > > > By asking illegally, the defence have saved themselves a trick. Yes? > > > > Nope. > > I believe there is a WBFLC decision somewhere that says this > applies to the two-trick penalty. Ton ? Grattan ? The decision to which you refer was in relation to 43B2(b). In that case Dummy has asked a question after violating one of the Law 43 limitations. The wording however is very similar between 43B2(b) and 63B. 43B2(b) says...."declarer must substitute a correct card if his play was illegal, and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established." 63B says...."the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established." If the WBFLC says that the two trick penalty applies for 43B2(b), it seems only consistent that it would also apply for 63B. I agree with DWS's contention that by transferring a trick (as part of the penalty) that was not actually won by the revoking side, we can generate trick totalling problems. However this scenario seems to already exist in the 43B2(b) case. I believe we should be consistent and transfer two tricks when either infraction occurs. This of course is written by someone whose Zonal Authority allows defenders inquiries about revokes! Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 26 12:01:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:01:24 +1000 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 MAA11814 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:01:03 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.205]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA24820 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 01:40:27 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36FAC99B.A46D32D0@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 01:41:15 +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 - March 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 7th 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 , (10) Nutmeg , Lucky 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 Mar 26 12:01:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:01:58 +1000 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 MAA11826 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:01:48 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.205]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA24854; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 01:41:13 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36FAC9CB.DBAA26F9@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 01:42:03 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru CC: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Delay of card References: <36F822CD.5D7C@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You will have many new members Vitold , it is not sarcastic... I hope you'll not invite the TD who acted in Mr. Small's club !!!!!! To the point -> Law 74C7 is the right reference IMO. Dany vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > Hi all:) > > May be I am too sharp but in my club such behavior will be penalized by > PP and the result of the board will be 40-60. Only in case of > inexperienced player TD will not award PP - just explain to him once > more basic of the Properties > > Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 26 12:01:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:01:49 +1000 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 MAA11819 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:01:22 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.205]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA24838; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 01:40:57 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36FAC9BA.940E8D83@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 01:41:46 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Equity in Teams event. References: <3.0.16.19990317200847.371725c2@pop3.iag.net> <36F1AC67.1DF8@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I didn't write for a "long" while ........ First : such a case produce a huge increase of members in the club it happens ...(not sarcastic enough); I don't think that the case should be sent to the national Committee ... but the local club's management should find a nice door and show it to the TD.... Second : IMO the AC was wrong , very wrong , canceling the board , because there were table results. They can argue if the score at the problematic table would be +420 or -50 or whatever , but AC's members can't avoid a decision (may be good bridge , bad bridge genial judgment or..). They also increased the membership (oh...) Better let go to play kangaroo chaparitucantis....... Dany B A Small wrote: > > Hi all > > Thanks for comments. Should have supplied hands at start but didn't have > them availible. Have now retrieved them from club. > Bd 6 dealer E Vul EW > AKJ10973 > QJ54 > 5 > 4 > 62 Q84 > 82 AK7 > AQJ872 43 > J84 109653 > 5 > 10963 > K1096 > AKQ7 > > As you can see I got my minor Aces wrong. A diamond lead is difficult to > make 4H on but not impossible. D lead, S switch taken in hand. H to A, D > ruffed in hand. H to K and exit with small heart leads to doomed > contract. Other defence gives a chance. Whatever I now appreciate the > situation with regard the equity better. Thanks > Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 26 16:16:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA12306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 16:16:22 +1000 Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA12300 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 16:16:08 +1000 Received: from modem46.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.174] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10QPuT-0005Vi-00; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 06:16:01 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "Craig Senior" , , "David Grabiner" Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 06:09:55 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ************************************************ Perhaps I should not mention it but today, 24 March, they made me a Great Grandfather. [][][][][][][][]][][][][][][][][][][][][[][][][][][][][][][][][][][], > From: Craig Senior > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; David Grabiner ; 'Grattan' > Subject: RE: Fw: A half-serious question > Date: 25 March 1999 17:21 > > First off, congratulations. #### My son says he feels old. My brother's family in Canada has prepared me - they have been thru to the third generation after mine for several years (two great, great nieces). #### > > Now having whetted our appetites, would you be willing to tell us about the case? > > +++ The Albuquerque decision had a precedent in the European > Championships in Turku, in a famous/notorious (depending on > your nationality) case. ~Grattan~ +++ #### not much to tell. Lightner Double of a 7 clubs contract, not alerted, light on the ruff. Declarer cries foul. AC says players beyond the novice class all know that doubles at slam level may be special (often request unusual lead) and the player should have protected his own back.. 7NT makes and Declarer says had he understood the double he would have moved. Few people external to one nationality were much convinced that a player at international championship level could claim this was not standard, common bridge knowledge. Subsequently the EBL laws committee noted with approval the AC's judgement that this meaning to a double is one that "an opposing pair can reasonably be expected to understand" (see Law 40B) . ~ Grattan ~ #### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 26 19:08:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 19:08:58 +1000 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 TAA12511 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 19:08:50 +1000 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 LAA08525 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 11:02:01 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from svk@int.kiev.ua) Message-ID: <002901be7766$99e2cde0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Delay of card Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:56:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by hunter2.int.kiev.ua id LAA08525 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JP Rocafort wrote: ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 20:07:04 +1000 Received: from p2 (vl247-a2.ot.lt [195.22.176.203]) by perkunas.omnitel.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA24302 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:58:33 +0200 (EET) Received: by p2 with Microsoft Mail id <01BE7778.D0357DE0@p2>; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 11:07:18 +-100 Message-ID: <01BE7778.D0357DE0@p2> From: Vytautas Rekus To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: 2/7 serious question Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 11:07:13 +-100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, Lurking at the "Delay of Card" thread, I remembered the story, which = happened to me long time ago (when I was young and beautiful... Now I'm = just beautiful :-)) Teams, our table seems to be short in time. I'm defender (W) in 3 cards ending: x Kx - - X - =20 ?x ?xx - - - - - AJx - - Declarer plays small H from hand, I play small H, and now declarer = pauses. - Declarer must win all tricks to have the contract.=20 - Everybody on the table knows the distribution. - ? means the HQ missing. - X in W hand means S winner - Declarer does not know, which defender holds HQ. - Everybody on the table knows declarer will play HK after the pause. Problem is quite simple - if West holds HQ - he's already squeezed and = HQ drops, if not - finesse. Declarer pauses for 10 (ten) _MINUTES_ trying to guess and sometimes = looking at defenders' behaviour. 1. Is it ethical? 2. Is it legal? 3. If answer to 2. is "not", who should call TD? 4. Defender with HQ? 5. Defender without HQ? 6. Dummy? 7. Declarer himself? Opinions welcome. Reason of subject - 2 first questions are serious. Regards, Vy (as Herman proposed last year:) P.S. Still not cats, sorry... From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 27 03:00:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 03:00:32 +1000 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-004.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA16210 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 03:00:25 +1000 Received: from tntrasp18-43.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.202.43] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Fri, 26 Mar 1999 17:55:57 +0100 (MET) From: "LORMANT Philippe" To: "Grattan" , "Craig Senior" , , "David Grabiner" Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 17:50:56 +0100 Message-ID: <01be77a8$d193fba0$2bcafcc1@lormant> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by wanadoo.fr id RAA07458 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De : Grattan =C0 : Craig Senior ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; David Grabiner Date : vendredi 26 mars 1999 07:58 Objet : Re: Fw: A half-serious question >Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee >************************************************ > Perhaps I should not mention it but today, >24 March, they made me a Great Grandfather. >[][][][][][][][]][][][][][][][][][][][][[][][][][][][][][][][][][][], > > > >> From: Craig Senior >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; David Grabiner >; 'Grattan' >> Subject: RE: Fw: A half-serious question >> Date: 25 March 1999 17:21 >> >> First off, congratulations. > >#### My son says he feels old. My brother's family in Canada has >prepared me - they have been thru to the third generation after >mine for several years (two great, great nieces). #### >> >> Now having whetted our appetites, would you be willing to tell us abou= t the >case? >> >> +++ The Albuquerque decision had a precedent in the European >> Championships in Turku, in a famous/notorious (depending on >> your nationality) case. ~Grattan~ +++ > >#### not much to tell. Lightner Double of a 7 clubs contract, not alerte= d, >light on the ruff. Declarer cries foul. AC says players beyond the novice >class all know that doubles at slam level may be special (often request >unusual lead) and the player should have protected his own back.. 7NT >makes and Declarer says had he understood the double he would have >moved. Few people external to one nationality were much convinced >that a player at international championship level could claim this was n= ot >standard, common bridge knowledge. Subsequently the EBL laws >committee noted with approval the AC's judgement that this meaning >to a double is one that "an opposing pair can reasonably be expected to >understand" (see Law 40B) . ~ Grattan ~ #### > >IFirst of all, it's not a half-serious question, but a wonderful thing, = we are happy for you , welcome to Grattan junior and best wishes. > > It seems to me that in Turku case, declarer asked the meaning of the doub= le and the French player answered only " Penalty "! IMO it's not a correct and ethical answer. Some years later B Pencharz said in front of a Director's assemb= ly in Amsterdam " It's no wonder that AC has attributed and adjusted score at = the cost of French team, however it' more surprising to give ALL benefit to the scandinavian team" ( of course BP spoke in correct English, not like me!= ) Ph.L. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 27 03:29:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 03:29:30 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA16263 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 03:29:20 +1000 Received: from pf0s11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.241] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10QaPg-0007wE-00; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 17:28:56 +0000 Message-ID: <001401be77ae$1212f640$f18b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" , Subject: Re: D-BLML list - the clever friends - March 99 Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 16:40:15 -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: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 March 1999 02:48 Subject: D-BLML list - the clever friends - March 99 > ......................... \x/ ..................... >Please be kind and send the data to update it. > ++++ Not at all relevant, but you may be amused to hear that, living alone, I have no facility to care for a quadruped. On understanding this my office staff endowed me with a traditional 'heritage' teddy bear. He has been named Parker because I keep finding him peering down between the bed and the wall. [Which, he suggests, is evidence that I'm a restless spirit.] <><> ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 27 04:12:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 04:12:32 +1000 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 EAA16418 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 04:12:24 +1000 Received: from localhost by u3.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id NAA22652 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 13:12:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 13:12:17 -0500 (EST) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: D-BLML list - the clever friends - March 99 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Grattan Endicott wrote: > ++++ Not at all relevant, but you may be amused to > hear that, living alone, I have no facility to care for a > quadruped. On understanding this my office staff > endowed me with a traditional 'heritage' teddy bear. > He has been named Parker because I keep finding > him peering down between the bed and the wall. > [Which, he suggests, is evidence that I'm a restless > spirit.] <><> ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > Oh, well, if we're going to have a BLTBL . . . The local blood bank were giving away bears to donors just before Christmas 1997, so Zachary now sits, wearing a corporate baseball cap, atop The Messiah and Elgar CDs that happen to be on the top row of a tall thin CD rack in my bedroom. -- Richard Lighton |"This particularly rapid, unintelligible patter (lighton@idt.net)| Isn't generally heard and if it is it doesn't matter!" Wood-Ridge NJ | W. S. Gilbert USA | (Ruddigore) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 27 07:22:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 07:22:06 +1000 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA16783 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 07:21:58 +1000 Received: from modem124.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.252] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Qe34-0005AU-00; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 21:21:51 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "LORMANT Philippe" , "Craig Senior" , , "David Grabiner" Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 20:48:57 -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 ************************************************ Perhaps I should not mention it but today, 24 March, they made me a Great Grandfather. [][][][][][][][]][][][][][][][][][][][][[][][][][][][][][][][][][][] ---------- From: LORMANT Philippe To: Grattan ; Craig Senior ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; David Grabiner Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question Date: 26 March 1999 16:50 -----Message d'origine----- > > >> From: Craig Senior >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; David Grabiner >; 'Grattan' >> Subject: RE: Fw: A half-serious question >> Date: 25 March 1999 17:21 > > It seems to me that in Turku case, declarer asked the meaning of the double and the French player answered only " Penalty "! IMO it's not a correct and ethical answer. Some years later B Pencharz said in front of a Director's assembly in Amsterdam " It's no wonder that AC has attributed and adjusted score at the cost of French team, however it' more surprising to give ALL benefit to the scandinavian team" ( of course BP spoke in correct English, not like me! ) +++ Sorry, Philippe, you sent me scurrying back to the box files to look for my notes of the time. So to correct what I said: I noted in some fairly fierce words the folly of having an AC which was blind to matters of law - however strong the players on it, because they can be unaware of aspects on which they might consult the Chief Director. I just think the AC was wrong. Subsequently the stance of the Laws Committee was that the double was something with possiblities the opponent may reasonably be expected to understand. My notes say nothing about any explanation given, but 'penalty' is an inadequate statement - I did note it was a bad view that anything should be judged to happen 100% of the time if the explanation were made in detail Apologies for the inaccuracy. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 27 11:09:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 11:09:52 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 LAA17347 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 11:09:45 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10QhbT-0004PK-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 01:09:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 01:04:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: D-BLML list - the clever friends - March 99 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , richard lighton writes > >On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> ++++ Not at all relevant, but you may be amused to >> hear that, living alone, I have no facility to care for a >> quadruped. On understanding this my office staff >> endowed me with a traditional 'heritage' teddy bear. >> He has been named Parker because I keep finding >> him peering down between the bed and the wall. >> [Which, he suggests, is evidence that I'm a restless >> spirit.] <><> ~ Grattan ~ ++++ >> >Oh, well, if we're going to have a BLTBL . . . > >The local blood bank were giving away bears to donors just before >Christmas 1997, so Zachary now sits, wearing a corporate baseball >cap, atop The Messiah and Elgar CDs that happen to be on the top >row of a tall thin CD rack in my bedroom. Nina Harrison (now 80-ish) plays once a week at the YC. Pete the Teddy sits on the table to make sure that everything's ok, and helps me collect the table money. -- 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 Mar 27 21:23:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 21:23:49 +1000 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 VAA18096 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 21:23:39 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.229]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id NAA13202; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 13:23:26 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36FCBFDC.D067D641@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 13:24:12 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: richard lighton CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: D-BLML list - the clever friends - March 99 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well........... we should thing about a TB-blml..???? There are some events where TBs are more appreciated than TDs..?! Let' enjoy all Dany P.S. for too serious people TB=Teddy Bears...... richard lighton wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > ++++ Not at all relevant, but you may be amused to > > hear that, living alone, I have no facility to care for a > > quadruped. On understanding this my office staff > > endowed me with a traditional 'heritage' teddy bear. > > He has been named Parker because I keep finding > > him peering down between the bed and the wall. > > [Which, he suggests, is evidence that I'm a restless > > spirit.] <><> ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > > > Oh, well, if we're going to have a BLTBL . . . > > The local blood bank were giving away bears to donors just before > Christmas 1997, so Zachary now sits, wearing a corporate baseball > cap, atop The Messiah and Elgar CDs that happen to be on the top > row of a tall thin CD rack in my bedroom. > -- > Richard Lighton |"This particularly rapid, unintelligible patter > (lighton@idt.net)| Isn't generally heard and if it is it doesn't matter!" > Wood-Ridge NJ | W. S. Gilbert > USA | (Ruddigore) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 27 21:31:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 21:31:59 +1000 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 VAA18125 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 21:31:51 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.229]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id NAA13673; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 13:31:13 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <36FCC1B0.14EF5B72@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 13:32:00 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vytautas Rekus CC: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Re: 2/7 serious question References: <01BE7778.D0357DE0@p2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If the cards are known , as you told us , it is an obvious infringement of L74C (pgph 7 & maybe 5) ! IMO No one should summon the TD until the end of the play - of course not the defenders ; then they can ask for some other 200,000 IMP or VP or whatever because they were damage not only for that "nasty" infringement , but for the whole game....... Dany P.S. sorry you couldn't get a cat or a dog , because I'll ask the WBFLC to introduce the ownership of at least one cat or dog as a NECESSARY condition to be an international TD...... LOL Vytautas Rekus wrote: > > Hi all, > > Lurking at the "Delay of Card" thread, I remembered the story, which happened to me long time ago (when I was young and beautiful... Now I'm just beautiful :-)) > > Teams, our table seems to be short in time. > > I'm defender (W) in 3 cards ending: > > x > Kx > - > - > X - > ?x ?xx > - - > - - > - > AJx > - > - > > Declarer plays small H from hand, I play small H, and now declarer pauses. > > - Declarer must win all tricks to have the contract. > - Everybody on the table knows the distribution. > - ? means the HQ missing. > - X in W hand means S winner > - Declarer does not know, which defender holds HQ. > - Everybody on the table knows declarer will play HK after the pause. > > Problem is quite simple - if West holds HQ - he's already squeezed and HQ drops, if not - finesse. > > Declarer pauses for 10 (ten) _MINUTES_ trying to guess and sometimes looking at defenders' behaviour. > > 1. Is it ethical? > 2. Is it legal? > 3. If answer to 2. is "not", who should call TD? > > 4. Defender with HQ? > 5. Defender without HQ? > 6. Dummy? > 7. Declarer himself? > > Opinions welcome. > > Reason of subject - 2 first questions are serious. > > Regards, > Vy (as Herman proposed last year:) > > P.S. Still not cats, sorry... From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 27 23:38:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:38:57 +1000 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-004.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18332 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:38:51 +1000 Received: from tntrasp19-175.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.201.175] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:38:40 +0100 (MET) From: "LORMANT Philippe" To: Subject: Re: a half-serious question Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:30:29 +0100 Message-ID: <01be7855$fb4048c0$afc9fcc1@lormant> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE785E.5D04B0C0" 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 Message en plusieurs parties et au format MIME. ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE785E.5D04B0C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Facts take precedence over commentaries " ( journalistic motto ) Good morning Grattan, I was not in Turku, but Claude was the Chief-Director. and , I believe = ,Ton Director summoned on the table.This morning, Claude said to me: " = Yes I confirm, declarer asked for the meaning of the double and french = player answered only " Penalty " ", and probably scandinavian player = pleaded (pled?) after " of course, in first time I thought to a = Lightner double and I intended to say 7NT, but after the answer I had a = doubt and in doubt I have decided to pass ".If it was such, we may = understand the AC's decision. In other case , ok, " the double was something with = possibilities the opponent may reasonably be expected to understand " = Embrassez ceux que vous aimez = Philippe =20 ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE785E.5D04B0C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
"Facts take = precedence over=20 commentaries " ( journalistic motto ) 
 
Good morning = Grattan,
 
I was not in Turku, but Claude was the=20 Chief-Director. and , I believe ,Ton  Director summoned on the = table.This=20 morning, Claude said to me: " Yes I confirm, declarer asked for the meaning of the double and french player = answered=20 only " Penalty " ", and probably scandinavian player pleaded  (pled?) after  " of = course, in=20 first time I thought to a Lightner double and I intended to say 7NT, but after the answer I had a doubt and in=20 doubt  I have decided to pass ".If it was such, we may = understand=20 the
AC's decision. In other case , ok, = " the=20 double was something with possibilities the opponent may reasonably be = expected=20 to understand " 
 
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;   =20 Embrassez ceux que vous aimez
 
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;        =20 Philippe  
------=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE785E.5D04B0C0-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 28 03:12:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 03:12:17 +1000 Received: from fep2.post.tele.dk (fep2.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA21231 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 03:12:09 +1000 Received: from JESPER ([195.249.193.146]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990327171202.YQEB23887.fep2@JESPER> for ; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 18:12:02 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Bid what you would have anyway? Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 18:11:46 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <36fdf170.1051832@post12.tele.dk> References: <37011b98.10865894@post12.tele.dk> <36FA1260.DF7F26D3@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36FA1260.DF7F26D3@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, 25 Mar 1999 11:39:28 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Your example is slightly flawed, since it appears that Pass >is not a LA, and so the hesitation cannot prove anything. >Let's change the example to a slow double and a take-out to >5H. Oops - I must have been using all of my mental powers to get the other parts of the example correct. Sorry, and thanks for the correction. >This is a good example, and I can agree with your wish to >treat all 4 cases the same. >But are they in fact the same ? > >When a player is so certain, in such a small time, that he >will bid 5H, even over a double by partner, then don't you >think that his hand will show it ? If his hand shows it, then there is no LA anyway, and the discussion of UI insurance becomes uninteresting. But sometimes his hand does not show it, even though it may be immediately obvious to the player himself what _he_ will do on the next round (or what he now thinks he will do on the next round). >It might just be that C will not see the director, because >his screenmate will agree that there is no LA, since C has >told him. Yes, but we should not have laws that depend on people not calling the TD in order to get the correct result. >In order for UI insurancce to work, a player must make his >mind up after the 4Sp bid, in time for no UI to arrive >through the tray not coming back immediately. When a player >can do that, he really must have a clear hand. Or possibly he decided, at least tentatively, before bidding 4H what he would do over 4S. Of course he can still change his mind. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 28 07:59:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 07:59:21 +1000 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 HAA22050 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 07:59:12 +1000 Received: from modem53.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.181] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10R16g-0007WN-00; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 21:59:06 +0000 From: "Grattan" To: "LORMANT Philippe" , Subject: Re: a half-serious question Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 21:00:47 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ************************************************ Memo to Great Grandfathers:- "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right, but if he says that it is impossible he is very probably wrong." [Arthur C. Clarke] {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} --------- From: LORMANT Philippe To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: a half-serious question Date: 27 March 1999 13:30 "Facts take precedence over commentaries " ( journalistic motto ) Good morning Grattan, I was not in Turku, but Claude was the Chief-Director. and , I believe ,Ton Director summoned +++ I was present; salutary lesson in the fact that the passing of time had warped memory for me until I went back to my archives. But both EBL and WBF have taken the same line on high level doubles, and this is what matters. ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 28 08:30:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 08:30:30 +1000 Received: from mta1.mail.telepac.pt (mail1.telepac.pt [194.65.3.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA22088 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 08:30:23 +1000 Received: from default ([194.65.229.51]) by mta1.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail v03.02.07 118-124-101) with SMTP id <19990327223016.GOA26256@default> for ; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 22:30:16 +0000 Message-ID: <011a01be78a1$6502c260$33e541c2@default> From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: Insufficient bid(s) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 22:30:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0117_01BE78A1.64641160" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0117_01BE78A1.64641160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bidding goes: Opener 4 Heart; 2nd hand 2 Spades oops sorry, 3 Spades, oops, my mistake, sorry again, 4 = Spades. Comments anyone? ------=_NextPart_000_0117_01BE78A1.64641160 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bidding = goes:
 
Opener 4 Heart;
2nd hand 2 Spades oops sorry, 3 Spades, = oops, my=20 mistake, sorry again, 4 Spades.
 
Comments = anyone?
------=_NextPart_000_0117_01BE78A1.64641160-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 28 12:32:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 12:32:43 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 MAA22437 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 12:32:37 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10R5NF-000DPB-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 03:32:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 02:31:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Insufficient bid(s) In-Reply-To: <011a01be78a1$6502c260$33e541c2@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <011a01be78a1$6502c260$33e541c2@default>, Rui Marques writes >Bidding goes: > >Opener 4 Heart; >2nd hand 2 Spades oops sorry, 3 Spades, oops, my mistake, sorry again, 4 Spades. > >Comments anyone? cancel 3S and 4S, allow next hand to overcall 2S. if not taken up revert to overcaller. If he bids 4S, no penalty but potential UI, Anything else silences pard and gets the lead penalty. No double allowed. Easy. -- 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 Sun Mar 28 18:35:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA23111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 18:35:17 +1000 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 SAA23106 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 18:35:10 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt092nca.san.rr.com [204.210.48.202]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA00037 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 00:35:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903280835.AAA00037@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Vancouver NABC Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 00:33:48 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > |When there is one section, half the pairs switch direction, half don't. > > if arrow switching is used > > |Logically this should done for multi-sections. The purpose is not > |mainly to meet new pairs, but to compare with a bunch of different > |pairs. If you are not going to arrow-switch, you should at least do > |that when there is overall ranking. If you rank E/W and N/S separately, > |no overalls, then retaining the same field is the proper method. > > Nearly every game more highly-ranked than a club game > produces a single winner. Yes, even when using a two-winner straight Mitchell movement. It's like declaring the baseball team with the best record as World Champion, no need to play the World Series. > In almost no ACBL tournaments > (non-club games) are new fields created by switching the > direction of some sections and not others. In every ACBL one-section two-session game I have seen: sectional, regional, or NABC, half of each field is switched. However, you are right that this is not done for two or more sections. It should be. > The reason > is logistics: this would cause 1/4 of the pairs to sit > N/S (stationary) all day, 1/4 to move all day, and 1/2 > to move half the time. (The numbers need some adjustment, > but that's good enough for now.) 3/4 of the field will > request a double-stationary seat. Many will complain > about a double-move. > > To avoid arguments about this, ACBL events simply make > each player move half the time unless he has a handicap > preventing it. Fine. Then, if you don't switch the arrow for some rounds, have separate N/S and E/W ranking, no overalls. The two fields have played two different games. If one N/S line in a two-section two-session game were to sit N/S both sessions, you could put all the handicapped pairs in that line (seeding permitting), with no need to go around finding volunteers to sit E/W both sessions. Some of us like to sit E/W, and we could be accommodated if one E/W line were to remain E/W for the second session. Result: Each line compares once with two other lines, instead of twice with one other line. I hasten to add that this is not appropriate for a two-session qualifying game, for which the two fields should remain intact for both sessions. Note that the ACBL recognizes that each field has played a different game, since an equal number of pairs are qualifed from each field, with no attention to overall ranking. In the "Open Pairs I" in Vancouver, that meant the bottom qualifying pair in one field had a worse score than 3 or 4 non-qualifiers in the other field. That's as it should be. > (Or, obviously, is accomodating someone > else who does.) It is pointless to argue that players > ought not do this; they ought to be happy moving sometimes > and not others, but experience clearly indicates otherwise. Fairness is not a popularity contest. > > |> Yes. In ATF, there's really no useful meaning to "section" > |> for purposes of scoring, only movement. > | > |That depends. Unknown to most TDs, it is quite possible to rank within > |sections for those who do not win more points from an overall rank. > |ACBLscor offers this option. Our La Jolla and Beach unit games have two > |sections, overall ranking, and within-section ranking. As usual, one > |gets the greater masterpoint award, overall or section, not both. > |However, ACBL TD practice is indeed to treat the entire field as one > |section when using ATF matchpointing, so in a way you are right, but it > |ain't necessarily so. > > I define "useful" differently. Yes, it is possible to > use section ranking (not "scoring") with ATF scoring. > We rejected doing that; frankly, there's no good reason. > I claim ATF ranking *increases* masterpoint (at least > gold) awards. I believe your claim is incorrect as to total masterpoints awarded. Haven't had time to check the gold point aspect yet, but will do so. The overall awards are identical, of course. > > |> Right. The field is also seeded odd/even, with the odd pairs > |> generally being stronger. The even field is "anti-seeded," > |> with the weakest pairs 2, 4, 8, 10, etc. (They skip the > |> corresponding high seeds once per day if there's a 14-table > |> section.) In national events, the seeding is pretty complete; > |> in a regional, there's a little odd/even, usually done by > |> stratum, and the high seeds are assigned. Note that Flight C > |> pairs are usually 2 or 4. These days, by the way, the seeds > |> are usually 3, 9, 13. Years ago 6 was a seed. No more. I > |> assume this was to simplify odd/even seeding, which makes lots > |> of sense given that entry-sellers have stratum information now. > | > |Excellent. Thank you very much for this information, which I have been > |looking for. Butch told me seeded tables are 3, 9, and then 6, 12 if > |needed, but he is an old-timer. Incidentally, neither system works for > |17 tables, although that size section is seldom seen. > > 17 is fine. 3, 9, 13 are the seeds. Normal seeding is done > through 14 tables and late pairs are 15-17. That's pretty > much standard anyway; sections are initially constructed with > 14 tables. If they become larger due to entries, late players > get the higher numbers. In a 17-table game Pair 13 N/S plays against E/W 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, missing the seeded pair at table 9. All seeds should meet. > > |Theoretically the seeds should be ordered according to strength and > |distributed boustrophedonically (as the ox plows, left to right, then > |right to left). If you make the simplifying assumption that the > |strength of the seeded and ordered pairs goes linearly, something like > |30, 29, 28, 27, etc. in relative strength, then you want two or four > |seeds in each line, not an odd number, so that the total strength of > |seeds in each line is the same. I readily accept that the eyeballing > |skill of the seeders is probably sufficient to balance the sections > |even if there are three in each line. Too bad we don't have a player > |rating system more accurate than masterpoints, so the computer could do > |this job. > > "Theoretical" issues are undefined. It is not at all clear > what the purposes of seeding are. Given different choices > of goals, different seeding schemes work better. In any > case, it is fairly easy to balance three seeds assuming one > knows all there is to know about them. For example, for > three sections with three seeds: > 1 3 2 > 5 4 6 > 9 8 7 I missed that three-section possibility, thanks for the arithmetic lesson. The total strength of 45 is evenly divisible by 3, yielding 15 for each section. However, the total strength of 3 seeds in 4 sections is 78, not evenly divisible by 4. > In fact, however, this is a pointless exercise as it assumes > that there is a constant strength difference between each > adjacent ordinal pair. This is a false assumption. Without > a clear rating system, letting entry-sellers or seeders judge > is good enough. Fully agreed. This is one area in which humans do better than a computer would, even if we had a reasonable player ranking system. With the players themselves pointing out any inequitable seeding, the current method seems to work very well. > > |> ...and players find it more inequitable to see that they scored a 480 > |> and got 18 carryover, but their buddy scored a 476 and got 24, even > |> if this is possibly theoretically fairer. > | > |I suppose "sigma-snapping" would account for the differences resulting > |when hands run predominantly in one direction, which gives strong pairs > |a big advantage. You can win more matchpoints with the combination of > > Yes. I have changed my mind, and now believe there is no method, theoretical or otherwise, to put the two different games played by N/S and E/W in a straight Mitchell on an equal basis for overall ranking purposes. > |skillful bidding and skillfull dummy play than with merely skillful > |defense. It still seems to me that these are two different games that > |have been played by the two fields, making carryovers illogical (if not > |illegitimate) when the fields get mixed. > Not clear Each field has played different hands against different opponents, and has compared results with different pairs. Two different games. > > Not true. You are assuming that a carryover is intended > to start the field on uneven ground based on how well they > have done so far. It is hardly unreasonable to change that > to "how well they have scored so far." Yes, it's slightly > imprecise, but in fact, we do compare fields. Therefore, > we should use the same method to compute carryovers. As I said, it's not logical to compare the scores of N/S and E/W pairs, who have played entirely different games. That being so, it's also not logical to carry over a portion of those scores into a later game in which the two fields have been mixed. > > Imagine a scenario in which some convoluted factoring is > used to produce different final scores (as compared to > raw matchpoints or percentages) for different fields. > If I were to score fewer matchpoints than my friend, > but rank higher than he for reasons he couldn't understand, > would he be happy? No way. So we don't do it. Can't be done anyway, even theoretically, IMO. > > |> You are right, by the way about the reason. Many Flight B > |> players are very driven by masterpoint awards. Not all, > |> of course, but many. Or at least those who scream seem > |> to be---our district implemented ATF one year and got > |> so many complaints that the directors flat-out refused > |> to continue. The complaints were almost all from Flight B and > |> Senior events. > | > |I was at the Queen Mary regional when a vote was taken among the > |seniors. They voted against atf after it was used for one two-session > |event, but the reason was not atf, it was the loss of section rankings > |that they objected to. No one told them they could have both. In fact, > |no one knew! Many players cannot understand why they don't have a "1" > |by their name when they have the top score (54%) in their section. > > They were supposed to be told. I was there, too; I told > the director that this was an option. He said, "no it isn't." > I said, "it sure is." He said, "I don't care. We are not > doing ATF scoring." What more could I do? I am happy to report that Jim Kirkham, ACBL Director from District 22 (which includes the Queen Mary), informed me in Vancouver that ATF matchpointing will be employed for stratified events at the regional here in San Diego this coming week. Let's hope that ATF will spread to other districts and maybe to the NABCs. None of the stratified events at the Vancouver NABC were matchpointed ATF. > > |As an aside, isn't it obvious that the total masterpoints awarded, gold > |or otherwise, should depend only on the number of tables in the event, > |not on the scoring method used? Why should games run with straight > |Mitchell movements pay more total masterpoints than those employing > |arrow-switch or Howell movements? Doesn't make sense to me. > > It's not obvious, and is probably not true. It seems to > me that a BAM team game is a stronger measure of skill and > ought to award more masterpoints than the same sized Swiss. You have misunderstood. As "Mitchell" and "Howell" imply, I was referring to matchpoint pair or IMP-pair games. In a Club Masterpoint Game, a 13-table one-winner movement (e.g., arrow-switch) pays a total of 5.1 masterpoints, while a 13-table straight Mitchell pays 7.16. Is that logical? > > In practice, the masterpoint formulae were created with > other constraints in mind. Losing the equality described > above didn't likely seem important to the formula constructors. > It doesn't seem all that important to me, either. Might as well do things right, whether it's important or not. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 28 19:50:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA23258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 19:50:07 +1000 Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA23252 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 19:49:57 +1000 Received: from default ([195.89.178.72]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 1417600 ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 09:40:30 -0000 Message-ID: <01db01be7900$082d4ce0$48b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: UI insurance Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 10:41:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com Date: 12 March 1999 04:33 Subject: Re: UI insurance > >Now Jean has come up with a method where we CAN, in some cases, tell >that such a statement would be honest and not self-serving. >Certainly, if you tell someone what your plan is before you even know >whether you're going to get UI (and if you have to pay a penalty for >not following through with your plan), your statement that "you were >going to make that bid regardless" has to be accepted as honest. My mother says to me that once players know they can do this some of them will no longer be honest mt; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 00:02:17 +1000 Received: from capc19.anorg.chemie.uni-tuebingen.de (martin@capc19.anorg.chemie.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.70.95]) by mx01.uni-tuebingen.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA19704; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 16:02:08 +0200 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:59:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Martin Kretschmar X-Sender: martin@capc19.anorg.chemie.uni-tuebingen.de To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games In-Reply-To: <5K9HDNBjQ042Ewmc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Sergei Litvak wrote: > > > You can read about balance and arrow switching in pair tournaments in > > the book "Bridge Movements (Fair approach)" by Hallen, Hansen and > > Jannersten. > > Oh dear! > > This is not my field of expertise, but I do know that the EBU view is > that Hallen, Hansen and Jannersten have got it wrong! > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ If I remember right this topic already once came up. I asked Mr. Mannings(?!) about this and he said something that he diskliked some of the movements. But most likely I remember everything wrong, so it would be good idea to say clearly what and how much is wrong with Hallen, Hansen and Jannersten. :) Regards, Martin From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 29 00:22:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 00:22:47 +1000 Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA26132 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 00:22:41 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (tc-71.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.172]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA24677 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 09:23:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36FE3BF4.3C7A15DF@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 09:25:56 -0500 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws Subject: [Fwd: The Screen Savers Today - Urgent Extra] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------C1B9A4C42D0D25FCDECBE8C1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------C1B9A4C42D0D25FCDECBE8C1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I know most people object to this type of mailing, however, having been a victim of the last virus, this one is important. This comes from Ziff Davis mailing, by the host of one of their computer programs on TV. So many people use outlook express and word, I felt this should be passed on. If you find it unimportant, I apologize. Nancy --------------C1B9A4C42D0D25FCDECBE8C1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from smtp2.zdlists.com (smtp2.zdlists.com [128.11.44.12]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA15681; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:30:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from lv5 (10.11.44.13) by smtp2.zdlists.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <6.00090F5E@smtp2.zdlists.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:26:40 -0500 Received: from MAIL.ZDLISTS.COM by MAIL.ZDLISTS.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 3814418 for THE_SCREEN_SAVERS@MAIL.ZDLISTS.COM; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:26:35 -0500 Received: (from zdmaint@localhost) by america.interstep.com (8.8.8/8.6.11) id XAA19740 for the_screen_savers@mail.zdlists.com; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:15:28 -0500 (EST) Approved-By: ssav_tm@ZDTV.ZDLISTS.COM Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:15:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903280415.XAA19740@america.interstep.com> Subject: The Screen Savers Today - Urgent Extra To: "The Screen Savers" From: "The Screen Savers" Sender: owner-the_screen_savers@MAIL.ZDLISTS.COM X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Hi, this is Leo writing to you with an urgent virus warning. We don't normally send you mail on Sundays, but there's a new email virus we thought you should know about, not because it's destructive, but because it spreads so rapidly. This virus can affect anyone who uses Microsoft Word. And if you use Outlook 97 or 98 as your email program, you could be spreading it unwittingly. The virus is a Word macro virus called Melissa. As currently propagated, it arrives in your email as a message with the subject "Important Message from" and the name of someone you may well know. The body of the message contains "Here is that document you asked for ... don't show anyone else ;-)". The virus payload is contained in an attached Microsoft Word document. Don't open that Word document! Once you do, if you use Outlook for your email the virus will attempt to send infected messages to the top 50 names in your address book. Those people may also become infected if they open the attached Word document. Because the virus lives in a Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) module, it can easily be moved to any other Microsoft Office product, including Excel, Access, and Powerpoint. The virus is contained the Word document, not the email message itself, so you can't rely on the email message alone as a way to know if you've received the virus. Because this virus immediately sends 50 copies of itself to your friends on activation, we believe it may be the fastest spreading virus we've ever seen. That's why we're taking the unusual step of sending you this message. What to do now: * Don't open email attachments, even if they're from someone you know. It is perfectly safe to read the contents of the email, however (unless you're using Word as your email reader). It's the attached documents that pose a risk. * Update your anti-virus software. Norton Anti-Virus and McAfee both have updates that detect Melissa and prevent infection. If you're using another product check with your vendor for updates. What to do in general: * Always keep your anti-virus product up-to-date * Be careful about opening files attached to email, even if you know the person who sent it. For more information about this virus visit: http://www.zdnn.com http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/mailissa.html Sorry to bother you on a Sunday, but I thought you'd want to know about this. Thanks for watching The Screen Savers! Leo Laporte Host/Managing Editor The Screen Savers ZDTV --------------C1B9A4C42D0D25FCDECBE8C1-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 29 00:54:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 00:54:24 +1000 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 AAA26242 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 00:54:16 +1000 Received: from txdirect.net (dnas-02-28.sat.idworld.net [209.142.68.190]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id IAA17964 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 08:54:01 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <36FE426C.3953226D@txdirect.net> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 08:53:32 -0600 From: "Albert \"BiigAl\" Lochli" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Point ... and Counterpoint Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by legend.idworld.net id IAA17964 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The ACBL Bulletin from Vancouver, on line at: http://209.45.144.70/nabc/vancouver/db990327.htm Has two engaging articles. I quote them - please just extract paragraphs when you re-quote, this is quite long and complete: ----------------------- Point . . . and Counterpoint Controversy over hesitations and disclosure issues leave a bad taste with many players. Should bridge throw out the baby with the bathwater -- or is there=20 a better solution? Jim Davis offers a different perspective on ethics. And Chris Compton suggests that we change the laws, not the game. =20 Ethics -- a different perspective By Jim Davis Ethics --- who could be against them? The more ethical a thing is, the better.=20 Or so it would seem. But I think the problem of ethics is at the root of most=20 of what is wrong with organized bridge. Since games and sports are played for recreation, should morality be a part of the game? If so, why? If not, why not?=20 Are ethics or morality a part of most games? They are in the form of good sportsmanship, but not in the form they are applied to bridge. In tennis=20 it is not considered good form to make a call in your favor if it's close=20 and you're not sure whether it's in or out. It is, however, perfectly okay=20 to fake a shot one way and hit another way. Another example is golf, which has a rigid set of rules. Once again, there is no need to let your opponents=20 know what kind of shot you intend to play.=20 I chose tennis and golf as examples because, like bridge, they are usually self-regulated (except in tournaments). By this I mean that the rules --- and the resulting "calls" or decisions as to ins and outs, etc. --- are applied=20 by the players as opposed to referees.=20 In these two activities, the calls are usually made by the players, hence=20 the need for good sportsmanship or ethics. In contrast, the "calls" or=20 decisions in bridge --- this is not a reference to the auction --- are made=20 by the opponents, and therein is the root of the trouble.=20 Two crucial tenets=20 There are two crucial tenets underpinning the ethics of bridge --- that the=20 only way information can be received is by the bids and plays made by the=20 players (not the manner in which they are made), and that players are entitled=20 to full disclosure of their opponents' bidding and carding methods.=20 These seem like reasonable principles, but they can lead in unwanted=20 directions the way they are applied now. The problem with these two=20 assumptions is that they are combined with self-regulation. It is true=20 that there is a director, but the director does not monitor the action=20 and make rulings. Instead, the opponents initiate the director calls,=20 and the above two assumptions are sure to lead to a great many director calls.=20 The worst aspect of this is that the ethical system set up for bridge is=20 likely to lead to behavior that is far from ethical and appropriate. Thus=20 the system encourages director calls.=20 Another effect of bridge ethics is that it leads to a "holier than thou"=20 attitude and situations where thinking is penalized. Bridge is the only=20 activity I know of where an ethical standard leads to behavior that is=20 not desired. Consider how much more pleasant it would be if there were no=20 stigma attached to hesitations and failure to adequately disclose.=20 Two possible solutions=20 There are two ways to deal with the problem. The first is to keep the two=20 tenets and have a director monitor the play and apply the rules without letting the players have a say. This is the way that most sports are played, and this=20 should solve the problem.There would no longer be an advantage associated=20 with calling the director. This would clearly be a fair and equitable solution, although not a cheap one. It would simply be the last step down a long and=20 complicated road.=20 The other solution is to eliminate the two principles of behavior. Players=20 would be permitted to hesitate if they wanted to without any consequences, and players could play whatever system they wanted without telling the opponents=20 everything. Note how much this would simplify the game. Directors would be needed=20 only for procedural penalties such as revokes and leads out of turn. Contentious=20 director calls would be gone.=20 Convention cards and the Alert system would also vanish, and who would mourn=20 their passing? Let us examine some of the consequences of these changes. Thinking=20 would no longer be penalized. A player would be allowed to hesitate any time he=20 considered it to be to his advantage. If my thinking allowed my partner to make=20 a correct decision that he may not have made otherwise, so be it. The same would=20 be true for my opponents. The important thing is to get rid of the stigma attached=20 to this behavior. It would be part of the game.=20 Say I'm declarer and I lead the jack from A-J-10 towards K-x-x in dummy. If my left-hand opponent hesitates and I play him for the queen and he doesn't have it, that's my problem. LHO has successfully (and ethically) done his job.=20 Disclosure won't be a problem=20 Eventually, this will lead to opponents trying either to not hesitate or=20 randomly hesitate ---otherwise they will be taken advantage of by astute declarers. Adequate disclosure will cease to be a problem when no disclosure is expected or allowed. This means that players will not be able to assume anything about their opponents' bidding and use it to their advantage. A simple example is a takeout double of an opening bid. How can it be used to=20 show the unbid suits when opener may or may not have the suit he bid? This will=20 adjust the meaning of double closer to the original --- namely as an intention to defend.=20 It has always seemed wrong to me to have my bidding used against me through disclosure. The opponents clearly are entitled to use my bidding against me,=20 but they should have to infer what my bids mean. No longer will a director=20 be called because a player plays a certain way based upon an opponent's bidding=20 and then calls the director if that way fails.=20 Add a clock to the game=20 One thing I would add to the game, at least in tournaments, is a clock. Each=20 pair would have a certain amount of time per session and they would be penalized for using extra time. This would be a check on hesitations. A player=20 would have to gauge which situations should be thoroughly analyzed.=20 Players could use waiting time between rounds to discuss strategy, such as what=20 system to play against the next opponents. Players could even decide to psych=20 against a pair of opponents in advance. The constraint here would be that a player would not know his cards before the round began.=20 In my ideal world, the only thing that would be wrong would be outright=20 cheating. By this I mean disclosing particular cards in your hand to partner through an illegal mechanism such as hand signals or some other method.=20 In conclusion, the elimination of the two ethical tenets should make bridge=20 simpler and more enjoyable. Gone totally would be complaints about certain=20 types of bridge behavior. Players could play however they choose and all would=20 be okay. What a player would not be permitted to do is cheat --- all else would=20 be legal.This would improve the behavior of bridge players, which is much more important than an abstract concept of ethics.=20 There is a good reason for bad behavior by bridge players --- that such=20 behavior is (indirectly) encouraged. It is not the players who are at fault=20 --- it is the system. People are as they are and cannot be changed. If they=20 are act badly, don't necessarily blame them. Rather, question what standards=20 are leading them to the unwanted behavior.=20 Jim Davis, 48, is a mathematician who writes computer programs that are used to analyze and maintain air traffic control radar. He lives in Somers Point NJ and=20 plays bridge regularly. He is a Silver Life Master.=20 --------------------------- Change the laws By Chris Compton=20 Jim Davis correctly observes that two particular ethical tenets, the requirement=20 of full disclosure to the opponents (Laws 40 and 75) and the prohibition against partnership use of unauthorized information (Law 16), significantly contribute=20 to the most distasteful aspects of tournament bridge.=20 The symptoms he describes are present, but his suggested cure =97 elimination =97 creates problems enormously more difficult to solve =97collusion between partners =97 than the current incentives to be an overly zealous opponent. Even more drastically, the=20 Davis solution changes bridge into a game other than the one we know and love.=20 Reducing the necessity for full disclosure and relaxation of rules against use of unauthorized information has worthy marketing advantages at lower levels of competition. In particular, the need for full disclosure is minimized through flighting of games by allowable conventions and treatments rather than by masterpoint levels. This worked well at the 0-300 level and below because it takes a few years of table experience to even begin to notice hesitations.The ACBL should experiment with flighting by conventions in regionally rated events.=20 An intolerable change of game=20 Division by conventions, however, does not solve the problems noted by Davis for=20 open events. In an unrestricted event, elimination of disclosure and allowance of unauthorized information would unalterably and intolerably change the game. The=20 fine line between what is an "acceptable" hesitation and an "acceptable" failure=20 to disclose and what is totally unacceptable collusion would be quickly crossed.=20 After 10 sessions together, players would know each other's "moves." Although=20 Davis intends to keep the opponents off-balance, allowing intentional hesitations would destroy our present game by encouraging and fostering direct collusion=20 between partners.=20 Bridge is so fascinating in part because success requires solving problems in real time from the clues legally present at the table. Bridge is a intellectual, analytical exercise full of mental and psychological challenges. In Davis' world, bridge would quickly deteriorate into a new game wherein the players who triumphed would be those with the best practiced tempo and the most clever "on-off" switch. Importantly, more =97 not fewer =97 unseemly and unwieldy appeals would result.=20 Having fewer appeals is desirable. Because of the appellate process and mechanisms=20 in place under the present laws (92 and 93), the results of competition are often determined in committee rooms rather than at the table. Therefore, to have less conflict over hesitations and disclosure, we must reduce the number of appeals.=20 I agree that problems relating to unauthorized information and full disclosure=20 greatly detract from our game, but I feel even more strongly that regulations=20 relating to these matters are necessary to the essence of the challenge of bridge. Does this mean there is no solution? Hardly. Read on.=20 Change the laws, not the game.=20 The Laws of Duplicate Bridge need significant change that can be instituted only=20 by the World Bridge Federation Laws Commission. Most importantly, the scope of the Laws must be redrafted to focus on consistency, not equity that requires the=20 use of bridge judgment.=20 The major effect of turning away from equity would be to revise laws that=20 require the use of bridge judgment. Laws such as 16, 40 and 75, which are the=20 topic of Davis' remarks, must be penalty oriented for at least four reasons:=20 1)bridge judgment is too controversial and emotionally charged=20 to be left to equity;=20 2) on any given deal, there is likely to be wide disagreement=20 as to what constitutes equity;=20 3) the rules must be simple enough to be easily understood and=20 consistently applied by reasonably trained directors,=20 and 4) we can't determine equity with any finality until long past the end of the session.=20 The revised laws must remove soft, litigious phrases dealing with disclosure and unauthorized information in order to reduce the number of decisions made by directors=20 and committees who are required to determine equity by using bridge judgment.=20 Examples of such phrases are ". . . may not choose from among logical alternatives=20 one that could demonstrably have been suggested, . . ." or, ". . . for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not=20 occurred, . . ." or ". . . a pair may not make a call or play based on a special understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning." Such pusillanimous language causes inconsistent application of the rules, often viewed as favoritism, and creates controversy that besmirches our game.=20 Don't make rules more flexible=20 These phrases were intentionally chosen to allow the committee to "get it right"=20 (rule either way) and restore equity in an effort to make up for perceived director inadequacies. If the directors are inadequate --- and I question the validity of=20 this postulate --- the solution is not to make the rules more flexible.=20 Flexible, equity-oriented rules are harder to apply and create inconsistency. The=20 weak phrases cited above must be replaced with laws less open to "lawyering." The=20 laws themselves have been inadvertently constructed so that the losing side always=20 has an argument for appealing! The directors and committees have no chance to=20 avoid controversy and the appearance of favoritism.=20 Here is one change that would reduce the number of decisions that entail bridge judgment: require the defenders as well as the declaring side to correct any=20 mistaken explanation or mistaken bid before play begins (after the face-down=20 opening lead). Any unauthorized information given during this correction process which is proven to aid a defender can be corrected later by a score adjustment.=20 Fewer bridge judgments=20 Fewer determinations of bridge judgment will be necessary for two reasons: 1) the defenders will not often profit from the correction of information; and,=20 2) the declarer and the defenders will always have the correct information before play commences.=20 As an aside, the mysterious distinction between mistaken bid and mistaken=20 explanation should be entirely eliminated. To further reduce the number of bridge-judgment decisions required of directors and committees, standards of review for director appellate bodies must be adopted which yield significant=20 deference to the original decision-maker (the floor director).=20 If we can't eliminate bridge judgment as the basis for some rulings, we can=20 at least cut short the monotonous howling about tournament directors' lack of=20 bridge expertise by requiring directors to seek out expert bridge opinion on matters of pure bridge judgment. It is incongruent to complain of the lack of=20 bridge expertise of directors to decide matters of bridge judgment while composing committees of players untrained in the law for the express purpose of interpreting=20 the laws. Let's replace equity-oriented laws that are not working and give penalty-oriented laws a chance. The reward for the loss of quixotic equity=20 is consistent rulings and a better understanding of the rules by the players. Laws written intentionally to allow ruling for either side, players untrained in the=20 law reviewing interpretations of the law made by directors trained in the law,=20 and directors who seldom play at high levels asked to make judgments of bridge expertise =97 how resilient bridge is to withstand such an assault!=20 Davis proposes radical changes to our game that are unnecessary when the problems=20 maybe corrected through a new approach.=20 Make penalty-oriented rules=20 To improve the atmosphere of bridge without transforming it into a game of extraneous flags, signals and Morse code, we must trade the holy grail of dysfunctional, equity-based rules for the consistency and ease of penalty-oriented rules. We must replace difficult-to-interpret laws promulgated in pursuit of restoring a mystical concept of equity upon which no one agrees. The new laws must be penalty-oriented so as to be applied quickly and consistently by directors. Committees of any kind, whether consisting of directors, players, or a mixture of both, must be greatly reduced. We must reach a point where the score can be tallied and finalized at the conclusion of play. A few years from now a director will "make the call" at the table when it occurs. In an ideal world, appeals would be unheard of because committees would overturn rulings only with clear and convincing evidence or proof of abuse of discretion by the director.=20 Simple changes? No, and such modifications are possible only in an arena where=20 the laws are promulgated for decisive action. In this new setting, the players=20 play and the referees referee.=20 Chris Compton, 38, is an attorney with SCA Promotions in Dallas. He is a member=20 of the World Bridge Federation Appeals Committee and is an adjunct member of=20 the ACBL Conventions and Competitions Committee. He has placed fourth in the=20 World Open Pairs on two occasions and was on the winning squad in the Reisinger Board-a-Match Teams in 1989.=20 ------------------- --=20 BiigAl, Al Lochli biigal@satlug.org - biigal@txdirect.net -=20 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 Mon Mar 29 01:13:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 01:13:24 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 BAA26298 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 01:13:11 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10RHFH-0001Cc-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:13:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:59:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Vancouver NABC In-Reply-To: <199903280835.AAA00037@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199903280835.AAA00037@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >> >> |When there is one section, half the pairs switch direction, half >don't. >> >> if arrow switching is used >> This is just wrong. > >Yes, even when using a two-winner straight Mitchell movement. It's like >declaring the baseball team with the best record as World Champion, no >need to play the World Series. > A 2 winner movement is 'fair' whatever else it isn't >> In almost no ACBL tournaments >> (non-club games) are new fields created by switching the >> direction of some sections and not others. > >In every ACBL one-section two-session game I have seen: sectional, >regional, or NABC, half of each field is switched. However, you are >right that this is not done for two or more sections. It should be. > In a one section 2-session game one should theoretically play a double interwoven Howell. But this is unpopular (and rightly so). Next best is an arrow switched Mitchell ( arrow-switching 1 round with 3 board rounds, and 2 rounds with 2-board rounds) followed by 2 separate Howells (scored ATF obviously). With care this can be done but requires the making up by the TDs of a set of boards for the Howell. One does this during the first session so it's not too onerous. You arrange the movement so that the boards sitting out are played in the other section. With an even number of tables there's board sharing. With an odd number the sit-out pairs play each other (and didn't play on the Mitchell make- up round). This movement is used quite a bit in the UK but limits the number of stationery pairs. For 2 Mitchells I think the switch half the number of pairs would be fairer if one switched only 1/4 of the pairs but I'd need to do some research. 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 Mar 29 01:13:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 01:13:27 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 BAA26303 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 01:13:20 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10RHFS-000H6A-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:13:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:08:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: XIMP vs Butler for IMP-Pair Games In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Martin Kretschmar writes >> >> This is not my field of expertise, but I do know that the EBU view is >> that Hallen, Hansen and Jannersten have got it wrong! >> > >If I remember right this topic already once came up. I asked Mr. >Mannings(?!) about this and he said something that he diskliked some of >the movements. But most likely I remember everything wrong, so it would be >good idea to say clearly what and how much is wrong with Hallen, Hansen >and Jannersten. :) > The full (all play all movements) are excellent. There is IMVHO (sic) a major flaw in their theories regarding switched Mitchells; a view which I share with the late John Manning and a number of others (inc. David Martin who has helped me a great deal to understand the theory) who are interested in 'fair' movements. I just now have some time to start work on a series of articles for the interested layman on the theory of arrow-switching which will be published on DWS's or my web-site. The working title for these articles is "Why only one in eight?" and the first article will discuss the 8 table share-and-relay. 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 Mar 29 12:02:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:02:16 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA27848 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:02:07 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10RRN9-000MOc-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 02:01:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 00:53:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: D-BLML list - the clever friends - March 99 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Nina Harrison (now 80-ish) plays once a week at the YC. Pete the Teddy >sits on the table to make sure that everything's ok, and helps me >collect the table money. Some months ago I played a National k/o match [Silver Plate] with Ted Reveley, aka "The Bear", whose exploits can be read on my Bridgepage and on RGB. I had brought a small bear to give to Jean Keen, one of our team-mates, and to my surprise The Bear played all 32 boards with the little teddy on a corner of the table. After we lost by 1 imp, the little teddy was not seen again .... -- 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 Mar 29 12:02:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:02:17 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA27851 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:02:08 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10RRNJ-000MOc-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 02:02:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 02:57:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: Rec.games.bridge.cats.bridge-laws References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bbbrooooooooooowwwwwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Adam Beneschan Mango David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Pur Byantara Begung Mary Buckland Neko, Four foot two Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Ely, Nico Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow, Tipsy Wally Farley Andrew, Panda, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Marv French Mozart Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushsh Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Depo, Bridget Robert Harris Bobbsie Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod Rah-Rey, Leo Irv Kostal Bill, Albert, Cleo, Sabrina Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger and Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Gabriel Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Casey, Yazzer-Cat Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Norman Scorbie Starsky, Hutch Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Grant Sterling Big Mac David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Ritske, Beer plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, and MIA is a cat missing in action. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at his Catpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/cat_menu.htm Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 29 12:02:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:02:41 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 MAA27857 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:02:10 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10RRNE-000Drq-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 02:01:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 01:28:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Point ... and Counterpoint References: <36FE426C.3953226D@txdirect.net> In-Reply-To: <36FE426C.3953226D@txdirect.net> 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 Please excuse me if I apply a spot of editing: The ACBL Bulletin from Vancouver, on line at: http://209.45.144.70/nabc/vancouver/db990327.htm Has two engaging articles. I quote them - please just extract paragraphs when you re-quote, this is quite long and complete: ----------------------- ----------------------- Point . . . and Counterpoint Controversy over hesitations and disclosure issues leave a bad taste with many players. Should bridge throw out the baby with the bathwater -- or is there a better solution? Jim Davis offers a different perspective on ethics. And Chris Compton suggests that we change the laws, not the game. =20 ----------------------- ----------------------- Ethics -- a different perspective By Jim Davis Ethics --- who could be against them? The more ethical a thing is, the better. Or so it would seem. But I think the problem of ethics is at the root of most of what is wrong with organized bridge. Since games and sports are played for recreation, should morality be a part of the game? If so, why? If not, why not?=20 Are ethics or morality a part of most games? They are in the form of good sportsmanship, but not in the form they are applied to bridge. In tennis it is not considered good form to make a call in your favor if it's close and you're not sure whether it's in or out. It is, however, perfectly okay to fake a shot one way and hit another way. Another example is golf, which has a rigid set of rules. Once again, there is no need to let your opponents=20 know what kind of shot you intend to play.=20 I chose tennis and golf as examples because, like bridge, they are usually self-regulated (except in tournaments). By this I mean that the rules --- and the resulting "calls" or decisions as to ins and outs, etc. --- are applied by the players as opposed to referees.=20 In these two activities, the calls are usually made by the players, hence the need for good sportsmanship or ethics. In contrast, the "calls" or decisions in bridge --- this is not a reference to the auction --- are made by the opponents, and therein is the root of the trouble.=20 Two crucial tenets=20 There are two crucial tenets underpinning the ethics of bridge -- - that the only way information can be received is by the bids and plays made by the players (not the manner in which they are made), and that players are entitled to full disclosure of their opponents' bidding and carding methods.=20 These seem like reasonable principles, but they can lead in unwanted directions the way they are applied now. The problem with these two assumptions is that they are combined with self- regulation. It is true that there is a director, but the director does not monitor the action and make rulings. Instead, the opponents initiate the director calls, and the above two assumptions are sure to lead to a great many director calls.=20 The worst aspect of this is that the ethical system set up for bridge is likely to lead to behavior that is far from ethical and appropriate. Thus the system encourages director calls.=20 Another effect of bridge ethics is that it leads to a "holier than thou" attitude and situations where thinking is penalized. Bridge is the only activity I know of where an ethical standard leads to behavior that is not desired. Consider how much more pleasant it would be if there were no stigma attached to hesitations and failure to adequately disclose.=20 Two possible solutions=20 There are two ways to deal with the problem. The first is to keep the two tenets and have a director monitor the play and apply the rules without letting the players have a say. This is the way that most sports are played, and this should solve the problem. There would no longer be an advantage associated with calling the director. This would clearly be a fair and equitable solution, although not a cheap one. It would simply be the last step down a long and complicated road.=20 The other solution is to eliminate the two principles of behavior. Players would be permitted to hesitate if they wanted to without any consequences, and players could play whatever system they wanted without telling the opponents everything. Note how much this would simplify the game. Directors would be needed only for procedural penalties such as revokes and leads out of turn. Contentious director calls would be gone.=20 Convention cards and the Alert system would also vanish, and who would mourn their passing? Let us examine some of the consequences of these changes. Thinking would no longer be penalized. A player would be allowed to hesitate any time he considered it to be to his advantage. If my thinking allowed my partner to make a correct decision that he may not have made otherwise, so be it. The same would be true for my opponents. The important thing is to get rid of the stigma attached to this behavior. It would be part of the game.=20 Say I'm declarer and I lead the jack from A-J-10 towards K-x-x in dummy. If my left-hand opponent hesitates and I play him for the queen and he doesn't have it, that's my problem. LHO has successfully (and ethically) done his job.=20 Disclosure won't be a problem=20 Eventually, this will lead to opponents trying either to not hesitate or randomly hesitate ---otherwise they will be taken advantage of by astute declarers. Adequate disclosure will cease to be a problem when no disclosure is expected or allowed. This means that players will not be able to assume anything about their opponents' bidding and use it to their advantage. A simple example is a takeout double of an opening bid. How can it be used to show the unbid suits when opener may or may not have the suit he bid? This will adjust the meaning of double closer to the original --- namely as an intention to defend.=20 It has always seemed wrong to me to have my bidding used against me through disclosure. The opponents clearly are entitled to use my bidding against me, but they should have to infer what my bids mean. No longer will a director be called because a player plays a certain way based upon an opponent's bidding and then calls the director if that way fails.=20 Add a clock to the game=20 One thing I would add to the game, at least in tournaments, is a clock. Each pair would have a certain amount of time per session and they would be penalized for using extra time. This would be a check on hesitations. A player would have to gauge which situations should be thoroughly analyzed.=20 Players could use waiting time between rounds to discuss strategy, such as what system to play against the next opponents. Players could even decide to psych against a pair of opponents in advance. The constraint here would be that a player would not know his cards before the round began.=20 In my ideal world, the only thing that would be wrong would be outright cheating. By this I mean disclosing particular cards in your hand to partner through an illegal mechanism such as hand signals or some other method.=20 In conclusion, the elimination of the two ethical tenets should make bridge simpler and more enjoyable. Gone totally would be complaints about certain types of bridge behavior. Players could play however they choose and all would be okay. What a player would not be permitted to do is cheat --- all else would be legal. This would improve the behavior of bridge players, which is much more important than an abstract concept of ethics.=20 There is a good reason for bad behavior by bridge players --- that such behavior is (indirectly) encouraged. It is not the players who are at fault --- it is the system. People are as they are and cannot be changed. If they are act badly, don't necessarily blame them. Rather, question what standards are leading them to the unwanted behavior.=20 Jim Davis, 48, is a mathematician who writes computer programs that are used to analyze and maintain air traffic control radar. He lives in Somers Point NJ and plays bridge regularly. He is a Silver Life Master.=20 ----------------------- ----------------------- --------------------------- Change the laws By Chris Compton=20 Jim Davis correctly observes that two particular ethical tenets, the requirement of full disclosure to the opponents (Laws 40 and 75) and the prohibition against partnership use of unauthorized information (Law 16), significantly contribute to the most distasteful aspects of tournament bridge.=20 The symptoms he describes are present, but his suggested cure =97 elimination =97 creates problems enormously more difficult to solve =97 collusion between partners =97 than the current incentives to be an overly zealous opponent. Even more drastically, the Davis solution changes bridge into a game other than the one we know and love.=20 Reducing the necessity for full disclosure and relaxation of rules against use of unauthorized information has worthy marketing advantages at lower levels of competition. In particular, the need for full disclosure is minimized through flighting of games by allowable conventions and treatments rather than by masterpoint levels. This worked well at the 0-300 level and below because it takes a few years of table experience to even begin to notice hesitations. The ACBL should experiment with flighting by conventions in regionally rated events.=20 An intolerable change of game=20 Division by conventions, however, does not solve the problems noted by Davis for open events. In an unrestricted event, elimination of disclosure and allowance of unauthorized information would unalterably and intolerably change the game. The fine line between what is an "acceptable" hesitation and an "acceptable" failure to disclose and what is totally unacceptable collusion would be quickly crossed.=20 After 10 sessions together, players would know each other's "moves." Although Davis intends to keep the opponents off-balance, allowing intentional hesitations would destroy our present game by encouraging and fostering direct collusion between partners.=20 Bridge is so fascinating in part because success requires solving problems in real time from the clues legally present at the table. Bridge is an intellectual, analytical exercise full of mental and psychological challenges. In Davis' world, bridge would quickly deteriorate into a new game wherein the players who triumphed would be those with the best practiced tempo and the most clever "on-off" switch. Importantly, more =97 not fewer =97 unseemly and unwieldy appeals would result.=20 Having fewer appeals is desirable. Because of the appellate process and mechanisms in place under the present laws (92 and 93), the results of competition are often determined in committee rooms rather than at the table. Therefore, to have less conflict over hesitations and disclosure, we must reduce the number of appeals.=20 I agree that problems relating to unauthorized information and full disclosure greatly detract from our game, but I feel even more strongly that regulations relating to these matters are necessary to the essence of the challenge of bridge. Does this mean there is no solution? Hardly. Read on.=20 Change the laws, not the game.=20 The Laws of Duplicate Bridge need significant change that can be instituted only by the World Bridge Federation Laws Commission. Most importantly, the scope of the Laws must be redrafted to focus on consistency, not equity that requires the use of bridge judgment. The major effect of turning away from equity would be to revise laws that require the use of bridge judgment. Laws such as 16, 40 and 75, which are the topic of Davis' remarks, must be penalty oriented for at least four reasons:=20 1) bridge judgment is too controversial and emotionally charged to be left to equity;=20 2) on any given deal, there is likely to be wide disagreement as to what constitutes equity;=20 3) the rules must be simple enough to be easily understood and consistently applied by reasonably trained directors,=20 and 4) we can't determine equity with any finality until long past the end of the session.=20 The revised laws must remove soft, litigious phrases dealing with disclosure and unauthorized information in order to reduce the number of decisions made by directors and committees who are required to determine equity by using bridge judgment.=20 Examples of such phrases are ". . . may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested, . . ." or, ". . . for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not=20 occurred, . . ." or ". . . a pair may not make a call or play based on a special understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning." Such pusillanimous language causes inconsistent application of the rules, often viewed as favoritism, and creates controversy that besmirches our game.=20 Don't make rules more flexible=20 These phrases were intentionally chosen to allow the committee to "get it right" (rule either way) and restore equity in an effort to make up for perceived director inadequacies. If the directors are inadequate --- and I question the validity of this postulate --- the solution is not to make the rules more flexible.=20 Flexible, equity-oriented rules are harder to apply and create inconsistency. The weak phrases cited above must be replaced with laws less open to "lawyering." The laws themselves have been inadvertently constructed so that the losing side always has an argument for appealing! The directors and committees have no chance to avoid controversy and the appearance of favoritism.=20 Here is one change that would reduce the number of decisions that entail bridge judgment: require the defenders as well as the declaring side to correct any mistaken explanation or mistaken bid before play begins (after the face-down opening lead). Any unauthorized information given during this correction process which is proven to aid a defender can be corrected later by a score adjustment.=20 Fewer bridge judgments=20 Fewer determinations of bridge judgment will be necessary for two reasons: 1) the defenders will not often profit from the correction of information; and,=20 2) the declarer and the defenders will always have the correct information before play commences.=20 As an aside, the mysterious distinction between mistaken bid and mistaken explanation should be entirely eliminated. To further reduce the number of bridge-judgment decisions required of directors and committees, standards of review for director appellate bodies must be adopted which yield significant deference to the original decision-maker (the floor director).=20 If we can't eliminate bridge judgment as the basis for some rulings, we can at least cut short the monotonous howling about tournament directors' lack of bridge expertise by requiring directors to seek out expert bridge opinion on matters of pure bridge judgment. It is incongruent to complain of the lack of=20 bridge expertise of directors to decide matters of bridge judgment while composing committees of players untrained in the law for the express purpose of interpreting the laws. Let's replace equity- oriented laws that are not working and give penalty-oriented laws a chance. The reward for the loss of quixotic equity is consistent rulings and a better understanding of the rules by the players. Laws written intentionally to allow ruling for either side, players untrained in the law reviewing interpretations of the law made by directors trained in the law, and directors who seldom play at high levels asked to make judgments of bridge expertise =97 how resilient bridge is to withstand such an assault!=20 Davis proposes radical changes to our game that are unnecessary when the problems maybe corrected through a new approach.=20 Make penalty-oriented rules=20 To improve the atmosphere of bridge without transforming it into a game of extraneous flags, signals and Morse code, we must trade the holy grail of dysfunctional, equity-based rules for the consistency and ease of penalty-oriented rules. We must replace difficult-to-interpret laws promulgated in pursuit of restoring a mystical concept of equity upon which no one agrees. The new laws must be penalty-oriented so as to be applied quickly and consistently by directors. Committees of any kind, whether consisting of directors, players, or a mixture of both, must be greatly reduced. We must reach a point where the score can be tallied and finalized at the conclusion of play. A few years from now a director will "make the call" at the table when it occurs. In an ideal world, appeals would be unheard of because committees would overturn rulings only with clear and convincing evidence or proof of abuse of discretion by the director.=20 Simple changes? No, and such modifications are possible only in an arena where the laws are promulgated for decisive action. In this new setting, the players play and the referees referee.=20 Chris Compton, 38, is an attorney with SCA Promotions in Dallas. He is a member of the World Bridge Federation Appeals Committee and is an adjunct member of the ACBL Conventions and Competitions Committee. He has placed fourth in the World Open Pairs on two occasions and was on the winning squad in the Reisinger Board-a- Match Teams in 1989. ----------------------- ----------------------- --=20 BiigAl, Al Lochli biigal@satlug.org - biigal@txdirect.net -=20 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/ --=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 Mon Mar 29 12:02:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:02:14 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 MAA27844 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:02:04 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10RRN9-000Drr-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 02:01:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 00:48:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >#### not much to tell. Lightner Double of a 7 clubs contract, not alerted, >light on the ruff. Declarer cries foul. AC says players beyond the novice >class all know that doubles at slam level may be special (often request >unusual lead) and the player should have protected his own back.. 7NT >makes and Declarer says had he understood the double he would have >moved. Few people external to one nationality were much convinced >that a player at international championship level could claim this was not >standard, common bridge knowledge. Subsequently the EBL laws >committee noted with approval the AC's judgement that this meaning >to a double is one that "an opposing pair can reasonably be expected to >understand" (see Law 40B) . ~ Grattan ~ #### During my recent sojourn in Warsaw I discovered that in certain areas I was expected to change my approach to rulings. One area was in respect of doubles: I was given in the strong impression that in European events players are expected to protect themselves by asking rather than rely on alerts in any but the most obvious situations. I changed a couple of rulings as a result to rule otherwise from what I felt to be the normal English ruling. Of course, with screens it is easier to ask without consequent UI problems. -- 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 Mar 29 12:02:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:02:36 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 MAA27877 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:02:30 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10RRN8-0003Z1-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 02:01:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 00:41:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI insurance References: <01db01be7900$082d4ce0$48b259c3@default> In-Reply-To: <01db01be7900$082d4ce0$48b259c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk magda.thain wrote: >From: Adam Beneschan >>Now Jean has come up with a method where we CAN, in some cases, tell >>that such a statement would be honest and not self-serving. >>Certainly, if you tell someone what your plan is before you even know >>whether you're going to get UI (and if you have to pay a penalty for >>not following through with your plan), your statement that "you were >>going to make that bid regardless" has to be accepted as honest. >My mother says to me that once players know they can do this some of them will >no longer be honest Count me in with your mother's 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 Mon Mar 29 12:02:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:02:14 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 MAA27841 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:02:04 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10RRNE-0003Z0-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 02:01:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 00:58:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 2/7 serious question References: <01BE7778.D0357DE0@p2> In-Reply-To: <01BE7778.D0357DE0@p2> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vytautas Rekus wrote: >Hi all, > >Lurking at the "Delay of Card" thread, I remembered the story, which happened to >me long time ago (when I was young and beautiful... Now I'm just beautiful :-)) > >Teams, our table seems to be short in time. > >I'm defender (W) in 3 cards ending: > > x > Kx > - > - >X - >?x ?xx >- - >- - > - > AJx > - > - > >Declarer plays small H from hand, I play small H, and now declarer pauses. > >- Declarer must win all tricks to have the contract. >- Everybody on the table knows the distribution. >- ? means the HQ missing. >- X in W hand means S winner >- Declarer does not know, which defender holds HQ. >- Everybody on the table knows declarer will play HK after the pause. > >Problem is quite simple - if West holds HQ - he's already squeezed and HQ drops, >if not - finesse. > >Declarer pauses for 10 (ten) _MINUTES_ trying to guess and sometimes looking at >defenders' behaviour. > >1. Is it ethical? Doubtful! >2. Is it legal? Probably not. It is too long, L74A2, L74B4 or L74C7 apply. >3. If answer to 2. is "not", who should call TD? It does not matter what the answer to #2 is, the oppos have a right to call the TD anyway. Since they cannot consult, either one should do 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 Mon Mar 29 12:02:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:02:30 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 MAA27850 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:02:08 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10RRNI-000Drr-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 02:02:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 02:51:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match References: <36FA1390.2AE72B83@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <36FA1390.2AE72B83@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 believe there is a WBFLC decision somewhere that says this >applies to the two-trick penalty. Ton ? Grattan ? The actual reference is to L43B2C. According to the EBL Guide: 43.6 (ii) A ruling of the WBF Laws Committee states: "The reference in Law 43B2C to the penalty in Law 64 is interpreted to mean the two trick penalty in this law". In Lille, the following was noted: No change is to be made in the interpretation of Law that the reference in Law 43B2b to the penalty in Law 64 means the two trick penalty. [Reference: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uklaw_llle.htm] It has been suggested by various people in this thread that the current case similar. This is not unreasonable, since the Law uses similar wording: LAW 43 - DUMMY'S LIMITATIONS B. Penalties for Violation 2. Specific Penalties If dummy, after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceding: (b) Asks Declarer about Possible Irregularity is the first to ask declarer if a play from declarer's hand constitutes a revoke, declarer must substitute a correct card if his play was illegal, and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. LAW 63 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE B. Attention Is Illegally Drawn When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. OK, let us accept that the clause "the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established" has one meaning. What is it? Let us consider it. Several people have suggested that it means that two tricks are always to be transferred, quoting the reference from Albuquerque and Lille "the reference in Law 43B2b to the penalty in Law 64 means the two trick penalty". I disagree. If the Law meant "two tricks are to be transferred" then why not say so? Aha, you say, the Law was not written perfectly, so it needed a WBFLC interpretation: fine, why did that interpretation not say "two tricks are to be transferred"? Easy: that is not what is meant. The actual wording of both Laws is important to *me*: I believe [sorry Grattan!] that the actual wording is important, and where the wording is clear I do not care what anyone says: that is *the Law*. So, let us get back to the wording. "... the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established". Whatever else this means, It does not mean two tricks are always transferred: why not? Because if it meant that two tricks are always transferred it would say so, and it does not! What does it mean? It means you look at L64. L64 contains rules for when two tricks are transferred, when one trick is transferred and when no trick is transferred. The only logical conclusion is that you follow such rules. I cannot believe that the Albuquerque minute [confirmed in Lille] means that you do not follow L64: I think that it merely affirmws that it may be two tricks. In my view, L43B2B and L63B only mean two tricks are to be transferred when L64 says so, not otherwise. [PWD] -- 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 Mar 29 13:55:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA28225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 13:55:10 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA28220 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 13:54:54 +1000 Received: from vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.21]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA17016 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 22:54:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 22:54:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903290354.WAA06155@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 29 Mar 1999 00:48:28 +0100) Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > During my recent sojourn in Warsaw I discovered that in certain areas > I was expected to change my approach to rulings. One area was in > respect of doubles: I was given in the strong impression that in > European events players are expected to protect themselves by asking > rather than rely on alerts in any but the most obvious situations. I > changed a couple of rulings as a result to rule otherwise from what I > felt to be the normal English ruling. Of course, with screens it is > easier to ask without consequent UI problems. How much are players supposed to protect themselves by asking at the clear risk of UI? You mention that this varies by jurisdiction. For example: W N E S P P 1H P 2C ? 2C has not been alerted, and West's convention card is in its usual state (folded, with the wrong side up, so North will have to pick it up, and also at a place that North cannot read it.) If North asks or picks up the CC to find that 2C is natural, and then passes, South has probably significant UI. But North must ask if he wants to double a Drury 2C. It is the fact that some E-W don't follow the rules which puts N-S at a disadvantage. With screens, there is no such 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 Mon Mar 29 23:23:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:23:07 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA29294 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:23:01 +1000 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 IAA28493 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 08:21:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990329082349.0070a4d8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 08:23:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match In-Reply-To: References: <36FA1390.2AE72B83@village.uunet.be> <36FA1390.2AE72B83@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:51 AM 3/29/99 +0100, David wrote: > So, let us get back to the wording. "... the penalty provisions of >Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established". Whatever else this >means, It does not mean two tricks are always transferred: why not? >Because if it meant that two tricks are always transferred it would say >so, and it does not! > > What does it mean? It means you look at L64. L64 contains rules for >when two tricks are transferred, when one trick is transferred and when >no trick is transferred. The only logical conclusion is that you follow >such rules. I cannot believe that the Albuquerque minute [confirmed in >Lille] means that you do not follow L64: I think that it merely affirmws >that it may be two tricks. > > In my view, L43B2B and L63B only mean two tricks are to be transferred >when L64 says so, not otherwise. The problem is that "as if the revoke had been established" seems to say that if the revoking card would have won the trick, L64A1 would apply, leading to a two-trick penalty when the revoking side takes a subsequent trick, even if the revoking side did not win the revoke trick after the revoke was corrected per L63B. But that seems to be an unsatisfactory interpretation, as it can lead to the NOS taking more than all the rest of the tricks. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 29 23:41:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:41:48 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 XAA29362 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:41:41 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10RcI9-0006D1-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 13:41:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:38:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question References: <199903290354.WAA06155@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199903290354.WAA06155@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > >> During my recent sojourn in Warsaw I discovered that in certain areas >> I was expected to change my approach to rulings. One area was in >> respect of doubles: I was given in the strong impression that in >> European events players are expected to protect themselves by asking >> rather than rely on alerts in any but the most obvious situations. I >> changed a couple of rulings as a result to rule otherwise from what I >> felt to be the normal English ruling. Of course, with screens it is >> easier to ask without consequent UI problems. > >How much are players supposed to protect themselves by asking at the >clear risk of UI? You mention that this varies by jurisdiction. > >For example: > >W N E S >P P 1H P >2C ? > >2C has not been alerted, and West's convention card is in its usual >state (folded, with the wrong side up, so North will have to pick it >up, and also at a place that North cannot read it.) If North asks or >picks up the CC to find that 2C is natural, and then passes, South has >probably significant UI. But North must ask if he wants to double a >Drury 2C. It is the fact that some E-W don't follow the rules which >puts N-S at a disadvantage. In England/Wales players are required to *exchange* convention cards at the start of the round. So long as North-south attempted to do so then I shall rule in their favour. But it is not good enough for NS to say the CC was folded and dirty if their own CC has not been presented to opponents. >With screens, there is no such problem. No? There are two methods of finding opponents' methods: [a] questions and [b] CCs. A player has a right to use whichever he chooses. If, behind a screen, no CC is available, he still may be misinformed. Take the European Pairs, for example. The bidding goes as above, and you ask. Your RHO says a few things in Polish. What now? You look at the CC. If it is unavailable then there are further problems that are not your fault. In the European Seniors Pairs I explained very carefully to one pair that keeping both CCs in a handbag was no longer to be considered an option. Yes, it was a Polish pair, but two of the Polish TDs worked tirelessly throughout acting as interpreters whenever asked, and I explained this via one of 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 Mon Mar 29 23:41:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:41:50 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 XAA29367 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:41:44 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10RcIJ-0006D4-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 13:41:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:54:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Happening in Manchester UK MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A correspondent wrote to me: I'd be interested in your view on the following Law ruling the other day - My partner opened 1N (weak), RHO and I passed, LHO bid 2D. Now pard and RHO passed. I had an 8 count and 4 hearts. While I was thinking, RHO now alerted the 2D bid and after questioning said it showed spades and another. This persuaded me to compete with 2H, and now RHO who had 4 spades and 2 diamonds, was able to bid to a much superior spade contract. Of course, when he passed 2D, RHO had forgotten it was conventional. While I was thinking, he suddenly and genuinely remembered. My question is - should he alert it now especially knowing that it may well work to his own advantage ? Pard & I felt there was 'something' dodgy here, but the TD ruled that RHO had a duty to alert the bid once he realised it was conventional, and the fact that it so clearly worked to his advantage was incidental. Any views? -- 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 Mar 29 23:53:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:53:10 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 XAA29410 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:53:04 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10RcTH-0007au-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 13:52:56 +0000 Message-ID: <1O0AErAeV4$2Ew$S@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:51:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match References: <36FA1390.2AE72B83@village.uunet.be> <36FA1390.2AE72B83@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19990329082349.0070a4d8@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990329082349.0070a4d8@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >> In my view, L43B2B and L63B only mean two tricks are to be transferred >>when L64 says so, not otherwise. >The problem is that "as if the revoke had been established" seems to say >that if the revoking card would have won the trick, L64A1 would apply, >leading to a two-trick penalty when the revoking side takes a subsequent >trick, even if the revoking side did not win the revoke trick after the >revoke was corrected per L63B. But that seems to be an unsatisfactory >interpretation, as it can lead to the NOS taking more than all the rest of >the tricks. My reading is that "as if the revoke had been established" does not mean that you consider some other case that did not happen, but that you score it using L64 as though the revoke had been established but with the actual conditions that occurred. While that is not terribly satisfactory either [you seem to be considering the wrong suit!] at least you will never be transferring an impossible number of tricks. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 00:57:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:57:56 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA01926 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:57:49 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA09039 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 15:57:47 +0100 (BST) Received: from cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.7]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA29230 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 15:57:40 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA09792 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 15:57:36 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 15:57:36 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199903291457.PAA09792@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Happening in Manchester UK Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > A correspondent wrote to me: > > I'd be interested in your view on the following Law ruling the other > day - My partner opened 1N (weak), RHO and I passed, LHO bid 2D. Now > pard and RHO passed. I had an 8 count and 4 hearts. While I was > thinking, RHO now alerted the 2D bid and after questioning said it > showed spades and another. This persuaded me to compete with 2H, and now > RHO who had 4 spades and 2 diamonds, was able to bid to a much superior > spade contract. Of course, when he passed 2D, RHO had forgotten it was > conventional. While I was thinking, he suddenly and genuinely > remembered. My question is - should he alert it now especially knowing > that it may well work to his own advantage ? Pard & I felt there was > 'something' dodgy here, but the TD ruled that RHO had a duty to alert > the bid once he realised it was conventional, and the fact that it so > clearly worked to his advantage was incidental. > > Any views? Perhaps I'm being unsympathetic, but the player (your correspondent) had a chance to pass the hand out in 2D, where was the advantage to RHO in that case. If RHO says nothing and the player passes. What will happen now? LHO will pipe up: "partner should have alerted two diamonds" (with the obligatory scowl/gnashing of teeth/etc. at being passed out in a possible 2-2 fit). The esteemed TD will offer the player a chance to ask about 2D and change his final pass. If now he competes with 2H, RHO may have a logical alternative of 3D and now opponents may get in a real mess. Surely, if RHO remembers in time, he must take his chance to show he has woken up before LHO drops him in a UI hole. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 01:22:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 01:22:16 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 BAA02028 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 01:22:07 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10RdrQ-0003Q2-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 15:21:56 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 16:14:41 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 16:14:41 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > > >> In my view, L43B2B and L63B only mean two tricks are to be > transferred > >>when L64 says so, not otherwise. > > >The problem is that "as if the revoke had been established" seems to > say > >that if the revoking card would have won the trick, L64A1 would > apply, > >leading to a two-trick penalty when the revoking side takes a > subsequent > >trick, even if the revoking side did not win the revoke trick after > the > >revoke was corrected per L63B. But that seems to be an > unsatisfactory > >interpretation, as it can lead to the NOS taking more than all the > rest of > >the tricks. > > My reading is that "as if the revoke had been established" does not > mean that you consider some other case that did not happen, but that > you > score it using L64 as though the revoke had been established but with > the actual conditions that occurred. While that is not terribly > satisfactory either [you seem to be considering the wrong suit!] at > least you will never be transferring an impossible number of tricks. > > > ########## Agreed, and in your original case Law 64C can also be > used to restore equity when the normal revoke penalty transfers > insufficient tricks. ########### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 01:30:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 01:30:13 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA02090 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 01:30:07 +1000 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 PAA21179 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 15:29:26 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 PAA09000 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 15:27:52 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990329172955.007c39b0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 17:29:55 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Happening in Manchester UK In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:54 29/03/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > A correspondent wrote to me: > > I'd be interested in your view on the following Law ruling the other >day - My partner opened 1N (weak), RHO and I passed, LHO bid 2D. Now >pard and RHO passed. I had an 8 count and 4 hearts. While I was >thinking, RHO now alerted the 2D bid and after questioning said it >showed spades and another. This persuaded me to compete with 2H, and now >RHO who had 4 spades and 2 diamonds, was able to bid to a much superior >spade contract. Of course, when he passed 2D, RHO had forgotten it was >conventional. While I was thinking, he suddenly and genuinely >remembered. My question is - should he alert it now especially knowing >that it may well work to his own advantage ? Pard & I felt there was >'something' dodgy here, but the TD ruled that RHO had a duty to alert >the bid once he realised it was conventional, and the fact that it so >clearly worked to his advantage was incidental. > > Any views? > I agree with TD's ruling and lecture: alerting, when it is required, is a duty and has nothing to do with alerter's feelings about what could be good for mankind. When required, alert as soon as possible ... and late is better than never. Moreover, in this example, I fail to understand how RHO could have thought the delayed alert could have worked to his advantage (except to avoid to be sued for not alerting!). On the contrary, it could have induced the player to leave LHO in his mistaken contract. JP Rocafort >-- >David Stevenson ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 02:49:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 02:49:56 +1000 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 CAA02457 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 02:49:50 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n55.san.rr.com [204.210.46.85]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA11782; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 08:49:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903291649.IAA11782@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: NAOP Finals in Vancouver Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 08:48:04 -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 The North American Open Pair finals were held at the beginning of the NABC in Vancouver last week. The 72 pairs, three from each district of the ACBL, met for two qualifying sessions followed by two final sessions. The qualifying sessions had two 18-table straight Mitchell movements, with everyone (except one mandatory N/S, if I remember right) switching directions in the second session. Seeding was minimal, since all the pairs had survived district qualifying games. There was some care taken to ensure that pairs from the same district met early in both the qualifying and final sessions. The qualifying sessions were matchpointed ATF, 13 rounds, 25 top. With 36 boards in play, two pairs who happened to sit the right distance apart would find only six boards that they both played when discussing hands over dinner. Each pair played only 72.2% of the boards, not really enough for an important event like this, even for qualifying purposes. The top 14 pairs from each field qualified for the second day's final sessions, with a 14-table one-winner movement, some sort of combined Howell I suppose, with 28 boards, 14 rounds, 13 top, in each session. I guess two pairs must have met twice. The non-qualifiers who wished to partcipate further played a 12-table straight Mitchell consolation event on the second day, with overall ranking of course. Not good. As was done for the finalists, preduplicated boards were supplied. That is no problem with the handy deal-duplicating machine that is used for important events. In the OPEN PAIR I finals, 7 13-table sections had preduplicated boards for both sessions. The qualifying sessions could have made use of the little-known Web Movement devised by the late John "Spider" Harris. It was at one time used for the finals of important events that had 16, 18, 20, or 22 tables. This two-winner movement is quite appropriate for a qualifying event in which an equal number of pairs are qualified from each field. The beauty of the Web movement is that pairs play all boards and there are many more comparisons. This is accomplished by creating two sub-sections, each with its own set of 26 boards. Pairs and tables have the same numbers as in a straight Mitchell. Players move up, boards down, as usual, with bye stands for the boards out of play. When players leave the top table of one sub-section, they go to the lowest table in the other. One sub-section's boards are in the normal ascending order, the other in descending order, and there is no skip round, relay, or other gimmick needed. It all works okay if you set out the boards correctly. As usual, top is one less than the number of tables. In this case there would have been two 18-table sections, each with two 9-table subsections, resulting in 36 comparisons on each board instead of 26. A much better game, and dinner companions would have every board in common to discuss. I had this idea for the final: What if you qualified 26 pairs instead of 28, put them N/S in two 13-table sections, and put the next 26 pairs E/W. The N/S pairs would be in the finals, but the E/W pairs would constitute a separate consolation event. The two fields could switch directions for the second session, with one field's pairs also changing section so that no pairs meet twice. Instead of 14 results on each board you would have 26. The more comparisons, the better the game, and all pairs in each "event" would play the same hands. In the NAOP the strength of the consolation pairs would not be much less than that of the finalists, with so many eliminations at the district level in addition to the eliminations in the first day's play at the NABC. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) P. S. Hard disc FAT damaged beyond repair, system crashing constantly, and there is a regional here in San Diego this week, so I'll be silent for a couple of weeks until I can reformat and rebuild. P. P. S. Everyone PLEASE read Appeals Case 5 in the Friday March 26 Bulletin of the Vancouver NABC, which is posted on the ACBL website (www.acbl.org). If only I had the time... From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 02:52:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 02:52:48 +1000 Received: from hd1.usuhs.mil ([131.158.7.197]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA02478 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 02:52:40 +1000 Received: from mxb.usuhs.mil by hd1.usuhs.mil (Unoverica 3.00f) id 0000C822; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 11:47:35 -0500 Message-Id: <199903291647.0000C822@hd1.usuhs.mil> Received: from hdavis ([131.158.186.130]) by mxb.usuhs.mil; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 11:47:05 -0500 From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: Happening in Manchester UK Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 11:47:41 -0500 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-reply-to: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of David > Stevenson > Sent: Monday, March 29, 1999 6:55 AM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Happening in Manchester UK > > > > A correspondent wrote to me: > > I'd be interested in your view on the following Law ruling the other > day - My partner opened 1N (weak), RHO and I passed, LHO bid 2D. Now > pard and RHO passed. I had an 8 count and 4 hearts. While I was > thinking, RHO now alerted the 2D bid and after questioning said it > showed spades and another. This persuaded me to compete with 2H, and now > RHO who had 4 spades and 2 diamonds, was able to bid to a much superior > spade contract. Of course, when he passed 2D, RHO had forgotten it was > conventional. While I was thinking, he suddenly and genuinely > remembered. My question is - should he alert it now especially knowing > that it may well work to his own advantage ? Pard & I felt there was > 'something' dodgy here, but the TD ruled that RHO had a duty to alert > the bid once he realised it was conventional, and the fact that it so > clearly worked to his advantage was incidental. > > Any views? > The TD needed to determine if your correspondent's partner had an alternate call if the alert had been given at the proper time(not likely after opening a weak NT). After that, the TD acted properly. The fact that the belated alert worked to RHO's advantage or even could have worked to his advantage is irrelevant. He gave misinformation and was required to correct it as soon as he realized it. He did so. In so doing, he was giving your correspondent the opportunity to pass him out in a conventional call. Your correspondent competed anyway with what may have been a 4-2 heart fit, and got a well deserved poor result. The delayed alert did not work to RHO's advantage, nor would there have been recourse if it did (unless correspondent's partner was deprived of a bid). It would have been very poor form for the TD to adjust the score due to your correspondent's bad bidding. > -- > 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 ~ > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 04:41:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:41:34 +1000 Received: from mta2.mail.telepac.pt (mail2.telepac.pt [194.65.3.54]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA02781 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:41:26 +1000 Received: from default ([194.65.226.148]) by mta2.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail v03.02.07 118-124-101) with SMTP id <19990329193950.DQKH14436@default> for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 19:39:50 +0000 Message-ID: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: What to say?... (UI) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 19:41:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE7A1C.1B554A80" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE7A1C.1B554A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Let=B4s say that this sequence is not on the CC... (of course it is, but i would just like to see some comments on the = approach): 2 NT 20-21 3 Clubs (Puppet) 3 D (1 or 2 majors) 3H (spades) Opener explains (wrongly) 3 Clubs as "*Normal* Stayman". How should partner explain 3D?=20 What if opener now bids 4 Hearts? ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE7A1C.1B554A80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Let´s say that = this sequence=20 is not on the CC...
(of course it is, but = i would just=20 like to see some comments on the approach):
 
2 NT=20 20-21           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;         =20 3 Clubs (Puppet)
3 D (1 or 2=20 majors)           =             &= nbsp;=20 3H (spades)
 
Opener explains = (wrongly) 3 Clubs=20 as "*Normal* Stayman".
How should partner = explain 3D?=20
What if opener now = bids 4=20 Hearts?
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE7A1C.1B554A80-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 06:56:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 06:56:16 +1000 Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA03080 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 06:56:10 +1000 Received: from ip204.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.204]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990329205604.JTEZ5436.fep1@ip204.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:56:04 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:56:03 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3702e4c9.959760@post12.tele.dk> References: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> In-Reply-To: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 19:41:14 +0100, "Rui Marques" wrote: >Let=B4s say that this sequence is not on the CC... >(of course it is, but i would just like to see some comments on the = approach): > >2 NT 20-21 3 Clubs (Puppet) >3 D (1 or 2 majors) 3H (spades) > >Opener explains (wrongly) 3 Clubs as "*Normal* Stayman". >How should partner explain 3D?=20 According to the system: "1 or 2 majors", if that is what it shows. Since at this point it will unavoidably be very clear to opener that he explained incorrectly, no harm can be done by also saying "However, if we were playing normal Stayman, as he seems to believe we are, it would have denied majors" - but you are not required to do so. The remaining problem is for you and partner to handle the UI. >What if opener now bids 4 Hearts? According to the system this is probably some kind of slam try with spades as trumps, so responder must explain it as such and bid according to that. They will probably end up in 6 or 7 hearts or spades before you can pass. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 06:56:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 06:56:46 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA03088 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 06:56:40 +1000 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA08289 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:47:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:47:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903291947.OAA05219@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> (np93je@mail.telepac.pt) Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Rui Marques writes: > Let's say that this sequence is not on the CC... > (of course it is, but i would just like to see some comments on the = > approach): It's a real problem in any case; in the ACBL, for example, Puppet is alertable but normal Stayman is not, so when 3C is alerted or not, responder has the same UI. > 2 NT 20-21 3 Clubs (Puppet) > 3 D (1 or 2 majors) 3H (spades) > Opener explains (wrongly) 3 Clubs as "*Normal* Stayman". > How should partner explain 3D? According to the agreement; he should alert 3D and explain it correctly, possibly with a disclaimer. > What if opener now bids 4 Hearts? This depends on their agreements. If 4H is a possible bid (responder bids 3H with both majors), then responder should explain it as such. If it is impossible (esponder bids 4C or 4D with both majors), responder may be able to work out without the UI that his bid has been misunderstood, and explain as such, "That bid does not exist in our system," -- 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 Mar 30 07:17:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 07:17:50 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 HAA03132 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 07:17:40 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10RjPY-00026n-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 21:17:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 21:05:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Happening in Manchester UK In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > A correspondent wrote to me: > > I'd be interested in your view on the following Law ruling the other >day - My partner opened 1N (weak), RHO and I passed, LHO bid 2D. Now >pard and RHO passed. I had an 8 count and 4 hearts. While I was >thinking, RHO now alerted the 2D bid and after questioning said it >showed spades and another. This persuaded me to compete with 2H, and now >RHO who had 4 spades and 2 diamonds, was able to bid to a much superior >spade contract. Of course, when he passed 2D, RHO had forgotten it was >conventional. While I was thinking, he suddenly and genuinely >remembered. My question is - should he alert it now especially knowing >that it may well work to his own advantage ? Pard & I felt there was >'something' dodgy here, but the TD ruled that RHO had a duty to alert >the bid once he realised it was conventional, and the fact that it so >clearly worked to his advantage was incidental. > > Any views? > I'm with the TD. Rub of the green. Could he have known at the time of his failure to alert? IMO No. As for balancing with the spades available, well that seems to be a subsequent, not consequent error so I'm certainly leaving you with your score :)) coff. 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 Mar 30 07:17:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 07:17:48 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 HAA03133 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 07:17:40 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10RjPY-0007JJ-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 21:17:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 21:12:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) In-Reply-To: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default>, Rui Marques=20 writes >Let=B4s say that this sequence is not on the CC... >(of course it is, but i would just like to see some comments on the approa= ch): > >2 NT 20-21 3 Clubs (Puppet) >3 D (1 or 2 majors) 3H (spades) > >Opener explains (wrongly) 3 Clubs as "*Normal* Stayman". >How should partner explain 3D?=20 IMO correctly. (HdeW will have something to say no doubt, but he's=20 coming for Easter so we can battle it out with Belgian Buns and English=20 Muffins at dawn) >What if opener now bids 4 Hearts? slam try, spades agreed. Cheers John --=20 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 Mar 30 08:27:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 08:27:19 +1000 Received: from www.networksgy.com (www.networksgy.com [208.130.114.177]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA03418 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 08:27:06 +1000 Received: from john ([208.153.97.83]) by www.networksgy.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA06557; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:22:02 +0300 (GMT) Message-ID: <000c01be7a2a$7837f1e0$536199d0@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" To: "Rui Marques" , References: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:23:51 -0300 Organization: Central American & Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01BE7A11.4C0B6340" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01BE7A11.4C0B6340 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If the sequence is not on the CC, how can you determine that the opener = has explained wrongly ? Our first duty is to determine what the agreement is so that we can = decide if it is a mis-explanation or a mistaken bid. (ie who is at fault here - the opener or the = responder) If opener has simply forgotten what they are playing, we have a rat's = nest of problems. First, the responder must explain 3D as the correct meaning according to their = intention with 3C. If opener now bids four hearts, the responder must continue as if the opener has = understood that the responder has spades. If this is without screens, the responder is going to be = under the microscope to make sure that there is no way under the sun that the opener now wants to = play 4H. My approach is that they have definitely had a bidding accident and in no way will I permit = the alerts and explanations to allow them to escape from falling off the cliff. I could see the responder having a hand where passing 4H is an option, = and then also very easily see the opener not passing 4S. Definitely cause for concern. John ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Rui Marques=20 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au=20 Sent: Monday, March 29, 1999 3:41 PM Subject: What to say?... (UI) Let=B4s say that this sequence is not on the CC... (of course it is, but i would just like to see some comments on the = approach): =20 2 NT 20-21 3 Clubs (Puppet) 3 D (1 or 2 majors) 3H (spades) Opener explains (wrongly) 3 Clubs as "*Normal* Stayman". How should partner explain 3D?=20 What if opener now bids 4 Hearts? =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01BE7A11.4C0B6340 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If the sequence is not on the CC, how can you = determine that=20 the opener has explained wrongly ?
Our first duty is to determine what the agreement is = so that=20 we can decide if it is a mis-explanation
or a mistaken bid. (ie who is at fault here - the = opener or=20 the responder)
If opener has simply forgotten what they are = playing, we have=20 a rat's nest of problems.  First, the
responder must explain 3D as the correct meaning = according to=20 their intention with 3C.  If opener
now bids four hearts, the responder must continue as = if the=20 opener has understood that the responder
has spades.  If this is without screens,  = the=20 responder is going to be under the microscope to make
sure that there is no way under the sun that the = opener now=20 wants to play 4H.  My approach is that
they have definitely had a bidding accident and in = no way will=20 I permit the alerts and explanations to
allow them to escape from falling off the = cliff.
I could see the responder having a hand where = passing 4H is an=20 option, and then also very easily see
the opener not passing 4S.  Definitely cause = for=20 concern.
John
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Rui=20 Marques
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au=
Sent: Monday, March 29, 1999 = 3:41=20 PM
Subject: What to say?... = (UI)

Let=B4s say that = this sequence is=20 not on the CC...
(of course it is, = but i would=20 just like to see some comments on the approach):
 
2 NT=20 = 20-21           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;         =20 3 Clubs (Puppet)
3 D (1 or 2=20 = majors)           =             &= nbsp;=20 3H (spades)
 
Opener explains = (wrongly) 3 Clubs=20 as "*Normal* Stayman".
How should partner = explain 3D?=20
What if opener now = bids 4=20 Hearts?
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01BE7A11.4C0B6340-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 08:32:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 08:32:29 +1000 Received: from www.networksgy.com (www.networksgy.com [208.130.114.177]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA03438 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 08:32:20 +1000 Received: from john ([208.153.97.83]) by www.networksgy.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA06614; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:27:48 +0300 (GMT) Message-ID: <001701be7a2b$41d1bf40$536199d0@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: Happening in Manchester UK Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:29:38 -0300 Organization: Central American & Caribbean Bridge Federation 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 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree that the player definitely had an obligation to alert even if late. The fact that it worked out to his advantage, IMO, is the rub of the green. The 8 count with 4 hearts was in possession of all the information they needed to make the right decision, including the inference that the partner of the 2D bidder forgot what they were playing. I wonder if a case could be made for whether they should say they forgot what they were playing and then remembered or whether they just forgot to alert. hmmm... interesting. ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Monday, March 29, 1999 8:54 AM Subject: Happening in Manchester UK | | A correspondent wrote to me: | | I'd be interested in your view on the following Law ruling the other | day - My partner opened 1N (weak), RHO and I passed, LHO bid 2D. Now | pard and RHO passed. I had an 8 count and 4 hearts. While I was | thinking, RHO now alerted the 2D bid and after questioning said it | showed spades and another. This persuaded me to compete with 2H, and now | RHO who had 4 spades and 2 diamonds, was able to bid to a much superior | spade contract. Of course, when he passed 2D, RHO had forgotten it was | conventional. While I was thinking, he suddenly and genuinely | remembered. My question is - should he alert it now especially knowing | that it may well work to his own advantage ? Pard & I felt there was | 'something' dodgy here, but the TD ruled that RHO had a duty to alert | the bid once he realised it was conventional, and the fact that it so | clearly worked to his advantage was incidental. | | Any views? | | -- | 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 Mar 30 09:05:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:05:30 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 JAA03550 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:05:22 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Rl5i-000BSb-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:05:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:51:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) References: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> In-Reply-To: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> 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 Rui Marques wrote: > Let=B4s say that this sequence is not on the CC... > (of course it is, but i would just like to see some comments on the=20 > approach): > =A0 > 2 NT 20-21=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 3 Clubs (Puppet) > 3 D (1 or 2 majors)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 3H (spades) > =A0 > Opener explains (wrongly) 3 Clubs as "*Normal* Stayman". > How should partner explain 3D?=20 1 or 2 majors. Opener's replies should not affect responder's replies: he tells the oppos the system. > What if opener now bids 4 Hearts? By now both partners have UI that a wheel has come off. They have to avoid making any call that takes advantage of UI. A highly ethical pair, one of them a BLML poster, once had the following sequence: 2NT [20-22, balanced] 3D [this is my better minor] 3H [completing the transfer] 4C [encouraging opp game try in D] 4D [cue-bid agreeing clubs] NB [if you cannot bid game nor can I] I was the TD who had to explain to the oppos that the auction was completely ethical, and it was just lucky that it had reached a 26 HCP making 4D with no game making! --=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 Tue Mar 30 09:31:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:31:26 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA03614 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:31:21 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa20120; 29 Mar 99 15:30 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, tournaments@acbl.org CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: NAOP Finals in Vancouver In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 Mar 1999 08:48:04 PST." <199903291649.IAA11782@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 15:30:40 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9903291530.aa20120@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The top 14 pairs from each field qualified for the second day's final > sessions, with a 14-table one-winner movement, some sort of combined > Howell I suppose, with 28 boards, 14 rounds, 13 top, in each session. I > guess two pairs must have met twice. Nope . . . the afternoon session was a 13-round Howell, 26 boards; the evening session was 14 rounds, 28 boards. So everyone in the final played every other pair exactly once. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 10:06:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:06:39 +1000 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA03708 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:06:32 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.1/8.9.0) with UUCP id SAA29337 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:06:15 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0OY3I02H Mon, 29 Mar 99 17:45:29 Message-ID: <9903291745.0OY3I02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 99 17:45:29 Subject: HAPPENING IN MANCHESTER To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems that the point of the post concerns the deceptive consequences of the delayed alert. Namely, that it may influence the other side to keep the auction open where they could then arrive at their spade contract [L72F2]. Actually, it seems to me that the late alert will work to his disadvantage since the original pass probably did not suggest long diamonds and it may be that passing out 2D will be a better score than keeping the auction open so they can get to a better place. All in all, it seems that overcaller's partner would have a basis to believe that keeping the auction open would tend work to his side's benefit and since the alert suggests not balancing, he could not know that the slow alert might work to his advantage. Not withstanding that, it seems surely that not being aware that overcaller was willing to play 2S opposite a doubleton may cause severe damage to the opponents who balance unwittingly and thus open the door to that spot. The other side was entitled to the alert at the proper time and not giving it at the proper time does not mean that they are no longer entitled to it, especially when it is evident that the other side is considering a balancing action. Roger Pewick B>A correspondent wrote to me: B>I'd be interested in your view on the following Law ruling the other B>day - My partner opened 1N (weak), RHO and I passed, LHO bid 2D. Now B>pard and RHO passed. I had an 8 count and 4 hearts. While I was B>thinking, RHO now alerted the 2D bid and after questioning said it B>showed spades and another. This persuaded me to compete with 2H, and now B>RHO who had 4 spades and 2 diamonds, was able to bid to a much superior B>spade contract. Of course, when he passed 2D, RHO had forgotten it was B>conventional. While I was thinking, he suddenly and genuinely B>remembered. My question is - should he alert it now especially knowing B>that it may well work to his own advantage ? Pard & I felt there was B>'something' dodgy here, but the TD ruled that RHO had a duty to alert B>the bid once he realised it was conventional, and the fact that it so B>clearly worked to his advantage was incidental. B>Any views? B>-- B>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ B>Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ B> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= B> Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 10:35:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:35:33 +1000 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 KAA03792 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:35:27 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n55.san.rr.com [204.210.46.85]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA05445 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 16:35:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903300035.QAA05445@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Vancouver Appeals Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 16:33:35 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote in article > I read some appeals in the Daily Bulletins. Some were from regional > events which I thought were being handled by the directing staff this > time around. They were. Those committee members you see are TDs: Ron Johnston, Olin Hubert, Charlie MacCracken, Roger Putnam and Matt Smith. If one of them was the TD at the table, he doesn't serve on the AC for that appeal. Hmmm, no women. > Does anyone know how the trial of having directors > handle some appeals went? What events were the directors responsible > for? Non-NABC+ events, I believe, with the big events having access to the standard AC. Note that the players involved do not get invited to the appeal hearing when the TDs are handling an appeal. This seems like lack of due process to me. As usual, this follows the policy of demeaning the lesser players, who don't deserve good appeals processes, or good movements. The morning Continuous Pairs didn't even get hand records. Shuffle and deal. Many pairs were quite upset with this. The reason given to me (not to the players who came to me about it) was that there wasn't enough time to duplicate boards and finish on time. So, why not use the preduplicating machine or play just 12 rounds? Players want hand records! Only big events or strat A games were matchpointed ATF, and only the NAOP finals had a one-winner movement. District 22 Director Jim Kirkham has told me that stratified games will have ATF in the San Diego regional (he's the co-Tournament Manager) this week. Section awards for those not in the overalls will ensure that the players get the same number of total masterpoints that they get in non-ATF games. > > I also noticed that most of the appeals panels used expert advisers > for matters of bridge judgment. Just those appeals handled by the TD staff, I believe, when they felt a need for expert advice (or confirmation of their opinion) on matters of fact. They may also ask for fellow TD advice on matters of law. The standard ACs consulted with TDs when they felt a need for expert advice on matters of law, but I don't think they feel a need for "expert advice" on matters of fact. Look at Appeal Case 5 in the Friday March 26 Daily Bulletin, viewable on the ACBL website (nice job, Chyah!). Please do look at Case 5! It's very interesting! The text version can be easily downloaded for use in RGB or BLML discussions, and I hope someone will take the trouble to start a thread on this case. My computer is crashing regularly, and the hard disk FAT is damaged beyond repair, so I must go off-line until the San Diego regional is over. > If this improves the quality of > appeals, great, but I thought one of the ideas behind forming appeals > committees was to find a player's peers. I seem to recall experts > (perhaps Eddie Wold) giving an opinion on the bidding choice of a > player with around 100 masterpoints. Is this the way it should be? > Why separate the duties of expert opinion from the appeal committee? > I thought the committees were made up of experts, anyway. Perhaps > outside opinions would be appropriate for late rounds of the > Vanderbilt, or similar, but is there really a need for advisors of > this sort when the committee is considering actions taken by non-world > class players? Player-advisors should indeed be knowledgeable peers of the players involved. Some of the AC members are not all that expert, because experts generally don't volunteer for AC service. With the regular NABC acting on appeals for high-level games only, the need for opinions of lesser players is not needed so much. -- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 12:46:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA03993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:46:10 +1000 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 MAA03988 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:46:01 +1000 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:46:01 +1000 Received: (qmail 14994 invoked from network); 30 Mar 1999 02:45:53 -0000 Received: from pm02-068.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.68) by gulik.iag.net with SMTP; 30 Mar 1999 02:45:53 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990329214524.0e075f50@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: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk entire appeal Quoted from ACBL bulletin page Appeals Case 5 Subject: Played Card Event: NABC Vanderbilt KO Teams, 22 Mar 99 Board: 4 Dealer: West Vul: Both Joanna Stansby Q 6 A 8 5 2 -- A K 8 6 5 3 2 Dan Morse Bobby Wolff K 7 2 J 9 5 3 J 10 6 4 3 7 A 8 5 4 3 Q T 7 6 2 J 9 7 Michael Shuster A 10 8 4 K Q 9 K J 9 Q 10 4 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1Cl Pass 3NT(1) Pass 4Cl Pass 4He Pass 6Cl All Pass (1) Alerted; 13-15 The Facts: The contract was 6Cl. The play went as follows: 7 of He to the king, 9 of Di to the ace and ruffed, low club to dummy's queen. At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The K was played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned, and said "oh shit." Play continued. East received his heart ruff; down one. At the end of the hand, dummy suggested that the Director be called, as North had meant to call low club, and there could be some restitution. The Director was called, and after consultation with the other Directors, ruled under law 45C4(b) that North misspoke (a slip of the tongue). Law 45C4(b) states in part: "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought." As the law allows an inadvertent card called from dummy to be withdrawn even if the next player has played to the trick, the Director ruled that the (apparently) inadvertent call could be withdrawn and replaced by the call she had intended. The contract was changed to 6Cl made six, plus 1370. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. E/W believed that the correction was not without pause for thought and that the Director had not been called until the hand had been completed. The Committee Decision: The Committee first considered the evidence as to whether the call had been an error in play or an inadvertent (slip of tongue) call. Two significant points of evidence favored the slip of the tongue interpretation. 1. At this stage of play there were 12 top tricks. Declarer had no apparent reason to be playing a low spade at this time, but was virtually certain to be planning on drawing trumps. 2. When the K was played, the declarer appeared stunned and said "oh shit." The Committee believed that those words would not be said by someone who had just found the K onside, but rather by someone who had just realized that the wrong suit had been played from dummy. The Committee therefore decided that the call of "low spade" was inadvertent. The Committee asked the Screening Director for the Laws Commission interpretation of Law 45C. He stated that "pause for thought" means "change of mind." No time frame for the change of call is specified, other than without significant time for thought. The key part of the interpretation is that the time for thought begins only AFTER the player realizes that an inadvertency has occurred. In this case the "oh shit" was after a short pause after the K was played. The Committee explored whether or not rights were forfeited by waiting until the hand was over before calling the Director. The Screening Director assured the Committee that failure to know the law in this case did not cause forfeiture of rights and therefore, although calling the Director earlier would have been better, it did not cause loss of rights. During the discussion, it was noted that the law is quite different with respect to a play from declarer's hand (Law 45C2). A declarer's card must be detached from his hand and ". . . held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played" to be judged played in spite of his intent to the contrary. Note that declarer cannot change a card played from hand even though it was played inadvertently. Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): Law 45C4(b), correction of an inadvertent designation, states in the relevant part: " . . . a player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought . . ." The law is made to protect people from an inadvertent card designation, but not a change of mind. It is not made to protect people when their brains disconnect or from losing their minds, but is only to protect them specifically from a mechanical error. Here, a low spade was played, the K was played by East, then, after a short pause, declarer realized that she should have played a club instead of a spade. This seemed to represent a change of mind rather than a correction of an inadvertent error made without pause for thought. I would have decided that the play at the table stood and changed the contract to 6 down one, plus 100 for E/W. Dissenting Opinion (Bob Schwartz): The majority view in this case was that no competent player would play a low spade once 12 tricks were clearly established. They further determined that when declarer "mispoke" by calling for a low spade, RHO played the king, and declarer paused and then said, "oh shit" that declarer had still not "paused for thought." Further, declarer then conceded down one. Mistakes do happen at all levels of bridge. If declarer had inadvertently played the low spade from her hand instead of dummy, end of story. Again, at this level, if declarer had immediately said, "No, I mean a low club" or, if immediately upon seeing RHO play the K had said the same type of thing, I would not have dissented. This was not the case. The events as agreed by all the participants were that there was elapsed time between each step. Mistakes happen and they must be lived with. Table Director: Stan Tench Directors consulted: Henry Cukoff (DIC), Steve Bates, Olin Hubert Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Lowell Andrews, Nell Cahn, Bob Gookin, Robb Gordon, Ed Lazarus, Robert Schwartz End quote This ruling will work itself upon the top ten list. And it isnt on the list of the ten best ones. What is more shocking is that the ruling changed the outcome of the match in a big way The final result of the match was 126-129 only a tiny 3 imps difference that this slam swing could and would change the overall standings and the winner of the match. Rulings like this one clearly promotes in somes opinion no AC's are the best since all the AC is doing awarding victorys for the losing team at the table. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 13:48:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 13:48:06 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 NAA04047 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 13:47:32 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10RojD-00073J-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 02:58:12 +0000 Message-ID: <3VewitCI2DA3EwTw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 03:57:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Appeals Case 5 Subject: Played Card Event: NABC Vanderbilt KO Teams, 22 March 99 Board: 4 Joanna Stansby Dealer: West S Q 6 Vul: Both H A 8 5 2 D --- C A K 8 6 5 3 2 Dan Morse Bobby Wolff S K 7 2 S J 9 5 3 H J 10 6 4 3 H 7 D A 8 5 4 3 D Q 10 7 6 2 C --- C J 9 7 Michael Shuster S A 10 8 4 H K Q 9 D K J 9 C Q 10 4 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1C Pass 3NT (1) Pass 4C Pass 4H Pass 6C All Pass (1) Alerted; 13-15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Facts: The contract was 6C. The play went as follows: H7 to the king, D9 to the ace and ruffed, low club to dummy's queen. At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The SK was played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned, and said "oh shit." Play continued. East received his heart ruff; down one. At the end of the hand, dummy suggested that the Director be called, as North had meant to call low club, and there could be some restitution. The Director was called, and after consultation with the other Directors, ruled under law 45C4(b) that North misspoke (a slip of the tongue). Law 45C4(b) states in part: "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought." As the law allows an inadvertent card called from dummy to be withdrawn even if the next player has played to the trick, the Director ruled that the (apparently) inadvertent call could be withdrawn and replaced by the call she had intended. The contract was changed to 6C made six, plus 1370. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. E/W believed that the correction was not without pause for thought and that the Director had not been called until the hand had been completed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee Decision: The Committee first considered the evidence as to whether the call had been an error in play or an inadvertent (slip of tongue) call. Two significant points of evidence favored the slip of the tongue interpretation. 1. At this stage of play there were 12 top tricks. Declarer had no apparent reason to be playing a low spade at this time, but was virtually certain to be planning on drawing trumps. 2. When the SK was played, the declarer appeared stunned and said "oh shit." The Committee believed that those words would not be said by someone who had just found the SK onside, but rather by someone who had just realized that the wrong suit had been played from dummy. The Committee therefore decided that the call of "low spade" was inadvertent. The Committee asked the Screening Director for the Laws Commission interpretation of Law 45C. He stated that "pause for thought" means "change of mind." No time frame for the change of call is specified, other than without significant time for thought. The key part of the interpretation is that the time for thought begins only AFTER the player realizes that an inadvertency has occurred. In this case the "oh shit" was after a short pause after the SK was played. The Committee explored whether or not rights were forfeited by waiting until the hand was over before calling the Director. The Screening Director assured the Committee that failure to know the law in this case did not cause forfeiture of rights and therefore, although calling the Director earlier would have been better, it did not cause loss of rights. During the discussion, it was noted that the law is quite different with respect to a play from declarer's hand (Law 45C2). A declarer's card must be detached from his hand and ". . . held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played" to be judged played in spite of his intent to the contrary. Note that declarer cannot change a card played from hand even though it was played inadvertently. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): Law 45C4(b), correction of an inadvertent designation, states in the relevant part: " . . . a player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought . . ." The law is made to protect people from an inadvertent card designation, but not a change of mind. It is not made to protect people when their brains disconnect or from losing their minds, but is only to protect them specifically from a mechanical error. Here, a low spade was played, the SK was played by East, then, after a short pause, declarer realized that she should have played a club instead of a spade. This seemed to represent a change of mind rather than a correction of an inadvertent error made without pause for thought. I would have decided that the play at the table stood and changed the contract to 6C down one, plus 100 for E/W. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dissenting Opinion (Bob Schwartz): The majority view in this case was that no competent player would play a low spade once 12 tricks were clearly established. They further determined that when declarer "mispoke" by calling for a low spade, RHO played the king, and declarer paused and then said, "oh shit" that declarer had still not "paused for thought." Further, declarer then conceded down one. Mistakes do happen at all levels of bridge. If declarer had inadvertently played the low spade from her hand instead of dummy, end of story. Again, at this level, if declarer had immediately said, "No, I mean a low club" or, if immediately upon seeing RHO play the SK had said the same type of thing, I would not have dissented. This was not the case. The events as agreed by all the participants were that there was elapsed time between each step. Mistakes happen and they must be lived with. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Table Director: Stan Tench ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Directors consulted: Henry Cukoff (DIC), Steve Bates, Olin Hubert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Lowell Andrews, Nell Cahn, Bob Gookin, Robb Gordon, Ed Lazarus, Robert Schwartz ********************************************************************* -- 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 Mar 30 14:16:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:16:58 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA04140 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:16:51 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa10598; 29 Mar 99 20:16 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:46:01 PST." <3.0.16.19990329214524.0e075f50@pop3.iag.net> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:16:15 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9903292016.aa10598@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > entire appeal Quoted from ACBL bulletin page > > The Committee Decision: The Committee first considered the evidence as to > whether the call had been an error in play or an inadvertent (slip of > tongue) call. Two significant points of evidence favored the slip of the > tongue interpretation. > > 1. At this stage of play there were 12 top tricks. Declarer had no apparent > reason to be playing a low spade at this time, but was virtually certain to > be planning on drawing trumps. > > 2. When the K was played, the declarer appeared stunned and said "oh shit." > The Committee believed that those words would not be said by someone who > had just found the K onside, but rather by someone who had just realized > that the wrong suit had been played from dummy. I don't see how (2) constitutes evidence of a slip-of-tongue. Suppose that for some reason, I have miscounted trumps and forgotten that there was one still out. So, with the lead in dummy, instead of drawing another round of trump, I lead a side suit, and RHO ruffs with the trump I forgot about. I suppose I would have started to say "Oh, sh" (but stopped myself because I try not to swear at the table), or made a really ugly face or something. But in any case, a clear error on my part, rather than just calling the wrong suit, could have led to approximately the same reaction; so how could this reaction be evidence that declarer merely made a mechanical error? I admit that the situation I describe isn't exactly the same as the one declarer faced; still, I think the whole principle the committee used here needs to be challenged. And while we're challenging principles, it's hard for me to believe that (1) was even seriously considered. In effect, they're saying "If declarer didn't play correctly, we'll assume it was a slip of the tongue." If we start thinking that way, we might as well not bother to play the hands. Let's just bid the hands, and then we can have a committee look at all four hands, figure out how the hand should be played, and award declarer the score based on the correct play. > Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): Law 45C4(b), correction of an inadvertent > designation, states in the relevant part: " . . . a player may, without > penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for > thought . . ." The law is made to protect people from an inadvertent card > designation, but not a change of mind. It is not made to protect people > when their brains disconnect or from losing their minds, but is only to > protect them specifically from a > mechanical error. > > Here, a low spade was played, the K was played by East, then, after a short > pause, declarer realized that she should have played a club instead of a > spade. This seemed to represent a change of mind rather than a correction > of an inadvertent error made without pause for thought. I would have > decided that the play at the table stood and changed the contract to 6 down > one, plus 100 for E/W. I think Mr. Lazarus (and Mr. Schwartz) got this one exactly right. I'm appalled by the decisions of both the TD and the committee. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 14:25:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:25:02 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f188.hotmail.com [207.82.251.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA04163 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:24:56 +1000 Received: (qmail 20045 invoked by uid 0); 30 Mar 1999 04:24:08 -0000 Message-ID: <19990330042408.20044.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.134.221 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:24:07 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.134.221] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:24:07 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > In the European Seniors Pairs I explained very carefully to one pair >that keeping both CCs in a handbag was no longer to be considered an >option. Yes, it was a Polish pair, but two of the Polish TDs worked >tirelessly throughout acting as interpreters whenever asked, and I >explained this via one of them. Now, can you come over here and do the same here? I promise to have two American TDs acting as interpreters for you... Michael :-) Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 15:48:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA04364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:48:51 +1000 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 PAA04359 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:48:45 +1000 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-156-99.lsan.grid.net [207.205.156.99]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA17481 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:48:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <37006609.3FD1B063@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 21:50:01 -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: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card References: <3VewitCI2DA3EwTw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [quoting Vancouver case, much snipped here] > > At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The SK was > played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned, and said "oh > shit." Play continued. East received his heart ruff; down one. Well, this is the first case I know of with an obscenity. I'm all for it. :) > > At the end of the hand, dummy suggested that the Director be called, > as North had meant to call low club, and there could be some > restitution. The Director was called, and after consultation with the > other Directors, ruled under law 45C4(b) that North misspoke (a slip > of the tongue). > > Law 45C4(b) states in part: "A player may, without penalty, change an > inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought." Hmm. Let's see, the dummy called. There is no evidence that the declarer actually mispoke. Additionally, you're telling me that players at this level don't know this law? Ack. There has been a pause for thought. The delay in the director call does not necessarily compromise rights, but the delay in directly asserting an error has compromised rights. I agree with the dissent. Bleah. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 17:23:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA04494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:23:36 +1000 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 RAA04489 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:23:28 +1000 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 JAA03524 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:22:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA02224 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:22:52 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:22:52 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19990329214524.0e075f50@pop3.iag.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren wrote: > This ruling will work itself upon the top ten list. And it isnt on the > list of the ten best ones. > > What is more shocking is that the ruling changed the outcome of the > match in a big way The final result of the match was 126-129 only a tiny > 3 imps difference that this slam swing could and would change the > overall standings and the winner of the match. > > Rulings like this one clearly promotes in somes opinion no AC's are the > best since all the AC is doing awarding victorys for the losing team at > the table. I don't think this comment is consistent with your previous comment. The TD made the same (horrible) decision, so EW were right to appeal it. The fact that the AC agreed with the TD doesn't make the TD's decision any better. Then, no matter what you tell them, the AC will always know that their decision will change the winner of this KO-match, as very few people would bother to appeal a ruling in a match already won or lost. 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 Tue Mar 30 17:51:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA04535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:51:52 +1000 Received: from abest.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA04530 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:51:43 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial59.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.59]) by abest.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA28695; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 02:51:29 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19990329214524.0e075f50@pop3.iag.net> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 02:51:33 -0500 To: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Rulings like this one clearly promotes in somes opinion no AC's are the >best since all the AC is doing awarding victorys for the losing team at the >table. Some rulings may promote that opinion. This one shouldn't, since it was the directors who ruled (in my opinion) incorrectly. The committee almost managed to restore a just result. I was an appelant in an appeal in Vancouver which did not make it into the daily bulletin. The directors made a poor (but understandable) bridge judgement and the committee overturned their decision. My appeal could serve as a "poster child" for ACs. I'll post details if anyone would like them. The sad part (for me) was that there were not many matchpoints at stake. Winning the appeal moved my partnership from 30th overall to 29th! AW From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 19:16:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 19:16:32 +1000 Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA04634 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 19:16:22 +1000 Received: from default ([195.89.178.108]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 1889600 ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 08:59:43 -0000 Message-ID: <007a01be7a8c$a632a6a0$6cb259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:06:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As a little fish and a learner I am trying to take advantage of what you wise people say. Can you understand that I am now very confused by this report? What should it teach me? mt To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com Date: 30 March 1999 06:53 Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 > >> entire appeal Quoted from ACBL bulletin page >> -snip- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 20:42:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 20:42:20 +1000 Received: from sand3.global.net.uk (sand3.global.net.uk [194.126.80.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA04731 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 20:42:06 +1000 Received: from p15s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.22] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10Rvxz-0003uu-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:41:56 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:41:36 +0100 Message-ID: <01be7a99$e2a98ce0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm with the dissenting opinions. I do not blame the TD for ruling as he did. North has claimed that she mis-spoke, and the TD has applied the Law. AC however in looking at the hand should consider that when dummy hit the table, the only line of play which appears likely to be successful is that declarer should find the SK on side, to achieve a H discard. The fact that the play of a D actually set up a H/S discard was fortuitous, but I suspect declarer allowed herself to become confused and in fact reverted to her original line of play. I suspect the expletive was a reaction to the realisation that the D king had indeed made the play of the S unnecessary. I would like my AC to rule - Result stands. Anne -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 5:55 AM Subject: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card > > > Appeals Case 5 > Subject: Played Card > Event: NABC Vanderbilt KO Teams, > 22 March 99 > >Board: 4 Joanna Stansby >Dealer: West S Q 6 >Vul: Both H A 8 5 2 > D --- > C A K 8 6 5 3 2 > Dan Morse Bobby Wolff > S K 7 2 S J 9 5 3 > H J 10 6 4 3 H 7 > D A 8 5 4 3 D Q 10 7 6 2 > C --- C J 9 7 > Michael Shuster > S A 10 8 4 > H K Q 9 > D K J 9 > C Q 10 4 > > >Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): > >Law 45C4(b), correction of an inadvertent designation, states in the >relevant part: " . . . a player may, without penalty, change an >inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought . . ." > >The law is made to protect people from an inadvertent card >designation, but not a change of mind. It is not made to protect >people when their brains disconnect or from losing their minds, but is >only to protect them specifically from a mechanical error. > >Here, a low spade was played, the SK was played by East, then, after >a short pause, declarer realized that she should have played a club >instead of a spade. This seemed to represent a change of mind rather >than a correction of an inadvertent error made without pause for >thought. I would have decided that the play at the table stood and >changed the contract to 6C down one, plus 100 for E/W. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Dissenting Opinion (Bob Schwartz): > >The majority view in this case was that no competent player would play >a low spade once 12 tricks were clearly established. They further >determined that when declarer "mispoke" by calling for a low spade, >RHO played the king, and declarer paused and then said, "oh shit" that >declarer had still not "paused for thought." Further, declarer then >conceded down one. > >Mistakes do happen at all levels of bridge. If declarer had >inadvertently played the low spade from her hand instead of dummy, end >of story. Again, at this level, if declarer had immediately said, "No, >I mean a low club" or, if immediately upon seeing RHO play the SK had >said the same type of thing, I would not have dissented. This was not >the case. The events as agreed by all the participants were that there >was elapsed time between each step. Mistakes happen and they must be >lived with. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Table Director: Stan Tench >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Directors consulted: Henry Cukoff (DIC), Steve Bates, Olin Hubert >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Lowell Andrews, Nell Cahn, Bob Gookin, >Robb Gordon, Ed Lazarus, Robert Schwartz >********************************************************************* > > >-- >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 Mar 30 21:29:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:29:36 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 VAA04847 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:29:30 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Rwhu-0005VJ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:29:24 +0000 Message-ID: <8VbuEVAyGLA3EwSE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:12:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question References: <19990330042408.20044.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19990330042408.20044.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > > >>From: David Stevenson > >> In the European Seniors Pairs I explained very carefully to one pair >>that keeping both CCs in a handbag was no longer to be considered an >>option. Yes, it was a Polish pair, but two of the Polish TDs worked >>tirelessly throughout acting as interpreters whenever asked, and I >>explained this via one of them. > >Now, can you come over here and do the same here? I promise to have >two American TDs acting as interpreters for you... I wish! -- 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 Mar 30 21:29:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:29:39 +1000 Received: from finch-post-10.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 VAA04849 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:29:32 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10Rwhx-0005VL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:29:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:16:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 References: <3.0.16.19990329214524.0e075f50@pop3.iag.net> <9903292016.aa10598@flash.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <9903292016.aa10598@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >> 2. When the K was played, the declarer appeared stunned and said "oh shit." >> The Committee believed that those words would not be said by someone who >> had just found the K onside, but rather by someone who had just realized >> that the wrong suit had been played from dummy. >I don't see how (2) constitutes evidence of a slip-of-tongue. Suppose >that for some reason, I have miscounted trumps and forgotten that >there was one still out. So, with the lead in dummy, instead of >drawing another round of trump, I lead a side suit, and RHO ruffs with >the trump I forgot about. I suppose I would have started to say "Oh, >sh" (but stopped myself because I try not to swear at the table), or >made a really ugly face or something. But in any case, a clear error >on my part, rather than just calling the wrong suit, could have led to >approximately the same reaction; so how could this reaction be >evidence that declarer merely made a mechanical error? I admit that >the situation I describe isn't exactly the same as the one declarer >faced; still, I think the whole principle the committee used here >needs to be challenged. Evidence and proof are two different things. You seek the evidence: you consider it: you decide what it means. Certainly using the term he did is evidence: what the evidence leads to and means is what the Committee had to decide. -- 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 Mar 30 22:15:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 22:15:00 +1000 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 WAA04971 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 22:14:53 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-237.uunet.be [194.7.13.237]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA11016 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:14:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3700BF24.7A83E174@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:10:12 +0200 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: What to say?... (UI) References: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by thorium.uunet.be id OAA11016 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Rui Marques wrote: >=20 > Let=B4s say that this sequence is not on the CC... > (of course it is, but i would just like to see some > comments on the approach): >=20 > 2 NT 20-21 3 Clubs > (Puppet) > 3 D (1 or 2 majors) 3H (spades) >=20 > Opener explains (wrongly) 3 Clubs as "*Normal* Stayman". > How should partner explain 3D? De Wael school : "no majors", since that is what partner is thinking - and it is what he has ! - so explaining anything else will wake him up and is IMO contrary to L75D2. Of course one should now bid 3H, and let partner figure out what it means. > What if opener now bids 4 Hearts? >=20 What should that mean in puppet? - "I indeed have spades, and a heart control" ? Bid 4S or go on if you have a big hand. What should that mean in stayman? - "3 card support", so that is what you explain. Please don't react to this David(s), I know what you think of it ! All right, I will offer one more piece of evidence in my favour. Let's produce a second example, and a third one. Partner opens 2NT, and you have 4 spades. You bid 3Cl and over 3Di, 3He. Now your LHO asks what 3Cl is, and partner answers "Stayman". LHO now asks you about 3Di. B) You realise you were mistaken in presuming you had agreed on puppet. What do you answer to LHO's question ? C) You have absolutely no idea what your agreement is. What do you answer to LHO's question ? A) (=3Doriginal). You are certain you had agreed "puppet". What do you answer to LHO's question ? Why not reply "no majors" in all three cases ? In fact, by answering "either major 4-card" you are : - deliberately misinforming opponents about partner's holding (yes I know you are not obliged to tell them what he holds, but still..) - deliberately giving unauthorised information to parter (in breach of L75D2) - deliberately misinforming opponents about a system of which can not be certain it is in fact the system you are playing. The more I think about it, the more certain I am that the De Wael school is right. --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 23:33:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:33:10 +1000 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA05231 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:33:01 +1000 Received: from uni-duesseldorf.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:31:42 +0200 Message-ID: <3700D248.463DA65@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:31:52 +0200 From: Richard Bley X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [de]C-QXW0310J (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: de, en To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) References: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> <3700BF24.7A83E174@village.uunet.be> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hermann wrote: > > > Rui Marques wrote: > > > > Let´s say that this sequence is not on the CC... > > (of course it is, but i would just like to see some > > comments on the approach): > > > > 2 NT 20-21 3 Clubs > > (Puppet) > > 3 D (1 or 2 majors) 3H (spades) > > > > Opener explains (wrongly) 3 Clubs as "*Normal* Stayman". > > How should partner explain 3D? > > De Wael school : "no majors", since that is what partner is > thinking - and it is what he has ! - so explaining anything > else will wake him up and is IMO contrary to L75D2. > Of course one should now bid 3H, and let partner figure out > what it means. > > Ok, normally I´m the last one to object a ruling just because it is against the word of the rules. Most of the time you have to take the sense instead. But Hermann, you are very rude with the words of the rule: Doesnt L75A1 state that you >>>must<<< disclose >>>all<<< partnership agreements?? I think that is to strong to neglect. There is another point: If you state that 3d shows no MAJ, and act accordingly, you are evidently using UI. So you have to act not accordingly to your explanation. I´m not sure if you can explain this to anyone (sniph) > Why not reply "no majors" in all three cases ? > > In fact, by answering "either major 4-card" you are : > > - deliberately misinforming opponents about partner's > holding (yes I know you are not obliged to tell them what he > holds, but still..) No you are nor misinforming opps. > - deliberately giving unauthorised information to parter (in > breach of L75D2) You can call the TD and ask partner to go from the table as long as you explain the situation to the opps. And by the way, the partnership is responsible for giving correct explanation > - deliberately misinforming opponents about a system of > which can not be certain it is in fact the system you are > playing. that´s another story. If you are not sure, you should inform the opps about your uncertainty (at least I think you should do this) > > The more I think about it, the more certain I am that the De > Wael school is right. > I´m thinking totally different..... c u Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 30 23:38:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:38:08 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA05252 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:38:00 +1000 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 NAA27265 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 13:37:23 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.7.1) id NAA24016 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 13:35:47 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990330153753.007d0880@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:37:53 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) In-Reply-To: <3700BF24.7A83E174@village.uunet.be> References: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 14:10 30/03/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Rui Marques wrote: >>=20 >> Let=B4s say that this sequence is not on the CC... >> (of course it is, but i would just like to see some >> comments on the approach): >>=20 >> 2 NT 20-21 3 Clubs >> (Puppet) >> 3 D (1 or 2 majors) 3H (spades) >>=20 >> Opener explains (wrongly) 3 Clubs as "*Normal* Stayman". >> How should partner explain 3D? > >De Wael school : "no majors", since that is what partner is >thinking - and it is what he has ! - so explaining anything >else will wake him up and is IMO contrary to L75D2. >Of course one should now bid 3H, and let partner figure out >what it means. > >> What if opener now bids 4 Hearts? >>=20 > >What should that mean in puppet? - "I indeed have spades, >and a heart control" ? Bid 4S or go on if you have a big >hand. >What should that mean in stayman? - "3 card support", so >that is what you explain. > >Please don't react to this David(s), I know what you think >of it ! > >All right, I will offer one more piece of evidence in my >favour. > >Let's produce a second example, and a third one. We never thought this discussion could come to an end but there was so long time it had been interrupted!=20 > >Partner opens 2NT, and you have 4 spades. You bid 3Cl and >over 3Di, 3He. Now your LHO asks what 3Cl is, and partner >answers "Stayman". >LHO now asks you about 3Di. > >B) You realise you were mistaken in presuming you had agreed >on puppet. >What do you answer to LHO's question ? The more I can tell about our bidding agreements: "no major" > >C) You have absolutely no idea what your agreement is. >What do you answer to LHO's question ? The more I can tell about my bidding agreements: "I have absolutely no idea what our agreement is."=20 > >A) (=3Doriginal). You are certain you had agreed "puppet". >What do you answer to LHO's question ? The more I can tell about our bidding agreements: "1 or 2 majors" > >Why not reply "no majors" in all three cases ? Because it's an infraction not to disclose bidding agreements, and an unethical try to avoid possible consequences of misinformation or UI transmission.=20 > >In fact, by answering "either major 4-card" you are : > >- deliberately misinforming opponents about partner's >holding (yes I know you are not obliged to tell them what he >holds, but still..) honestly informing opponents about your agreements without taking notice of UI transmitted by precedent partner's answer. >- deliberately giving unauthorised information to partner (in >breach of L75D2) Accomplishing your duty and assuming further problems due to your mistaken understanding. >- deliberately misinforming opponents about a system of >which can not be certain it is in fact the system you are >playing. Informing opponents about your precise agreements (you said "you are certain...") and giving them all that they are entitled to understand what is happening.=20 JP Rocafort (20 years later...) > >The more I think about it, the more certain I am that the De >Wael school is right. > >--=20 >Herman DE WAEL ________________________________________________________________ =20 Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) =20 e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 01:11:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 01:11:50 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 BAA07760 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 01:11:38 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10S0AY-0006CM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:11:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:55:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 References: <007a01be7a8c$a632a6a0$6cb259c3@default> In-Reply-To: <007a01be7a8c$a632a6a0$6cb259c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk magda.thain wrote: >As a little fish and a learner I am trying to take advantage of what you wise >people say. Can you understand >that I am now very confused by this report? What should it teach me? It is probably better to wait for comments rather than react to the original in this type of complex report. :))))) The main think this report teaches *me* is that it comes as a surprise that there are no obvious time limits applicable to L45C4B. In 1996 BLML discussed the time limits applicable to L25A [since there were none in the 1985 Laws]. We believe that our discussion may be the reason for a time limit being added [at the last minute] to the 1997 Laws. Now it appears we overlooked the same problem in the play. David Burn thinks that once you take an action you should be stuck with it. No L45C4B, no L25A, and certainly no iniquitous and unfair L25B. I think the game of Bridge would benefit and players would find it an acceptable change. Can't you see the Quarterback, as he throws an interception, yelling to the Officials in American Football that his throw was inadvertent and could he please have it back? Or Karpov, as takes his hand off the move that gives his opponent mate in four, saying it was inadvertent? Or Clinton saying he never meant to ... Oh sorry, that's been tried! This Appeal has five points of interest. One. Does L45C4B really apply at the end of the hand? Two. Should L45C4B really be part of the game of bridge? Three. Did the declarer really meet the test of inadvertency? Four. What on earth did the Director mean by 'He stated that "pause for thought" means "change of mind."'? Five. Who best should decided the test of inadvertency, the AC, or the TD, or 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 Wed Mar 31 01:23:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 01:23:16 +1000 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA07776 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 01:23:08 +1000 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 KAA16641 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:22:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA16289; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:22:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:22:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903301522.KAA16289@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Happening in Manchester UK Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >In article , David Stevenson > writes >> >> A correspondent wrote to me: >> >> I'd be interested in your view on the following Law ruling the other >>day - My partner opened 1N (weak), RHO and I passed, LHO bid 2D. Now >>pard and RHO passed. I had an 8 count and 4 hearts. While I was >>thinking, RHO now alerted the 2D bid and after questioning said it >>showed spades and another. This persuaded me to compete with 2H, and now >>RHO who had 4 spades and 2 diamonds, was able to bid to a much superior >>spade contract. Of course, when he passed 2D, RHO had forgotten it was >>conventional. While I was thinking, he suddenly and genuinely >>remembered. My question is - should he alert it now especially knowing >>that it may well work to his own advantage ? Pard & I felt there was >>'something' dodgy here, but the TD ruled that RHO had a duty to alert >>the bid once he realised it was conventional, and the fact that it so >>clearly worked to his advantage was incidental. >> >> Any views? It seems pretty clear that there is no adjustement. RHO is required to correct the misinformation, and indeed did so in a timely manner. I am curious, however: if RHO wanted to change his call, would he be allowed to do so under L25B2(b)(2)? Would passing in a possible 2-2 diamond fit rather than playing in a 4-4 or better spade fit be considered stupid enough to permit a change of call as per the Lille directives? Is RHO allowed to play for A- rather than a bottom? Is the director supposed to tell the player that he has that option? Thanks, Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 02:15:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 02:15:28 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08107 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 02:15:10 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA22415 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:15:08 +0100 (BST) Received: from cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.7]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA14333 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:15:01 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA13794 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:14:59 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:14:59 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199903301614.RAA13794@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The SK was > played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned, and said "oh > shit." Play continued. East received his heart ruff; down one. > > At the end of the hand, dummy suggested that the Director be called, > as North had meant to call low club, and there could be some > restitution. The Director was called, and after consultation with the > other Directors, ruled under law 45C4(b) that North misspoke (a slip > of the tongue). > > Law 45C4(b) states in part: "A player may, without penalty, change an > inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought." > > As the law allows an inadvertent card called from dummy to be > withdrawn even if the next player has played to the trick, the > Director ruled that the (apparently) inadvertent call could be > withdrawn and replaced by the call she had intended. The contract was > changed to 6C made six, plus 1370. I am very surprised by this ruling. I always assumed there was some time limit on the application of L45C4b, I have never before heard of a card being changed due to an inadvertent designation at the end of hand. Has anyone else seen an application of L45C4b once the trick to which the inadvertent card was played has been quit? Surely declarer could only change the card played if he had said he meant a low club immediately after he said "oh, shit", or at least if he called the director at that point. For the card to be changed at the end of the hand, when dummy says that declarer's call for a low spade was clearly inadvertent with no supporting statement from declarer is strange. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 02:27:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 02:27:54 +1000 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 CAA08156 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 02:27:48 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n55.san.rr.com [204.210.46.85]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA06628 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 08:27:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903301627.IAA06628@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: NAOP Finals in Vancouver Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 08:25:31 -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: Marvin L. French wrote: > > > The top 14 pairs from each field qualified for the second day's final > > sessions, with a 14-table one-winner movement, some sort of combined > > Howell I suppose, with 28 boards, 14 rounds, 13 top, in each session. I > > guess two pairs must have met twice. > > Nope . . . the afternoon session was a 13-round Howell, 26 boards; the > evening session was 14 rounds, 28 boards. So everyone in the final > played every other pair exactly once. I only saw the second session recap and jumped to the wrong conclusion. I should have realized that the first session was a Mitchell. I seem to remember being told on BLML that this method could be improved by a little arrow-switching in the Mitchell. Still don't like it. Each pair has played a unique set of hands with a unique set of comparisons. Perhaps in 2010 a computer will play well enough that all finalists can play a single line N/S against an E/W computer. All pairs play the same set of hands with the same comparisons, and the number of results is doubled. Until then, I propose that the highest non-qualifiers serve in the computer role, playing a consolation event of their own. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 03:14:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 03:14:00 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA08247 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 03:13:53 +1000 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA09789 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:13:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:13:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903301713.MAA02507@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:55:15 +0100) Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > David Burn thinks that once you take an action you should be stuck > with it. No L45C4B, no L25A, and certainly no iniquitous and unfair > L25B. I think the game of Bridge would benefit and players would find > it an acceptable change. It's too easy to pull the wrong card from a bidding box. > Can't you see the Quarterback, as he throws an interception, yelling > to the Officials in American Football that his throw was inadvertent and > could he please have it back? This is a made play, not a designated play. A designation can be corrected without pause for thought; if the quarterback says, "Red 23, make that Red 43", then play 23 never gets made. The difference in bridge is that the defense may play to the designation; if declarer says, "low spade, make that spade eight", a defender may play the spade seven in mid-call. The consesus is that the case at hand was a made play. > Or Karpov, as takes his hand off the move > that gives his opponent mate in four, saying it was inadvertent? Here, the analogy to designation of a move is the touch-move rule in chess. If you touch a piece (without telling your opponent that you are moving it to fix its position), you must move it; the opponent can condone a violation. In many bridge games at lower levels, there isn't a close inspection under L25A of whether a wrong card was a mechanical error or a change of mind. At the other extreme, in backgammon, a move is not made until the dice are picked up. If you have five different men which can move 1, you can try one, then another, and look at each position. > One. Does L45C4B really apply at the end of the hand? Not at this level. Declarer, who is an expert, is supposed to know the rules, and if his designation was a slip of the tongue, he should have called the director then. In a lower-level game, I might allow dummy to do this. > Two. Should L45C4B really be part of the game of bridge? Not clear. L25A is needed, though. > Three. Did the declarer really meet the test of inadvertency? No. > Four. What on earth did the Director mean by 'He stated that "pause > for thought" means "change of mind."'? I think he was trying to interpret tha Law incorrectly. We've all gotten a trick ahead in the play at one time or another, and tried to cash a trick that was not yet established, or play the trick after trumps have been drawn before pulling the last trump. L45C4B is not intended for this purpose, and I think the director was trying to rule as if it were (and the forbidden correction would only be if declarer decided on a different line of play). L45C4B is intended to cover the cases in which declarer gives an imprecise designation (dummy wins the DA and has a good CJ and a losing DJ, declarer says "jack" intending the CJ, then quickly realizes that this means the jack of the last suit led and corrects to "club jack"), or specifies a wrong card which happens to be in dummy (declarer calls "diamond jack-club jack"). > Five. Who best should decided the test of inadvertency, the AC, or the > TD, or regulation? The AC, usually; its rols is to make a careful investigation of the facts based on testimony at the table. This is the same type of situation as a disputed hesitation; the TD will usually rule on the assumption that there was a hesitation, and the AC will take testimony that a five-second pause was normal tempo for this player in this auction. -- 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 Mar 31 03:17:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 03:17:46 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA08264 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 03:17:30 +1000 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA09882 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:17:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:17:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903301717.MAA02686@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199903301627.IAA06628@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: NAOP Finals in Vancouver Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > Still don't like it. Each pair has played a unique set of hands > with a unique set of comparisons. Perhaps in 2010 a computer will > play well enough that all finalists can play a single line N/S > against an E/W computer. All pairs play the same set of hands with > the same comparisons, and the number of results is doubled. Until > then, I propose that the highest non-qualifiers serve in the > computer role, playing a consolation event of their own. The problem with that setup is that the standard of play faced by the top players is not as high as it should be in the final; they never get to play each other at the table. -- 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 Mar 31 03:23:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 03:23:50 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f251.hotmail.com [207.82.251.142]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA08294 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 03:23:40 +1000 Received: (qmail 72899 invoked by uid 0); 30 Mar 1999 17:22:47 -0000 Message-ID: <19990330172247.72898.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:22:47 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Vancouver case #5 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:22:47 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "magda.thain" >As a little fish and a learner I am trying to take advantage of what >you wise people say. Can you understand >that I am now very confused by this report? What should it teach me? >mt Um (another little fish here) - that bridge jurisprudence is not yet at a great, high level? That several somebodies forgot to apply the (supposedly automatic) ZT penalty for obscenity - and that the ACBL is willing to publish the fact that "Oh S---" isn't unacceptable behaviour at the bridge table, in spite of ZT; in fact it can win you matches? Not commenting on the actual appeal (the number of times I've played a low club off dummy (OKB) Trick 3 when I was thinking "play low club from hand, trick 4" is more than one. I never asked for those back, and they seem to be at least as much "no pause for thought". Maybe I should try it, though...), just the parts of it that I don't understand. Michael. >-----Original Message----- >Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 > > >> >>> entire appeal Quoted from ACBL bulletin page >>> >-snip- Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 04:16:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 04:16:33 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA08509 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 04:16:26 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa08336; 30 Mar 99 10:11 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:13:46 PST." <199903301713.MAA02507@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:11:12 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9903301011.aa08336@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner writes: > David Stevenson writes: > > > David Burn thinks that once you take an action you should be stuck > > with it. No L45C4B, no L25A, and certainly no iniquitous and unfair > > L25B. I think the game of Bridge would benefit and players would find > > it an acceptable change. > > It's too easy to pull the wrong card from a bidding box. Yes, plus it's too hard to look at the bidding card to make sure it's the right one before you put it on the table. (Smiley has been deemed unnecessary, but I will e-mail one to anyone who requests it.) Sorry, but on this issue, I agree with David and David and disagree with David. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 04:20:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 04:20:30 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA08519 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 04:20:24 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa08779; 30 Mar 99 10:19 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 Mar 1999 21:50:01 PST." <37006609.3FD1B063@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:19:46 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9903301019.aa08779@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Mayne wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > [quoting Vancouver case, much snipped here] > > > > > At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The SK was > > played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned, and said "oh > > shit." Play continued. East received his heart ruff; down one. > > Well, this is the first case I know of with an obscenity. I'm all for > it. :) Actually, I'm stunned that they let this into the appeal report unedited. I mean, I know that foul language isn't as big a deal as it was, say, 40 years ago, and it doesn't bother me to see it in a novel or something. Actually, I probably use obscenities at least a dozen times every day when swearing at my computer. But there are still some places where it's considered inappropriate; for example, I won't include it in a Usenet post (without blanking out most of the letters), and daily newspapers and the major weekly newsmagazines won't print it either. I would have thought that that the Daily Bulletins for an NABC would be another place where it would be considered inappropriate. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 05:21:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 05:21:47 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA08650 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 05:21:40 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA29767; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 13:17:10 -0600 (CST) Received: from irv-ca47-39.ix.netcom.com(207.94.84.167) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029634; Tue Mar 30 13:16:20 1999 Message-ID: <37012178.60227667@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:09:44 -0800 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 References: <007a01be7a8c$a632a6a0$6cb259c3@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Having empaneled the AC that heard the case, I have some perspective on the matter. Anyone who thinks this is a black and white case is viewing the issues too narrowly. The seven people who formed the panel spent collectively more than ten hours on the case, and inevitably heard evidence that was not included in the report. Both the majority and the dissenters had solid, well-reasoned thoughts justifying their positions. Any reasonable person may disagree with the decision, but please be respectful of the panel members who volunteered their time. They are not idiots who don't understand the law. My comments are interspersed within David's original message. David Stevenson wrote: > The main think this report teaches *me* is that it comes as a surprise > that there are no obvious time limits applicable to L45C4B. In 1996 > BLML discussed the time limits applicable to L25A [since there were none > in the 1985 Laws]. We believe that our discussion may be the reason for > a time limit being added [at the last minute] to the 1997 Laws. Now it > appears we overlooked the same problem in the play. > > David Burn thinks that once you take an action you should be stuck > with it. No L45C4B, no L25A, and certainly no iniquitous and unfair > L25B. I think the game of Bridge would benefit and players would find > it an acceptable change. > > Can't you see the Quarterback, as he throws an interception, yelling > to the Officials in American Football that his throw was inadvertent and > could he please have it back? Or Karpov, as takes his hand off the move > that gives his opponent mate in four, saying it was inadvertent? Or > Clinton saying he never meant to ... Oh sorry, that's been tried! > > If we're voting, count me as one who would eliminate L45C4B. I see no > compelling reason to treat a card called from dummy differently that a card > played from declarer's hand. Generally, I don't believe in "misspeaks." > However, if one actually occurs, too bad. This law creates more problems than > it solves. > This Appeal has five points of interest. > > One. Does L45C4B really apply at the end of the hand? As set forth in the current laws, yes. The test is whether no pause for thought occurred prior to the end of the hand. A declarer can call a card from dummy, upon which declarer's RHO claims; surely declarer can make a plausible argument to apply L45C4B immediately. The more problematic application is where some quantity of tricks are quitted after the inadvertent designation. > Two. Should L45C4B really be part of the game of bridge? No. > Three. Did the declarer really meet the test of inadvertency? We'll never know what was in declarer's mind for certain, but my impression was that it was inadvertent. I reserve my judgment on whether a change was sought without pause for thought. > Four. What on earth did the Director mean by 'He stated that "pause > for thought" means "change of mind."'? Here's the meat. L45C4B calls for a two-step analysis: 1) was the card designation inadvertent?; and 2) was a correction attempted without pause for thought? "Change of mind" refers to the inadvertency test (analysis #1 above), while "pause for thought" occurs only within analysis #2. Two members of the ACBL Laws Commission stated unequivocally that the TD had given the AC the wrong instructions with his statement. The dissenters did not accept the TD's explanation; the majority did. > Five. Who best should decided the test of inadvertency, the AC, or the > TD, or regulation? Ideally, we eliminate the law. Until then, the TD makes the call subject to review by an AC. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 05:39:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 05:39:10 +1000 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 FAA08731 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 05:39:03 +1000 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 LAA30889; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:38:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by coho.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA11493; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:38:54 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:38:53 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Adam Beneschan cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card In-Reply-To: <9903301019.aa08779@flash.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Actually, I'm stunned that they let this into the appeal report > unedited. I mean, I know that foul language isn't as big a deal as it > was, say, 40 years ago, and it doesn't bother me to see it in a novel > or something. ... I would have thought that that the Daily > Bulletins for an NABC would be another place where it would be > considered inappropriate. I felt exactly the same way, and it was not written there just once, it was repeated in the article about SIX or SEVEN TIMES! And it was a lady who uttered these words!! Wouldn't it have been much better to have had her saying, "Oh, shoot!" Everyone who thought a bit would know what was meant, but the family nature of the paper and the genteel demeanor of declarer would be more intact. Richard (Prude) Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 07:30:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 07:30:25 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08963 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 07:30:19 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA24399; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:29:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.36) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma024320; Tue Mar 30 15:28:53 1999 Received: by har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE7ACA.6BC04DE0@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 16:29:02 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE7ACA.6BC04DE0@har-pa1-04.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'Adam Wildavsky'" , Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 16:27:30 -0500 Encoding: 39 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please do post it Adam. By the way, with directors and the A/C obviously fully aware of the improper language, did the ACBL waive zero tolerance penalties in this case? "Oh s--t" would seem to call for at least an automatic warning and possibly 1/4 board...which if the latter would have thrown the match back into a tie. Clearly the opponents enjoyment of the match was reduced. :-)) Actually it is good that such silly application of ZT was NOT made, though if there seemed to be pause for thought before such an utterance it would seem to require some penalty. This may be an additional small point in favour of the majority decision. Still if as honourable,pleasant and even handed a person as Ed Lazerus dissented, I'd have to go along with him...he is not the sort to have done so lightly. From living with Diane's deafness I suspect he had become very attuned to body language and the other subtleties of communication and would have been an excellent judge of the veracity of the unintentional element of such a "pause without thought" situation. -------- From: Adam Wildavsky[SMTP:adam@visalia.com] I was an appelant in an appeal in Vancouver which did not make it into the daily bulletin. The directors made a poor (but understandable) bridge judgement and the committee overturned their decision. My appeal could serve as a "poster child" for ACs. I'll post details if anyone would like them. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 08:12:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA09034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:12:15 +1000 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 IAA09028 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:12:09 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990330221202.MGGO11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:12:02 -0800 Message-ID: <37014D42.93BB577A@home.com> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:16:34 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 References: <9903301011.aa08336@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > Sorry, but on this issue, I agree with David and David and disagree > with David. > So do I. I can't resist now when both "UK" Davids are in agreement. I think too many laws have been created in a (commendable) effort to make the game "perfect". Perfection is still not attained and the price (in terms of confusion, differing interpretations, players' non-comprehension, etc) for getting from 90% to 92% perfection is often too high, imo. I should make the point though that in some areas I feel it worthwile to have complex rules trying to achieve equity - one example being L16. Thinking is too important an aspect of the game to be sacrificed on the altar of simplicity, whereas I see no problem in forcing players to take some care when making bids and plays (in particular there is no reason to "protect" a player like North in the case at hand - the argument that she is too good to make such a stupid play should be cancelled out, and superceded, by the argument that she is good enough to play with care and take responsibility for her actions - something she actually seemed to have done by continuing to play and accept the result. It was dummy who was the "whiner"). Btw I feel similarly about not "protecting" bad/incomplete claims. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 09:05:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:05:03 +1000 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 JAA09095 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:04:58 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990330224425.MPLQ11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:44:25 -0800 Message-ID: <370154D9.19474ACC@home.com> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:48:57 -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: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 References: <007a01be7a8c$a632a6a0$6cb259c3@default> <37012178.60227667@popd.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jon C. Brissman wrote: > Any reasonable person may disagree with the decision, > but please be respectful of the panel members who volunteered their > time. They are not idiots who don't understand the law. Granted, but neither are they (or indeed any other AC) perfect and shouldn't be so sensitive to criticism. If one can't look back and accept that maybe one has erred, the process is in big trouble. In addition to what has already been said, I find it "unusual" that the TD/AC put more weight on *dummy's* belated version of what went on in *declarer's* head than on the actions of *declarer* herself (who seemed to have taken the matter in the appropriate fatalistic "shit happens" attitude by not calling TD and by accepting the result). She obviously knew better than dummy that it was a "slip of the mind", and realized the relevant laws are intended to cover purely "mechanical" errors i.e. "slips of the tongue" and "slips of the hand", not "slips of the mind" which can happen even to world champs and are an integral part of the game of bridge. Afterall - if we protect them from any such "slips", when are we ever going to get a good board against them? :-)) To let dummy's after-the-fact statement essentially nullify declarer's own acceptance of the outcome, in a case that revolves only around declarer's mindset at a certain point in time, is to me the strangest aspect of the ruling. It's not like South was a pro who needed to protect an innocent client from herself! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 09:59:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:59:47 +1000 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 JAA09292 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:59:41 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990330235934.NMMH11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:59:34 -0800 Message-ID: <37016676.EA9FCA61@home.com> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 16:04:06 -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: What to say?... (UI) References: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> <3700BF24.7A83E174@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Opener explains (wrongly) 3 Clubs as "*Normal* Stayman". > > How should partner explain 3D? > > De Wael school : "no majors", since that is what partner is > thinking - and it is what he has ! - so explaining anything > else will wake him up and is IMO contrary to L75D2. Did you have to reopen this particular can? :-) (snips) > Please don't react to this David(s), I know what you think > of it ! But some others may not, so this request is unfair. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen! The majority cannot with good conscience leave your "school's" thoughts out there unchallenged, lest the innocent might be mislead to assume it represents the correct application of the laws of bridge. > Let's produce a second example, and a third one. Here we go again! We've been thru this b4, but it was several months ago. > Partner opens 2NT, and you have 4 spades. You bid 3Cl and > over 3Di, 3He. Now your LHO asks what 3Cl is, and partner > answers "Stayman". > LHO now asks you about 3Di. > > B) You realise you were mistaken in presuming you had agreed > on puppet. > What do you answer to LHO's question ? You now know the agreement is "no 4 cd Ma", so that is what you respond (L75C). You have "misbid" (no infraction) but were awoken by pard's response to a question thus your actions will be constrained by L16. Quite simple I'd think. > C) You have absolutely no idea what your agreement is. > What do you answer to LHO's question ? Not so simple, but very unrealistic. I'd suggest that if you have no idea you also don't know that pard's explanation is incorrect. You were the one to bid 3C so must have done so for *some* reason. Since you in fact held 4 cd spades but presumably not 4/5 cd hearts, and in fact bid 3H, you must have assumed "Puppet" so I'd tend to handle it as (B) above based on the evidence of the hand itself (but would call TD at end of bidding to explain what happened - depending on SO the TD might give an adjusted score based on some "CD" concept or similar. If the CC is inconclusive or says "Puppet", TD will rule "ME"). > A) (=original). You are certain you had agreed "puppet". > What do you answer to LHO's question ? Now it's a "ME" situation. As per L75C you answer "no 5 cd but at least one 4 cd Ma". As per L75D2 your further actions are subject to L16, as are partner's since he now has UI from your response. TD is called at end of bidding. NOS will be protected. It will be tough for OS to get a good result, but so what? There is a price to be paid for not knowing one's agreements. OS position is much worse with ME (both players have UI) than with MB. That seems perfectly consistent and allright to me. > Why not reply "no majors" in all three cases ? Because the players are supposed to follow the rules and leave TD/AC to sort out problems, not attempting to second guess what info might be most advantegous to the opponents. > In fact, by answering "either major 4-card" you are : > - deliberately giving unauthorised information to parter (in > breach of L75D2) No. L75D2 does *not* say that it replaces L75C! It is therefore logical to interpret "in any manner" in that light. > - deliberately misinforming opponents about a system of > which can not be certain it is in fact the system you are > playing. N/A if responding as I suggested. > The more I think about it, the more certain I am that the De > Wael school is right. The more I think abt it, the more certain I am of the opposite. At the very highest level a case can be made for a player to judge what is best for the opponents, but even there we have seen examples lately where in some unexpected way it turned out better for NOS to remain "misinformed" as to the actual pattern. Why should they not get redress, if the OS deliberately breaks L75C?? So let's apply "KISS" also in law-interpretations wherever possible! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 10:17:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA09315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:17:27 +1000 Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA09310 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:17:19 +1000 Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA21171; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:17:07 -0900 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:17:07 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > The main think this report teaches *me* is that it comes as a surprise > that there are no obvious time limits applicable to L45C4B. In 1996 > BLML discussed the time limits applicable to L25A [since there were none > in the 1985 Laws]. We believe that our discussion may be the reason for > a time limit being added [at the last minute] to the 1997 Laws. Now it > appears we overlooked the same problem in the play. > > David Burn thinks that once you take an action you should be stuck > with it. No L45C4B, no L25A, and certainly no iniquitous and unfair > L25B. I think the game of Bridge would benefit and players would find > it an acceptable change. I was present in the appeals rooms during the hearing on this appeal (as an observer) and was rather fascinated by the way the arguments evolved in the case in the course of an hour or so -- and also had been eagerly awaiting the flood of messages to BLML that I knew this case would generate. I will begin by seconding Jon Brissman's remarks about the case, and will add a few additional thoughts. --- At one point a majority of the committee was intending to deny the appeal. Much was made of the "pause for thought equals change of mind" statement, and, as a result of this statmenet, at least one person's vote was changed and another who had planned to vote against chose to abstain instead. It has been suggested that this statement should not have been made. I think it is only fair to note that this statement was prefaced by a remark along the lines of "I haven't been told anything about the interpretation of this phrase in this law, but the same phrase is used in L25 where the official interpretation is as follows... In the context of L25 the "pause for thought = change of mind" was presented as an official interpretation direct from the WBF Laws committee, which seemed to me to be a bit too strong of a way of putting it. Several members of the panel were aware that whatever way this case went it was likely to have a rather far-reaching impact. One of the supporters of the appeal said he was voting in favour in an effort to combat bridge-lawyering, fearing that people who didn't know L45 might be unfairly deprived of their right to make delayed corrections of plays if we set a precedent of not allowing the application of this law at the end of the hand. I held just the opposite opinion -- that the vast majority of players would have accepted that their miscall was a silly mistake and accepted down one ruefully but smilingly, never calling the director. This case to me looks like a dangerous precedent for the lawyers to steal back tricks they threw away in the play by carelessness. There is some ambiguity in the remark 'play continued' in the case writeup. The testimony as I heard it was a bit vague as to when play ceased, but there was a concession of down one very soon after the spade appeared. (Same trick? After one more trick was played out? I am not sure.) At any rate both sides had agreed to down one before the director was summoned; the table director ruled result stands, then returned during the next board to say he had changed his mind after consultation. There was a strong sense on the committee that the law desperately needed to be changed. There was much internal argument as to how much the committee was allowed to interpret the intent, as opposed to the letter, of the law in choosing its ruling. The point raised by Anne Jones is a good one, and is something that did not arise in the committee discussion. I daresay that if it had, the vote would have been different by at least one vote, if not reversed altogether. My own personal opinion is that she should have said at once "I meant to lead a club!" to have any chance at getting her trick given back. I also happen to despise L25 with a passion (one way the laws moved backward in 1997), and it does not surprise me at all to see that an attempt to argue along the same lines as L25 has now led us into another can of worms. Hang 'em! :) Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 13:28:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:28:46 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA09532 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:28:37 +1000 Received: from default (vn-0-32.ac.net [205.138.47.203]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id VAA07821 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:50:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903310250.VAA07821@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:53:46 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card In-Reply-To: <9903301019.aa08779@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:19 AM 3/30/99 -0800, you wrote: > >John Mayne wrote: > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> [quoting Vancouver case, much snipped here] >> >> > >> > At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The SK was >> > played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned, and said "oh >> > shit." Play continued. East received his heart ruff; down one. >> >> Well, this is the first case I know of with an obscenity. I'm all for >> it. :) > >Actually, I'm stunned that they let this into the appeal report >unedited. I mean, I know that foul language isn't as big a deal as it >was, say, 40 years ago, and it doesn't bother me to see it in a novel >or something. Actually, I probably use obscenities at least a dozen >times every day when swearing at my computer. But there are still >some places where it's considered inappropriate; for example, I won't >include it in a Usenet post (without blanking out most of the >letters), and daily newspapers and the major weekly newsmagazines >won't print it either. I would have thought that that the Daily >Bulletins for an NABC would be another place where it would be >considered inappropriate. > > -- Adam THANK-YOU!! THANK-YOU!! Sorry for shouting - this is the first in a long string on this case that I have downloaded and I was violently opposed to this language being used (not from a personal perspective, I swear like a sailor and really should clean up my language) I prepare all these reports and proofread the casebooks and Rich has always listened, except this one time... Linda From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 15:53:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 15:53:12 +1000 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 PAA09751 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 15:53:05 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt090n55.san.rr.com [204.210.46.85]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA15375 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:52:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903310552.VAA15375@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: NAOP Finals in Vancouver Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:49:40 -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 Grabiner wrote: > Marvin L. French writes: > > > Still don't like it. Each pair has played a unique set of hands > > with a unique set of comparisons. Perhaps in 2010 a computer will > > play well enough that all finalists can play a single line N/S > > against an E/W computer. All pairs play the same set of hands with > > the same comparisons, and the number of results is doubled. Until > > then, I propose that the highest non-qualifiers serve in the > > computer role, playing a consolation event of their own. > > The problem with that setup is that the standard of play faced by the > top players is not as high as it should be in the final; they never get > to play each other at the table. In this particular event, consisting of pairs who have survived tough qualifying events in their districts, the standard of play for those left after further filtering (leaving 52 of the original 72) would not be significantly different. But so what? Finalists hold the same hands against the same opponents and compare with all other finalists on all deals. I think the fairness of these conditions would swamp any randomness introduced by having opponents of slightly lesser ability. Don't forget that the number of comparisons on each deal would be roughly doubled. The more comparisons, the better the game. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 17:01:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA09893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 17:01:20 +1000 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 RAA09888 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 17:01:13 +1000 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-157-173.lsan.grid.net [207.205.157.173]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA27669 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 02:01:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3701C885.FCFA0592@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:02:29 -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: Obscenity [Was Vancouver Case 5, is somewhat OT] References: <9903301019.aa08779@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > John [R.] Mayne wrote: > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > [quoting Vancouver case, much snipped here] > > > > > > > > At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The SK was > > > played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned, and said "oh > > > shit." Play continued. East received his heart ruff; down one. > > > > Well, this is the first case I know of with an obscenity. I'm all for > > it. :) > > Actually, I'm stunned that they let this into the appeal report > unedited. I mean, I know that foul language isn't as big a deal as it > was, say, 40 years ago, and it doesn't bother me to see it in a novel > or something. Actually, I probably use obscenities at least a dozen > times every day when swearing at my computer. But there are still > some places where it's considered inappropriate; for example, I won't > include it in a Usenet post (without blanking out most of the > letters), and daily newspapers and the major weekly newsmagazines > won't print it either. I agree with Adam that I wouldn't put the obscenity in the casebook (its a weighing test, though; I presume that in some very specific context it would be appropriate.) Oh [obscenity] would be fine for the casebook. But know that all of the best daily papers will use obscenity, even extreme obscenity, if the story warrants it. In the LA Times coverage of the attempted coup against Gorbachev and its aftermath, the Times quoted an accurate translations of Mr. Gorbachev's reaction to the apology by the people who had attempted to have him removed. "[Verb] you," said Gorby, but the Times used the actual verb. The use of the actual word gives us a better, more accurate sense of what went on. Against that, there is the question of whether we wish to retain the value of existing obscenities; overuse tends to dull the senses. There is also the mild concern that use of the word would offend someone; in my experience, those someones are not the type of people who read casebooks. Do not mistake my meaning; I dislike the anti-social use of obscenity in a tournament. One of my two worst experiences at the bridge table was when a group of 70+ ladies simply would not stop cussing me out at the table, resulting in five director calls before the KO match began, and five more before the second hand had ended, each for the use of one of several perjorative swear words. The directors finally told me to stop calling. (They were mad because they wanted to switch directions to line up against us, and then when we called the director to submit lineups, the swear words began. My partner and I were absolutely civil throughout, as were my teammates. It was mind-boggling; like walking into a Twilight Zone episode) Anyway, I'm drifting. The use of obscenities to convey the actual statements or happenings is sometimes necessary. The use here by the casebook was probably inappropriate, but I do not fault them too severely. --JRM I would have thought that that the Daily > Bulletins for an NABC would be another place where it would be > considered inappropriate. > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 17:37:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA09930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 17:37:54 +1000 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA09924 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 17:37:48 +1000 Received: from uni-duesseldorf.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:36:19 +0200 Message-ID: <3701D07E.31CE5F99@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:36:31 +0200 From: Richard Bley X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [de]C-QXW0310J (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: de, en To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 References: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all! In this case with the played or not card I took a long time to build an opinion. At least for myself I found a reason, which as far as I can see wasnt mentioned so clearly (some stated it in a few words, but not so clearly), so here it is: Take your seat in the declarer chair: Who in this list would have called the director afterwards to change the score back to 6 made? I think nobody would have done this. Sh** happens and such is life. Bridge is a game of concentration and well if you are not concentrated, take the result of it. So another view: Take your seat in the defenders chair. Many times I played as a opp (more often in this place than in the other, hopefully I can hold the score ;-), and many times I had no problem to allow declarer to pull back his card (almost ever). But this case goes to far in my oppinion - at least after conceding one down I think it´s over. No score correction. There is another strong argument here: What would have been happened, when the player revoked? It would make no sense to allow to pull back a card which is in acoordance to the rules (see the actual case) and not to allow to pull back a card, when a player played to the next trick (see L63A1 for this). In this way there is a time limit visible; at least when the players of the offending side played to the next trick, there should be a no-way-back. Another time limit (and it might be relevant for the actual case) is L71 All agreed upon the number of tricks and there should be a nay-back only in the cases of L71 - I think none of them applies here. I´m a bit suspicious that the case was decided at it was because of the players involved. I might be wrong, perhaps a more involved player can tell sth about it? Waiting for replies Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 18:11:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:11:14 +1000 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 SAA09972 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:11:01 +1000 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 KAA09464; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:10:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA07308; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:10:15 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:10:15 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "John R. Mayne" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Obscenity [Was Vancouver Case 5, is somewhat OT] In-Reply-To: <3701C885.FCFA0592@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, John R. Mayne wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > John [R.] Mayne wrote: > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The SK was > > > > played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned, and said "oh > > > > shit." Play continued. East received his heart ruff; down one. > Oh [obscenity] would be fine for the casebook. Can we please move this discussion to another list and go back to Law 45? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 18:15:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:15:04 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA09987 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:14:54 +1000 Received: from default (pm30-2-05.ac.net [205.138.47.64]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id DAA07016 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 03:14:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903310814.DAA07016@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 03:18:14 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:17 PM 3/30/99 -0900, you wrote: > > >On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, David Stevenson wrote: >> The main think this report teaches *me* is that it comes as a surprise >> that there are no obvious time limits applicable to L45C4B. In 1996 >> BLML discussed the time limits applicable to L25A [since there were none >> in the 1985 Laws]. We believe that our discussion may be the reason for >> a time limit being added [at the last minute] to the 1997 Laws. Now it >> appears we overlooked the same problem in the play. >> >> David Burn thinks that once you take an action you should be stuck >> with it. No L45C4B, no L25A, and certainly no iniquitous and unfair >> L25B. I think the game of Bridge would benefit and players would find >> it an acceptable change. > >I was present in the appeals rooms during the hearing on this appeal (as >an observer) and was rather fascinated by the way the arguments evolved in >the case in the course of an hour or so -- and also had been eagerly >awaiting the flood of messages to BLML that I knew this case would >generate. > >I will begin by seconding Jon Brissman's remarks about the case, and will >add a few additional thoughts. > >--- > >At one point a majority of the committee was intending to deny the appeal. >Much was made of the "pause for thought equals change of mind" statement, >and, as a result of this statmenet, at least one person's vote was changed >and another who had planned to vote against chose to abstain instead. > >It has been suggested that this statement should not have been made. I >think it is only fair to note that this statement was prefaced by a remark >along the lines of "I haven't been told anything about the interpretation >of this phrase in this law, but the same phrase is used in L25 where the >official interpretation is as follows... In the context of L25 the "pause >for thought = change of mind" was presented as an official interpretation >direct from the WBF Laws committee, which seemed to me to be a bit too >strong of a way of putting it. IMPORTANT POINT: (btw, I was present for the entire hearing also, - meant to introduce myself to the two of you that were watching - but you were gone before I got a chance to. Interpretations used by our Committees are ACBL LAWS INTERPRETATIONS (as was the one that Brian Moran quoted to the Committee) ... the ACBL can (and often does) ignore WBF interpretations - Law 25B2(b)(2) comes to mind immediately. Also, please keep in mind in commenting on this case that committee deliberations are private as are preliminary votes taken in arriving at a decision. A decision is of the entire committee, no matter how the vote was - they very often are not unanimous but are deemed to be so unless a formal dissent is written. (Folks who vote against a particular outcome often decide they can "live with" the other side's view.) > >Several members of the panel were aware that whatever way this case went >it was likely to have a rather far-reaching impact. One of the supporters >of the appeal said he was voting in favour in an effort to combat >bridge-lawyering, fearing that people who didn't know L45 might be >unfairly deprived of their right to make delayed corrections of plays if >we set a precedent of not allowing the application of this law at the end >of the hand. I held just the opposite opinion -- that the vast majority of >players would have accepted that their miscall was a silly mistake and >accepted down one ruefully but smilingly, never calling the director. >This case to me looks like a dangerous precedent for the lawyers to steal >back tricks they threw away in the play by carelessness. > >There is some ambiguity in the remark 'play continued' in the case >writeup. The testimony as I heard it was a bit vague as to when play >ceased, but there was a concession of down one very soon after the spade >appeared. (Same trick? After one more trick was played out? I am not >sure.) At any rate both sides had agreed to down one before the director >was summoned; the table director ruled result stands, then returned during >the next board to say he had changed his mind after consultation. > >There was a strong sense on the committee that the law desperately needed >to be changed. There was much internal argument as to how much the >committee was allowed to interpret the intent, as opposed to the letter, >of the law in choosing its ruling. > >The point raised by Anne Jones is a good one, and is something that did >not arise in the committee discussion. I daresay that if it had, the vote >would have been different by at least one vote, if not reversed >altogether. > >My own personal opinion is that she should have said at once "I meant to >lead a club!" to have any chance at getting her trick given back. I also >happen to despise L25 with a passion (one way the laws moved backward in >1997), and it does not surprise me at all to see that an attempt to argue >along the same lines as L25 has now led us into another can of worms. > >Hang 'em! :) > > >Gordon Bower > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 20:04:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA10140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:04:07 +1000 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 UAA10127 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:03:58 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-251.uunet.be [194.7.9.251]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26476 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 12:03:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3700EF6D.3A423A6C@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:36:13 +0200 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: What to say?... (UI) References: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> <3.0.5.32.19990330153753.007d0880@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > > >Why not reply "no majors" in all three cases ? > > Because it's an infraction not to disclose bidding agreements, and an > unethical try to avoid possible consequences of misinformation or UI > transmission. Please, please ! It is NOT an infraction not to disclose bidding agreements. If opponents are damaged, they can have a redress, but it is NOT an infraction. If you want to punish, you need to go via "not paying attention" or some such. It is NOT an infraction. It is NOT a try to avoid consequences of misinformation, since you will obviously have to clear up the misinformation afterwards. It is NOT a try to avoid consequences of UI transmission, since you are not transmitting UI, and the UI you already have cannot be denied. It IS a try to avoid giving UI, something which I believe is permitted, encouraged, and even obliged by L75D2. Try and come up with a different answer to "why not", please. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 20:04:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA10141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:04:08 +1000 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 UAA10129 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:04:00 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-251.uunet.be [194.7.9.251]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26480 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 12:03:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3700F0E1.6FADCCFD@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:42:25 +0200 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: What to say?... (UI) References: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> <3700BF24.7A83E174@village.uunet.be> <3700D248.463DA65@uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by thorium.uunet.be id MAA26480 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Richard, glad to see one of our originals is still reading us and contributing. Richard Bley wrote: >=20 > > > Ok, normally I=B4m the last one to object a ruling just because it is > against the word of the rules. Most of the time you have to take the > sense instead. But Hermann, you are very rude with the words of the > rule: Doesnt L75A1 state that you >>>must<<< disclose >>>all<<< > partnership agreements?? Indeed it does, but please try and see my point. L75C (not A) does not IMO mean "you MUST tell", but rather "you must tell ALL". It goes on to say that _agreements_ must be discosed, not _inferences_. There is no eleventh Commandement which says "Thou shalt not Misinform". > I think that is to strong to neglect. > There is another point: If you state that 3d shows no MAJ, and act > accordingly, you are evidently using UI. So you have to act not > accordingly to your explanation. I=B4m not sure if you can explain this= to > anyone >=20 I advocate that you should explain 3D as "no majors" but bid according to the meaning you gave to it originally, being "either major". It is a breach of L16 to base your bidding on UI, but there is no rule that says that you cannot base your explanation on UI. --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 20:34:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA10228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:34:29 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.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 UAA10223 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:34:19 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10SIK1-0002Op-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:34:11 +0000 Message-ID: <5u0DMjAibYA3EwA2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 03:22:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card References: <37006609.3FD1B063@mindspring.com> <9903301019.aa08779@flash.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <9903301019.aa08779@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >John Mayne wrote: > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> [quoting Vancouver case, much snipped here] >> >> > >> > At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The SK was >> > played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned, and said "oh >> > shit." Play continued. East received his heart ruff; down one. >> >> Well, this is the first case I know of with an obscenity. I'm all for >> it. :) > >Actually, I'm stunned that they let this into the appeal report >unedited. I mean, I know that foul language isn't as big a deal as it >was, say, 40 years ago, and it doesn't bother me to see it in a novel >or something. Actually, I probably use obscenities at least a dozen >times every day when swearing at my computer. But there are still >some places where it's considered inappropriate; for example, I won't >include it in a Usenet post (without blanking out most of the >letters), and daily newspapers and the major weekly newsmagazines >won't print it either. I would have thought that that the Daily >Bulletins for an NABC would be another place where it would be >considered inappropriate. I completely and strongly disagree with this. It is unsuitable for chatting, but the actual words were a part of the evidence, and the report would be incomplete without the actual wording. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 20:41:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA10259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:41:29 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA10253 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:41:22 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id LAA21041 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:41:17 +0100 (BST) Received: from cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.7]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA07925 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:41:09 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA15349 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:41:08 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:41:08 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199903311041.LAA15349@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Burn thinks that once you take an action you should be stuck > with it. No L45C4B, no L25A, and certainly no iniquitous and unfair > L25B. I think the game of Bridge would benefit and players would find > it an acceptable change. If we do away with L25A, I think we need something instead. There are relatively few cases of playing cards sticking together and the wrong one being displayed on the table, compared with frequent cases with bidding cards. This is for several reasons: (1) Playing card technology has developed over 500+? years, to produce cards which are easy to handle and don't stick together. Bidding cards are 20? years old and the technology is still young. (2) Playing cards are rectangular, bidding cards have notches/tabs which catch on other cards. (3) Playing cards are played one at a time, bidding card are played in stacks of several cards, so it is harder to tell if you have not got an extra card by accident. Also relevant is: (4) If you play the wrong playing card this conveys concrete information to partner. Wheras, if the 2S card is stuck to the 2H card, partner has not gained the useful information that there was a 2S card in your bidding box! Perhaps we should replace law 25A with a new definition of when a call is made (with bidding boxes) "A call is made when a player has let go of the bidding card(s) on the table and the cards for this call (including intermediate bids) are arranged properly in front of the player. If there is any doubt, due to the mis-arrangement of the cards, which call was made, the player should correct the bidding cards so they are properly arranged with the intended call visible; LHO should not call until this is done." Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 21:05:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:05:47 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA10314 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:05:36 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA22018 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 12:05:33 +0100 (BST) Received: from cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.7]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA12652 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 12:05:26 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA15460 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 12:05:24 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 12:05:24 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199903311105.MAA15460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have not been following this thread, but this statement caught my eye. > Please, please ! > > It is NOT an infraction not to disclose bidding agreements. What about LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. So it is an infraction to make calls based on a special partnership understandings, if they are not disclosed. LAW 75 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS C. Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. "A player shall disclose all special information ... " So it is an infraction not to disclose understanding and information from agreements and experience. ?! Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 22:06:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:06:45 +1000 Received: from wanadoo.fr (root@smtp-out-001.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA10511 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:06:38 +1000 Received: from villosa.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.122] by wanadoo.fr for Paris Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:05:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lormant (193.250.35.99) by villosa.wanadoo.fr; 31 Mar 1999 14:05:46 +0200 From: "LORMANT Philippe" To: "Rui Marques" , Subject: Re: Insufficient bid(s) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:30:10 +0200 Message-ID: <01be7b69$d62e65a0$6323fac1@lormant> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0061_01BE7B7A.99B735A0" 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 Message en plusieurs parties et au format MIME. ------=_NextPart_000_0061_01BE7B7A.99B735A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bonjour,=20 S3 and S4, corrections or attempts to correct are cancelled.LHO may = accept S2 only, if not, you apply L27B classic. Of course we have a = possible UI . = Embrassez ceux que vous aimez = Ph.L. -----Message d'origine----- De : Rui Marques =C0 : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au = Date : dimanche 28 mars 1999 01:12 Objet : Insufficient bid(s) =20 =20 Bidding goes: =20 Opener 4 Heart; 2nd hand 2 Spades oops sorry, 3 Spades, oops, my mistake, sorry = again, 4 Spades. =20 Comments anyone? ------=_NextPart_000_0061_01BE7B7A.99B735A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bonjour,
 
S3 and S4, corrections or attempts to = correct are=20 cancelled.LHO may accept S2 only, if not, you apply L27B classic. Of course we have a possible UI .
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;     =20 Embrassez ceux que vous aimez 
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;        =20 Ph.L. 
-----Message = d'origine-----
De :=20 Rui Marques <np93je@mail.telepac.pt>
= À=20 : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date=20 : dimanche 28 mars 1999 01:12
Objet : Insufficient=20 bid(s)

Bidding = goes:
 
Opener 4 Heart;
2nd hand 2 Spades oops sorry, 3 = Spades, oops,=20 my mistake, sorry again, 4 Spades.
 
Comments=20 anyone?
------=_NextPart_000_0061_01BE7B7A.99B735A0-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 22:39:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:39:57 +1000 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA10597 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:39:47 +1000 Received: from uni-duesseldorf.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:38:42 +0200 Message-ID: <3702175B.D338EC31@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:38:52 +0200 From: Richard Bley X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [de]C-QXW0310J (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: de, en To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) References: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> <3700BF24.7A83E174@village.uunet.be> <3700D248.463DA65@uni-duesseldorf.de> <3700F0E1.6FADCCFD@village.uunet.be> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Herman Herman De Wael wrote: > > Hello Richard, glad to see one of our originals is still > reading us and contributing. Just trying to hide from work... > Indeed it does, but please try and see my point. > > L75C (not A) does not IMO mean "you MUST tell", but rather > "you must tell ALL". It goes on to say that _agreements_ > must be discosed, not _inferences_. > > There is no eleventh Commandement which says "Thou shalt not > Misinform". > Sorry I´m too stupid for that; 3d=1 4card MAJ >>IS<< the agreement, not an inference. > > I think that is to strong to neglect. > > > There is another point: If you state that 3d shows no MAJ, and act > > accordingly, you are evidently using UI. So you have to act not > > accordingly to your explanation. I´m not sure if you can explain this to > > anyone > > > > I advocate that you should explain 3D as "no majors" but bid > according to the meaning you gave to it originally, being > "either major". > It is a breach of L16 to base your bidding on UI, but there > is no rule that says that you cannot base your explanation > on UI. > Yes but this schizophren (right word in english??) view is too hard for me to explain to anyone else than you herman... --- Richard Still successfully hiding from work ;-) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 31 23:12:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:12:41 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 XAA10671 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:12:34 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10SKn6-0002h2-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:12:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:55:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) References: <001501be7a13$ba38bb40$94e241c2@default> <3.0.5.32.19990330153753.007d0880@phedre.meteo.fr> <3700EF6D.3A423A6C@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3700EF6D.3A423A6C@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> >> > >> >Why not reply "no majors" in all three cases ? >> >> Because it's an infraction not to disclose bidding agreements, and an >> unethical try to avoid possible consequences of misinformation or UI >> transmission. > >Please, please ! > >It is NOT an infraction not to disclose bidding agreements. It is an infraction of L40B. -- 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 Mar 31 23:12:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:12:41 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 XAA10669 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:12:31 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10SKn6-0002h3-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:12:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:59:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 References: <199903301713.MAA02507@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199903301713.MAA02507@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > >> David Burn thinks that once you take an action you should be stuck >> with it. No L45C4B, no L25A, and certainly no iniquitous and unfair >> L25B. I think the game of Bridge would benefit and players would find >> it an acceptable change. > >It's too easy to pull the wrong card from a bidding box. So? it is fairly easy to make a multitude of other mistakes, but that is no reason not to live with your mistakes. It is fairly easy not to draw trumps: does that mean if someone ruffs we should get redress? >> Can't you see the Quarterback, as he throws an interception, yelling >> to the Officials in American Football that his throw was inadvertent and >> could he please have it back? > >This is a made play, not a designated play. A designation can be >corrected without pause for thought; if the quarterback says, "Red 23, >make that Red 43", then play 23 never gets made. The difference in >bridge is that the defense may play to the designation; if declarer >says, "low spade, make that spade eight", a defender may play the spade >seven in mid-call. > >The consesus is that the case at hand was a made play. Consensus? >> Five. Who best should decided the test of inadvertency, the AC, or the >> TD, or regulation? > >The AC, usually; its rols is to make a careful investigation of the >facts based on testimony at the table. This is the same type of >situation as a disputed hesitation; the TD will usually rule on the >assumption that there was a hesitation, and the AC will take testimony >that a five-second pause was normal tempo for this player in this >auction. It is my view that TDs are a better judge of hesitations than ACs because they get the evidence when it is fresh. -- 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 Mar 31 23:12:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:12:49 +1000 Received: from post-20.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 XAA10672 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:12:36 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10SKn6-0002h4-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:12:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:06:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: >In the context of L25 the "pause >for thought = change of mind" was presented as an official interpretation >direct from the WBF Laws committee, which seemed to me to be a bit too >strong of a way of putting it. I'll bet they are pleased! I think a pause for thought is best interpreted as a pause, during which time declarer thinks, which invalidates this Law [and similarly L25A] but need not be accompanied by a change of mind. I think a change of mind is best interpreted as where declarer changes his choice of card, which invalidates this Law [and similarly L25A] but need not be accompanied by a pause for thought. Now, what have I missed? >Several members of the panel were aware that whatever way this case went >it was likely to have a rather far-reaching impact. One of the supporters >of the appeal said he was voting in favour in an effort to combat >bridge-lawyering, fearing that people who didn't know L45 might be >unfairly deprived of their right to make delayed corrections of plays if >we set a precedent of not allowing the application of this law at the end >of the hand. I held just the opposite opinion -- that the vast majority of >players would have accepted that their miscall was a silly mistake and >accepted down one ruefully but smilingly, never calling the director. >This case to me looks like a dangerous precedent for the lawyers to steal >back tricks they threw away in the play by carelessness. Now there's a reason for voting in favour! Not because he thought it was right? -- 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 ~